We recently had a thread on this movie. I have yet to see it because it isn't available where I am, though I suppose I will when it comes around. However, given Gore's past history with social causes and blowing things out of proportion I have little faith that the movie actually contains solid scientific evidence, analyzed carefully, to draw sober conclusions.
The other thread did not help build my faith as people proceeded to trot out misleading graphs of paleoclimatic data, and mischaracterized the nature of that data. I come from a paleoclimatology background and am stunned at how often people casually misrepresent the level of our knowledge as well as fall for "convenient" graph making. Its like the oldest shyster gag there is.
In any case I went to the website you linked to. Chocked full of nifty fraphics and claims of how undeniable everything is... GET THE BOOK, GET THE SOUNDTRACK, SIGN THE PLEDGE! I'm convinced!!!
Oh, but I wanted to see the data and clicked on the "science" section.
Where's the science?
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
Yeah, many (and I would say most, including me) agree that recently we have seen the gloval average temp rising. The evidence is suggestive that a significant factor is CO2 accumulation, and a significant factor in its accumulation is human activity. That's about it.
There is definitely a "natural" component to the temps we are seeing. Its not like without human activity temperatures "naturally" stay at some even temp. The history of our atmosphere is change. We have seen higher temps lasting for longer periods in the past, without human industry to blame. That doesn't mean the current spike is not related to human activity, but it sure does let the "hot air" out of the hysteria bag of whether we should be worried because these temps aren't "natural" as well as its potential effects on life.
Here is the rest of that page's "science"...
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
The first two are NOT accepted in the scientific community as being as result of human induced climate change. That's nice how he slid that in after a statement that a majority of scientists agree. The first one in particular is thought to be part of a natural cycle we are in, with CC unlikely to have effected it.
Those last two may very well be the result of CC. Now I like glaciers so its sort of sad to see them go, but otherwise... so what? In a geologic sense these two phenomena are what happen all the time in history. We just came off a massive warming period, with a temperature increase magnitudes over what we see now. That's why people (and plants) are able to live where they do right now in the northern hemisphere.
Personally I would have liked to have seen the data behind the above claims. But there are none. I guess I have to buy the book (and so contribute to deforesting and energy pollution) to get the footnotes?
Here's the next bit in "science"...
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
1) Where are the models from which they derive such conclusions and the data to support such models?
2) That 20 ft rise in sea level is expected when exactly? Hint: its not in the 25 years they placed in the point above.
3) While it states these points will lead to catastrophe, how many are based on an "overnight" change, that is with no sense that humans already have the technology to deal with the effects in the timeframes they would actually take and would implement them?
4) Given that world temps fluctuate naturally higher than we see today and also much much much lower (with glaciers miles deep over much of where humans reside in the northern hemisphere) why is this such a concern that the emphasis is on immediate action as if this is objectively catastrophic because human activity is the cause? When natural forces do start making massive temp switches are we NOT supposed to worry about that? Or is it all temperature change that we must view as catastrophic and must stop, despite the entire history of our climate as one of change, sometimes dramatic?
the the only other major nation not to have currently ratified the Kyoto treaty..
Why? What would Kyoto have done? What science does he (or you) have that the Kyoto treaty would have resulted in the changes we'd need to impact any of the above?
From what I know of Kyoto, it was well meaning. Certainly Bush was a lame ass for walking out on the whole process, rather than working with nations to create a sensible policy. But signing Kyoto would have only been a political gesture devoid of effect beyond creating bureacracy in order to say "we did something."
Gore is trying to manufacture political power from this issue. This is not a man who has been in love with science or rational approaches to issues. He has seen an opportunity and he is milking it, using claims that are unfounded and hyperbolic. This is just like Bush's scare tactics using "terrorists". Everyone be afraid of X, such that you should listen to whatever I say we must do... regardless of the hard evidence, and the hard fact that in many cases the evidence is not complete. Don't think, act now! You don't know how to act, so I will tell you!
If people on the left didn't care about the environment, and were more concerned about language in media, he'd be pushing another campaign to censor what we watch and hear.
I'm not saying people shouldn't go see his movie. Just remember to liberally salt your popcorn with skepticism. Demand actual evidence, data. Look into where that data comes from and what context it is being shown.
I'm also not saying people should not be concerned with human activity which effects the environment. Indeed I'd encourage people to cut down on driving, and esp driving gas guzzling machines. Recycle. That's great. But that is different from promoting hysterical pseudoscience which empowers an "environmental crisis" industry.
I suppose we can reopen outstanding issues from the last "inconvenient truth" thread here, if you want to go over the evidence. Meanwhile I'll keep looking over all those cool graphic wallpapers and listening to the hip soundtrack, to see if I kind find some references.
Edited by holmes, : recycling, reusing
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2