There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.
The papers in GeoJournal agree that it does an excellent job of raising public awareness of man-made global warming and explains why increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to warming.
They also agree that its main weakness is that it tries to use individual extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, to prove the existence of global warming.
In the first opinion piece, Eric Steig from Washington University states that the film gets the fundamental science right. The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film…
There are several articles in the GeoJournal [registration, subscription]. True Believers who reject peer-reviewed science will continue to be upset.
Bumped into this headline in Google News a few times in recent days without reading the article. Wondered why it wasn’t getting much play in the press – or online.
Of course, now that it’s clearly not an attack on Gore – or kissing neocon butt – I understand why it never became popular.
I don’t think human caused global warming has been proved or even can be proven by the scientific method–there is no control planet.
But the evidence is strong and persuasive unless you are a jerk-off who uses single isolated facts to counter the overwhelming evidence==just like Al Gore did to support the overwhelming evidence.
Al performed a valuable social service, but the presentation was not good science, he should not have gotten the Nobel for it.
How come global warming is such a political issue? I dont understand it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Burning fossil fuel creates CO2. Adding more greenhouse gas sure isnt helping the matter. Whether burning fossil fuel makes global warming worse is a non issue. Fossil fuel is running out anyhow. Regardless of CO2 we need to get over our adiction to fossil fuels.
#3–shizzaq–you ask “How come global warming is such a political issue?”
Because limiting/reversing carbon pollution will change the status quo==people will have to change their settled ways that make them money.
Rich people wanting to stay that way at the expense of everyone else is the root of all political issues—-even for values voters, pawns of the monied interests.
In my opinion people who denounce our impact on global warming are along the same lines with “paid” scientists who try to denounce evolution so religious kooks can say God is real. Even if what we do has a small impact, we should still be mindful regardless. When we drop a napkin on the street does it not blow around? It’ll prob. blow to someone else and they’ll complain about the trash problem
Just an not-so-idle question for bobbo’s #2: Have you read anything even as minimal as the IPCC Report?
@#2: But, yes there are quite a number of “control planets”. Exposed to the same conditions…
For every single one we have quite exacting measures and related physical events that prove that the measurement is not in error. Temperature rising for few decades with the peak increase in the early 1990’s. The most famous: Mars – melting poles; Jupiter – increase in storm activity and movement of the hyper-hurricane-red-spot up in latitude; even the tiny Pluto (not anymore)planet which is actually heating up as it is increasing its distance from the Sun. For each of Solar System planets we have such data. And the coincidental Solar activity maximum for which we literally needed a new measurement scales. Full Solar system of facts,…
Suggested calculation: estimate how much the Earth would need to warm up in proportion to how much Mars have heated up in the last two decades. Rough calculation shows that Earth should have warmed up more than we are observing, just from the Solar activity alone.
Evidence we do have for pollution is also true and we should clean-up for the sake of quality of life, not for mass hysteria.
when freeon – in ac and fridges was said to cause a hole in the ozone later – the hole being in the south pole – surely the northern hemishere is where all this stuff is used but all the new gas that is non cfc the patents are all owned by dupont – there is so much money involved – watch the movie “who killed the elctric car “
#5 bobbo
I enjoy reading your posts but, I’m confused by your use of “==” as punctuation.
Thanks,
/T.
#2 – Al performed a valuable social service, but the presentation was not good science, he should not have gotten the Nobel for it.
The target audience for Gore’s film doesn’t understand good English… what makes you think good science was going to be more effective?
#3 – How come global warming is such a political issue?
Is that a serious question?
Well, Bobbo, in #5, has a pretty good answer:
Rich people wanting to stay that way at the expense of everyone else is the root of all political issues—-even for values voters, pawns of the monied interests.
Nature does not allow that a tiny global signal of carbon-induced warming over the past decades can be distinguished amidst the huge noise of natural climate shifts on multi-decadal and short-term scales. Climate experts at Realclimate.org state clearly that the global warming theory does not offer forcasts about future temperatures: “One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast – I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.” Stefan Rahmstorf, climate alarmist.
>>Al performed a valuable social service, but
>>the presentation was not good science, he
>>should not have gotten the Nobel for it.
That’s why he got the Nobel PEACE Prize, Mr. Bobboli, and not one in a branch of science. Not all Nobel prizes are for science. What kind of “good science” did Ernest Hemingway, Martin Luther King, Albert Camus, Elie Wiesel, Desmond Tutu, Teddy Roosevelt, or Winston Churchill ever perform?
In fact, if you look down the list of Nobel Peace Prize and Literature Prize winners, you’d be hard pressed to find a single individual who received the award for “good science”. That’s not what it’s about.
>>I enjoy reading your posts but, I’m confused
>>by your use of “==” as punctuation.
Bobbo’s punctuation is above and beyond those of us ordinary mortals. I was confused about it too, some time ago, and asked. He explained it, but I’m still confused.
I think maybe he’s hoping for a Nobel Prize in punctuation/ grammar/ syntax/ logic. I just hope his science is good!
#7–god==I’ve read bits and pieces of the IPCC including critiques of the IPCC. It is a chartered organization created for the purpose of advancing global warming concerns. It is purposefully one sided.
That said, since I already think, as I posted above, that human caused global warming is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence==to what end should I read more of the IPCC?
#8–dusan. Now, are already existing other planets “proof” or only “strong evidence?” As I understand the nature of a control group, you have to start with two identical groups and then apply a variable to one (the test group) and not to the other (the control group). You don’t go out into the universe looking for coincidences that match your desired outcome. I find it convincing to fill 2 balloons with air then add more co2 to one of the balloons then apply sunshine. The balloon with extra co2 heats up faster and gets hotter. That’s not proof the same thing happens on earth–just strong evidence. Do you disagree?
#10–A.==I apologize for my negligent punctuation, spelling, typing, and the occasional made up word. It amuses me. Try to look past it and create your own. Like our constitution, language is a living growing thing and thrives on the input of those who love it.
#11–OFTLO==rare and high praise. Thank you. Please remove one herring from my last comment on your own post.
I’ve asked this before, “How much has the planet warmed since 1998?” No one answers. Why not?
Because global temperatures peaked in 1998, and have not risen since.
As for there being a consensus regarding global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/4f7jxj
Two odd things about that ozone hole: First, it was found when new instruments were put in orbit. How does anyone know it did not exist before the new instruments were put in orbit? Second, DuPont’s patent on Freon was expiring and DuPont just happened to have this handy-dandy replacement, that made DuPont loads of money. What a strange coincidence!
Shizzaq, it’s not about global warming. It’s about social status ambition. The “tribe” is getting bigger so it’s getting harder to become a high status monkey. In a small tribe, being second or third means only a couple of people higher than you. The equivelant position in today’s huge tribes means there’s thousands higher than you.
The solution is to break out of the established rat race and start a new one, and gain a head start by being the first to start running in the new rat race.
The people who want to start a new status contest are not interested in anything that implies their “purpose” is hogwash.
[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs. – ed.]
#13–Mustard, I thought of that after I posted. Does highlighting global warming have anything to do with peace? But a while back I looked up the standards by which the peace prize is judged==it really is that broad. It should be renamed==many Humanitarian or Cause of the Moment would be more descriptive.
But–I must say you are very relaxed and good willed compared to yourself of a few months ago. Do annal probes really work that well and could you suggest anything less invasive?
[Deleted – incomprehensibly off topic, AKA spam. – ed.]
The opposing forces are Oil companies on one end and “Green” types on the other (wonder if they called green because the color of their brain).
Anyway, Oil wants to keep burning crap (like it’s the 19th century) as that’s how they make $.
The green side wants to see a decline in human presence and dominance on this planet (disingenuous as they aren’t committing suicide in great #s) and so propose economically suicidal energy policies.
Meanwhile, France (of all countries, go figure) knows what needs to be done.
#16–Phillep==probably because everyone knows you are cherry picking your facts.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
Your ozone analogy is completely bogus. As I recall, the hole was there all along but the scientists measure the atmosphere at the time assumed a measurement anomaly because they assumed ozone should form complete coverage. When new instruments were calibrated the hole showed up again so they double checked and saw that it had been there all along. Note–of course you can’t measure the ozone or the hole before you have a measuring device to use, so excuse whatever confusing may exist because of that.
Anyway, don’t know what drivel you are trying to push because since the banning of the offending material (CF-12?), the hole has closed up or is closing up? Again, not proof==but strong evidence of the link and our ability to correct if we can reach consensus to take action.
Did you see the documentary on Harlan County running on IFC this week? Yep==theres the corporate shills testifying there is no link between breathing coal dust and getting coal mners lung. Vested interests post just like you do Phillep. Phillep–whats your vested interest?
19–Pat==ironic you criticize “old coal” for thinking like the 19th Cent and then you praise France for thinking like the 20th Cent.
Why not think for the future and go with non-polluting renewable energy sources? The hazards of Nuke Power are real and so is the environmental damage in its production etc.
Much better to have a distributed power source that is not so capital intensive and the target of any terrorist group or accident waiting to happen.
Think of the children!
>>you are very relaxed and good willed
>>compared to yourself of a few months
>>ago. Do annal probes really work that well
Hey, I’m getting mellow in my old age, Bobster. As to “Annal Probes”, wtf? Are those probes used by the Annals of Internal Medicine and other peer-reviewed journals? Are you going for a Nobel in Physiology or Medicine also?? Yikes!
#18 Jake
>> blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah
>> blah blah blah blah International
>> investment company blah blah blah blah
Jeez. I thought dvorak dot org slash blog didn’t get any spam! Wtf???
#21 “Why not think for the future and go with non-polluting renewable energy sources?”
Windmills & solar cells are 21st century? LOL!
I was designing solar systems in the 80’s. It’s not a viable solution as a power replacement for a large industrialized country.
I forgot to mention in my 1st post that big Oil has for decades ran a covert FUD campaign against nuk energy and covertly infiltrated the eco groups to get them to carry this “torch”.
Thus, helping to ensure that no VIABLE replacement for fossil fuels would gain favor.
Bobbo, without knowing it you’ve been turned into a Big Oil stooge.
#5 bobbo
“Rich people wanting to stay that way at the expense of everyone else is the root of all political issues—-even for values voters, pawns of the monied interests.”
Not true. There are many of us that donate a lot of money and yes invest a lot of money in clean energy. I am a liberal. A truly smart successful person can make money and be a protector of the environment. It is only the power hungry, greedy, lazy, and selfish that rape the environment and their fellow citizens so that they can profit.
I admit. They are out there the “Rich people” you describe but it is a very broad and inaccurate statement to label everyone from a certain group the same
4, of course we need a catastrophic event. We can’t accomplish anything without a crisis, and 1% shifts in global temperature that cause subtle long-term destructive effects just aren’t enough to make people give a shit.
I ran into some anti-abortion protesters the other day. They were passing out pictures of mutilated babies. Of course, that’s bullshit. Late term abortions aren’t even legal in this state. But they’d never get anyone to give a damn about their cause of they showed a microscopic ball of cells being destroyed.
Of course, the downside of dramatic exaggeration is it makes it way too easy to disprove or ridicule you.
I told the protesters how much I love dead babies.
#17 – #13–Mustard, I thought of that after I posted. Does highlighting global warming have anything to do with peace?
Today we fight wars over oil.
China is embroiled in a crisis over Tibet, and that one is about water, aka: the new oil.
As major populations (mostly poor) begin shifting due to environmental displacement, conflicts will continue to become bigger and more heated as cultures clash and battle over the precious commodities of life.
What does global warming not have to do with peace?
Bobbo, my vested interest is in commercial fisheries and healthy forests. I live in a National Forest that was glaciers not so long ago, until something tipped and the glaciers receeded. I’m all in favor of global warming, in spite of what it would do to the local fisheries and my income.
Some of my family came from the coal mines part of Appalachia and I’m very familiar with black lung and the way the mine owners lie about the effects. I’m also familiar with how murderous and crooked the Union Bosses are. Your point? (and I don’t have a TV.)
“Cherry picking”? Take another look at how the attempts to correct the Wiki article on global warming are edited out by the zealot on the staff. What value is a consensus based on lies?
#23–Pat==I don’t like windmills as they kill birds and take up too much room and require too much maintenance. Solar cells are most appropriate for remote locations.
With your expertise in energy matters, maybe you can think of other non-polluting, renewable energy sources? But with your post about big oil, maybe you can’t?
For my own bias, I’ll post I favor off shore sterling engines running off ocean thermocline producing fresh water and electricity at the same time. I also expect breakthrus in battery tech, solar tech and hydrogen tech. Together able to replace oil==but decades away.
If Big Oil did spread false rumors about Nuke Energy–I applaud them, for the reasons stated that you did not rebut.
24–J–I never said “all rich people.” And in fact, other than rich people do get involved for various reasons. I’d give the fair proportion about 80% rich people, 19% power seeking people relying on the money of rich people, and 1% undefined.
26–OFTLO==you say “What does global warming not have to do with peace?” /// Well, we fought wars for oil when global cooling was the concern==so I’d say “nothing.” ((or maybe everything depending on how your trick question is posed. I’m not in Mensa afterall!!!))
#29 – “With your expertise in energy matters, maybe you can think of other non-polluting, renewable energy sources?”
Barring unforeseen breakthroughs, only fission will do it. Any other current tech can’t replace fossil fuel without grave economic damage to 1st & 2nd world nations.
# 29 bobborino
By stating “Rich people” instead of “Some rich people” or “A lot of rich people” you imply ALL.
As to the rest of your post involving 80% rich people I have no idea what you are talking about. Probably because it doesn’t make sense without context. That’s a big problem for you isn’t it?
#28–Phillep==your vested interest is in commercial fisheries and healthy forests. /// You are having some rough days (years?) then. My condolences. ((Worth nothing, but still offered.))
My point?==I think the debate would be very different if it sprang only from scientific sources and was not distorted by the industries trying to avoid liability, and even change.
YOUR cherrypicking is done on the hockey stick of trend lines of global warming. What is happening at Wikipedia is irrelevant.
What consensus is based on a lie, and what is the lie?