Scientists Debate the Accuracy of Al Gore's Documentary

Hmmmm ....Why should a debate on the ACCURACY deteriorate into raising public awareness other than to provide a gratuitous comment to avoid persecution from the alarmists?

Some scientists proclaimed that The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film. Now that's what I call a real scientific approach .......

Wait, wait here's my favorite: it neglects all information that can be gained from computer models, and instead relies entirely on past and current observational evidence. This increases the film�s emotional impact but weakens the scientific argument. An even better scientific approach ......who needs crappy and provable observational evidence? ?

This article does show however that the crack in the dam is growing and scientists or at least officianados, albeit reluctantly, are trying to cover more bases than before and strangely ignoring that there is no more need for debate ....the science is settled! ! !

Maybe the science is settled, but now, if we could only understand what it means ! ! ! !

Since 1750, man/industry has contributed approximately 0.0087% atmospheric carbon dioxide. This microscopic increase has "NO" effects on human beings. Therefore 0.0087% carbon dioxide CANNOT have "significant" effects on the rest of our biosphere.

the debate is over, al gore's "CONVENIENT UNTRUTH" is weak on science and the public is now aware of the entire AGW scam...AGW's computer generated tall tales of imminent doom, now only fools school children with its fictional movies, scary books and pontificated NASA letters(unbelievable that dude can get away with that)...the eggheads can debate all they want about the LACK OF SCIENCE, but i take issue with a government sponsored fear-based tax, the real goal of mr gore's crusade...fortunately, it seems Mr McCain is tuned into PUBLIC AWARENESS, he wants to have a gas tax holliday...now we're getting somewhere...have a nice day, bros...

I don't see how anyone can describe themselves as a climate "expert." Climate science is in it's infancy and I have yet to see any indication that any individual has demonstrated skill at forward predictions.

In fact, the regulars on this thread have a much better prediction record over the last two years than any other source I have seen.

What experts? What debate?

According to all the left wing eco-nuts, there's nothing to debate

There's consensus and the science is settled.

Brett this might make a story. Hansen is apparently suing a 16 year old girl for this
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/ponderthemaunder/

How can anyone look at the work from this Gore and believe it. Anyone that has as many financial gains to make in this hoax as he does{and he even admits financial ties} would say absolutely anything to sell his product. He would be a good used car salesman too some of you people even if he worked at the junk yard. When you feel the need to use scare tactics to sell your product then you should question if its worth buying. No I have not seen the documentary and believe me it will be a cold day in hell before I waste my time watching the sci-fi documentary.

The most active solar cycle increases total solar irradiance by only 0.0073%. This 0.0073% increase has no effect on humans and, therefore, no effect on climate.

When I go to the doctor(s) I take his/her/their advice and then make my own decision, even as to the tests needed.
When I go to my mechanic, I take his proposals and explanations and authorize the work I deem necessary.
I couldn't care less what the experts think of Gore, I've made the only sane conclusion possible.

I do believe the Goreacle is beginning to unravel. The amazing thing to me is that it has lasted this long, even with the protection of the mainstream media, hollywood and the liberal press. The frustrating part is that the public schools have been allowed to indoctrinate our kids with this nonsense. What a case for private schools.

Enough about Gore.

From the page that Brett linked, this was listed as a related story.

Aren't most temperature measurements taken from urban stations?

"City Ants Take The Heat
ScienceDaily (Feb. 28, 2007) � While Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, has generated greater awareness of global warming, most people remain unaware of the more rapid warming that has occurred within major cities.
In fact, large cities can be more than 10 degrees hotter than their surroundings."

re correction to my previous post
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/04/16yearold_libels_james_hansen.php
Its an article that says "libels James hansen" so no one is suing anybody My apologies.

Individual events as evidence aren't necessarily a weakness to the argument, only the scientific analysis. This is essentially because scientific models for data "validity" generally discount credibility to the highest and lowest scores within the data set. Obviously, this doesn't make them any less part of the evidence... just less a part of the "validated" data.

In fact, human flatulence is playing quite a role in global warming, but you never hear about it because no one is willing to do a study. Check out the facts: http://gwi.storytribe.com

Great article by El Rushbo

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041508/content/01125108.guest.html

I invite "VG" to offer some supporting evidence for his claim about Hansen and Kristen Byrnes.

Maybe he or she was "just joking".

No I have not seen the documentary and believe me it will be a cold day in hell before I waste my time watching the sci-fi documentary.

Ah, how nice to see yet another contrarian who doesn't need to see the movie he criticizes. It's so much easier that way, he can just say whatever he likes without being constrained by what might or might not be true.

VG:
I searched Kristen's site and did a google search and can not find a reference to any law suits.
Can you post a link that corrroborates this?
If Hansen is indeed going after her, I will be on her site immediately donating money to assist in her defence.

This is important. Please back it up.
Kristen has been an important insperation to many and deserves support, not problems.

Reply: read VG's last comment Gary, he was mistaken.

This is simply delightful:
While giving a propoganda speach in SanFrancisco, Gore is heckled and audience members are thrown out.
In SanFrancisco!!!
The Left coast!!!
Wholly crap.
There is hope.......
http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9917113-57.html

The other day I saw an tv ad with Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson talking about teaming up together to take care of the planet. I am quickly becoming more of a skeptic every single day. Is there even an ad without the word "green" in it? In my town, I would by happy as a clam if I didn't have to pick up garbage on the street every day thrown down by our college students. I would say the "green" message is NOT getting through at all.

Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said this winter stands out as the snowiest in recent memory. "This is the most significant winter in terms of snowfall in years"

http://www.jacksonholenews.com/print.php?art_id=2947&pid=news

VG:
Thanks for clearing that up. I am glad it was a mistake.
And Thanks Brett for posting so late at night.

I admire that young lady. Her work is an example that many scientists in the Climate comunity really should try to emulate.

BT, Re: Criticising Al Gore's movie without seeing it. With all of the hype this movie has gotten and the lies and misrepresentations it uses - and admitted to by AGWers, do you really think criticism is unwarrented if you don't pay to see it? I don't have to put my head down into a cesspool to know what's there.

Rich -
If you don't understand the role CO2 has on infrared
radiation, basic science that no one with even a basic understanding of physics questions, then don't post on global warming.

You are the reason that deniers can be classified as flat earthers.

Do your side a favor and debate the science, not physics.

The main thing to remember here is Gore's audience- the general public. Not the scientists- he's not trying to "advance" the debate or use any of the more cutting edge, computer modeled findings. Not the sceptics, who he recognizes have bogged down the debate with "State of Fear"-like books, articles, etc. He recognizes that to move on and to do that he needs to wake up the public (as he continues to do today with his WE campaign). He's trying to find ways allow the average layperson to relate to the issue, which involves telling a story and allowing them to connect emotionally with the issue. Problem with the climate is you can't taste, touch or feel it. You can the weather, which has the potential to kill and destroy. Which makes it a much better story people can relate to and get their mental frogs out of their proverbial pots as they are brought to a boil. Which is why Gore succumbed to the temptation of using specific events (heat waves and hurricanes) which have not yet been clearly tied to AWG. This approach may not have been scientific (though most of the scientists in the article agree that he got the fundamentals right), but certainly more scientific than Creighton. And effective.

The latest global analysis from NCDC. This should be real popular....

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/mar08.html

I appreciate VG's integrity in acknowledging his mistake.

The site he referenced actually offers some fairly cogent thoughts, especially for our contrarians -- such as the following:

Misreading the science is excusable for a 16-year-old, even one as obviously intelligent and curious as Kristine Byrne. What's more troubling is her disdain for those who don't agree with her brand of skepticism. On her home page, she asks, not so rhetorically, of James Hansen: "Will his history of allowing money and politics to affect his science stop him from fixing the recently discovered human errors in the temperature record."

Them's fighting words. I have been known to engage in similar tactics, but I try to have science on my side. Truth is after all, the best defence against a libel suit. But Ms. Byrne's opprobrium is based not on evidence that Hansen deliberately distorts his science to suit his politics or financial supporters. Instead it stems from blatant misreadings of Hansen's own words. For example, to support her contention that

    Hansen continues to make extreme claims. One such claim that contradicts even AGW scientists is that sea level is and will remain rising one meter per 20 years...

she refers to an interview Hansen gave to Der Spiegel in April of 2007. What Hansen actually said in the interview is that "During the last melting period, the sea level went up 20 meters in 400 years, which is one meter every 20 years." He was talking about conditions 11,000 years ago. It's called paleoclimate data, and it's one of the only tools we have at our disposal to anticipate the consequences of changes to global ecosystem. Yes, Hansen does worry about sea level rise, and he does suspect it will likely rise faster than many of his colleagues do. But he isn't saying it's rising at a meter every 20 years right now. That's just plain silly.

So now that we've established that our budding young contrarian has not been threatened with lawsuits from anyone, I wonder if we might address the following questions:

1. Does her age make her more or less credible?

2. Does her age make it more or less appropriate to criticize her writing?

3. Does her age make it more or less important to identify the areas in which she needs to grow in her scientific discipline?

4. If Kristen Byrnes changes her tune a few months from now, announces (after doing some genuine research) that she got her facts wrong, and changes her blog accordingly, will those who now support her "skepticism" continue to do so?

5. Perhaps most importantly, when her parents (and the rest of the contrarian true-believers who cite her) allow this child to be used as a poster-girl for the Contrarian Faith, are they working on her behalf or their own?

It matters very little to Al Gore if he got the science wrong. His purpose in producing An Inconvenient Truth was to attract followers to the cause and, in this regard, he succeeded. His target audience was the general public, not the scientific community, so he needed to produce something sensational that would sell AGW in simplistic and plausible terms to the uninformed. The fact that he used visual images that misrepresented what he claimed was happening is of no importance to him at all. It is a masterpiece that Madison Avenue would be proud of, even if it bears no resembalnce whatsoever to "truth."

Now, I've got a marketing idea that has the potential of making us all rich, just like Al Gore. I propose that we "invent" a device that promises to capture CO2 along the lines of the Ionic Breeze. For $29.95 plus S&H you can reduce your carbon footprint simply by purchasing this device (a plug-in) that traps CO2 and converts it to O2. If you act today, not only will we ship you the "CO2 Terminator" but we will include our "Methane Manager" for your bathroom at no extra cost. It's your duty to save the planet from global warming (guilt trip) so don't delay.

This is the type of appeal that will resonate with Al Gore's followers. Don't worry about the science because they certainly don't. Just scare them into believing what you are promoting and then offer "solutions" that will make you rich.

BT, you believe in AGW even though you cannot tell me exactly (not approximate, or estimated) how much warming man-made CO2 has caused.

Just wondering cause you know, I would hate to see you having an opinion on information you have never seen.

VG:

I had not read that page of Kristen's 'til now. We seem to have a budding polemicist as well.

The libelous charge is way over the top. These people are emotionally 'challenged'. Steven B. seems to hang in the 'hood, I'm floored!