Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 12:56:56 GMT -4
Isn't the fact that Zágoni had such trouble publishing a study... Are all studies necessarily worthy of publication by default? No, but this one was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which gives it some credibility. As it concerned a hot-button political issue it's fair to ask if those who refused to publish it before did so because the study had no merit or because it offended their political positions.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 13:12:19 GMT -4
I'm seriously bugged by the title of this thread. It is the climate change deniers that are always short on science and rely on some form of unfounded belief, so the topic would make more sense if it instead read "Is Denial of Global Warming a New Religion?" I disagree. Strongly. Many, many of those who believe that the crusade against global warming is a moral cause do not understand any of the supposed science behind it. Al Gore, patron saint of Global Warming, made a film riddled with scientific errors (as proven in a UK court case, and as many people who are on his side have admitted) and won an Oscar for it from people who were ready to believe in him without questioning the science involved. All sorts of ridiculous accusations that "this is the fault of Global Warming" have been made and become common wisdom, from Katrina to the death of Nessie. The sticking point, by the way, is not whether or not the Earth really has gotten somewhat warmer over the last century - it is the cause of this warming (human-caused or otherwise), the possible consequences (biblical apocolypse or mild inconvenience), and the possible solutions (or even if a solution should be attempted) that are under debate. Those who believe strongest in human-caused global warming are also those who wish to put the most restrictions on industry and transportation, without being able to demonstrate that such costly measures will in fact avoid disaster. Because of this Global Warming has the possibility of matching some of the worst excesses charged against religion in the past, with just as little evidence to support its claims of causality and future doom.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 13:18:24 GMT -4
And by the way wdmundt, when I named the thread I was indeed using your definition of religion. Basically, a negative force with little or questionable evidence supporting its suppositions that closes minds, persecutes heretics, denies rights to the unbeliever, and therefore presents a danger to civilization and science. That is pretty much your definition, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 13:24:25 GMT -4
And by the way wdmundt, when I named the thread I was indeed using your definition of religion. Basically, a negative force with little or questionable evidence supporting its suppositions that closes minds, persecutes heretics, denies rights to the unbeliever, and therefore presents a danger to civilization and science. That is pretty much your definition, isn't it? Yes, I find all of those things true about climate change deniers. I hope when the effects of climate change become painfully obvious, people will remember that it was the conservatives who blocked attempts to do anything about it for the sake of the bottom line.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 13:30:04 GMT -4
And if not much at all happens will you then apologize and say the conservatives were correct after all?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 13:36:39 GMT -4
I'll do better than that. If, in 20 years, evidence for climate change is not entirely evident, I will give you (Jason) $25.00. I'll put the money away today, just in case. It would be worth $25.00 to be wrong. If I'm right, $25.00 won't be worth much.
And your claims about Al Gore and the British court case are entirely wrong. I have a shoot for the next several hours, so I can't sit here and correct you. In short, the judge disputed 9 points in the film, but allowed it to be shown in classes if additional information was allowed. He did not dispute the main claim of the film. If I don't get to it today, I will do it tomorrow.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 14:00:09 GMT -4
And your claims about Al Gore and the British court case are entirely wrong. I have a shoot for the next several hours, so I can't sit here and correct you. In short, the judge disputed 9 points in the film, but allowed it to be shown in classes if additional information was allowed. He did not dispute the main claim of the film. If I don't get to it today, I will do it tomorrow. The judge basically agreed that An Inconvenient Trusth made a partisan political statement. Yes, he seems to believe the basic message of the film is correct. So I guess the judge has green political views. Nine points were recognized as "out of the mainstream" by the judge because they were factually inaccurate, as his statement makes clear.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 15:16:54 GMT -4
I'll do better than that. If, in 20 years, evidence for climate change is not entirely evident, I will give you (Jason) $25.00. I'll put the money away today, just in case. It would be worth $25.00 to be wrong. If I'm right, $25.00 won't be worth much. It's got to be absolute iron-clad evidence of human-caused calamitous global warming, not just evidence of climate change. The climate changes by itself all the time. I'll have to keep an eye out for your $25 in 2028.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 17:26:46 GMT -4
Okay, this is what I've had time to do today. I have no idea where Al Gore got his information, so I'm just going to link to whatever the most recent source is that I can find. Here in italics are a few of the 9 things that the judge said were incorrect about An Inconvenient Truth: The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. They didn't look here: Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.htmlThe film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. Except: Greenland Melt Accelerating, According To CU-Boulder Study www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/481.htmlThe film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. Except: In a new NASA study, researchers using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica’s largest ice shelf. inel.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/nasa-study-on-antarctic-ice-melt/The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. Except: Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes. online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.htmlAnd there is more. I can't go into everything today. The vilification of Al Gore by conservatives concerning "An Inconvenient Truth" is pretty much an empty shell. Poke it and it collapses. From The Washington Post: Scientists OK Gore's Movie for AccuracyWhile some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit _ such as changing light bulbs _ the world could help slow or stop global warming.www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 17:41:23 GMT -4
wdmundt, all of the articles (except the one on polar bears) that you are presenting as evidence are from after An Inconvenient Truth premiered at Sundance (in January of 2006), so Al Gore's team could not possibly have used them as sources for the movie.
Do you have evidence for the nine points from before the release date of An Inconvenient Truth?
And why didn't the judge know of these confirmations when he heard the case, or had the presented to him by the defense?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 17:50:46 GMT -4
As I said, I have no idea where Al Gore got his information. The fact that more recent studies back up his claims would seem to validate his points. Since the claims outside of the nine from the judge are not being challenged, it would seem to follow that Gore did not just pull the above claims out of thin air.
I'll see if I can find the studies that Gore used, but that is a somewhat more difficult proposition. It seems likely that he would have had access to the latest information, given his concern for the issue.
Nonetheless, more recent science backs up his claims -- so any harping on him over those points is just sour grapes.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 17:57:10 GMT -4
The Nine Points: 1) Gore said sea levels will rise up to 7 meters through melting of West Antartica or Greenland. In fact it would, but it would take millenia to happen, and even the IPCC only predicted 59 cm by 2100.
2) Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are being evacuated to New Zealand because of global warming. The judge couldn't find any evidence of this. One island apparently is going to be evacuated by 2015, but UN officials say it's because local fishermen have been destroying reefs with dynamite.
3) The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe. The IPCC determined that was an extremely unlikely event.
4) There is an exact fit between graphs showing global temperatures over the last 650,000 years and CO2 levels. The graphs Gore shows do not in fact establish the relationship between CO2 and rising temperature, as several global warming episodes in the last 650,000 years did not also involve rising CO2 levels.
5) The disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was due to global warming. The University of Innsbruck concluded in 2006 that the glaciers on Kilimanjaro were remnants of a past climate and did not disappear because of changes in the 20th century.
6) The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming. A NASA study in 2001 concluded that the shrinkage of the lake involved irrigation demands, as well as some climate change.
7) Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. There is no definitive evidence that Katrina was caused by global warming.
8) Polar bears were found drowned from swimming too far to find ice. The only study presented at the trial concerned 4 bears and doubted that it was from a lack of ice to swim to, but rather severe weather conditions that made swimming more difficult.
9) Coral reefs are being bleached by the effects of global warming (and other factors). The most recent IPCC report says that corals would bleach with temperature rises of 1 or more degrees over the '80s and 90 levels, not that it has been happening.
So that's what the judge, a friend of global warming, was unable to excuse in the film. Even you must admit that Gore at least jumped the gun and asserted some facts that he didn't have the evidence for in the movie, whether or not you agree with the overall message of the film, or believe that some points were later confirmed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 17:59:19 GMT -4
And again, the sticking point is proving that observed climate change has been caused by human activity, not that climate change may have occurred. You can cite all the studies you like that polar bears are dying in droves, fish are going deaf, and Nessie is dead, but without the causal link of human activity you haven't shown that we caused it or can do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 18:12:37 GMT -4
I'll have to pick this up tomorrow -- but:
Your point 4 has been contradicted by climate scientists -- they essentially say there is a correlation, but that the first 800 years of warming (in previous cycles) was not caused by CO2, but that thereafter it seems likely that CO2 was a significant factor.
Your point 7 -- Gore does not claim that Katrina was caused by global warming.
Your point 8 -- is contradicted by the post I linked to.
Your point 9 -- there have been studies showing a link between warming waters and coral bleaching -- I linked to one. So it seems a little lame to claim Gore was not basing it on available science.
Did he make mistakes? Sure. Did he get most of it right? It looks like it.
As to your other points -- tomorrow.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 18:33:14 GMT -4
Those aren't my points - they're the points the judge found were lacking in the movie.
As I said, my problem with the whole global warming idea is not that climate change may be occuring, but the idea that human activity caused it and different human activiity can reverse it. It may in fact be true, but I don't think it's been proven to this point.
If the causal link can't be proven then it's not scientific.
Without proof that we caused global warming and can reverse it, the carbon offset business is a scam and attempts to curtail industry or transportation are costly mistakes and should not be acted on unless they would provide other demonstratable benefits proportional to their costs.
|
|