An Inconvenient Truth Contains "Nine Errors"

[CDarwin]

In relevance to the upcoming Nobel announcements, a UK judge ruled that Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth can be shown in British schools but only with a disclaimer pointing out nine "errors" in the film where it breaks with the scientific consensus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

 

Thoughts?

[Blade]

the BBC did not list them all. So here they are:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece

Error one

 

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

 

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

 

Error two

 

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”

 

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

 

Error three

 

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.

 

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

 

Error four

 

Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

 

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

 

Error five

 

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.

 

Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

 

Error six

 

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

 

Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

 

Error seven

 

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.

 

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

 

Error eight

 

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.

 

Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

 

Error nine

 

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.

 

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

[Sisyphus]

That seems like a reasonable compromise.

[Dak]

not too bad as far as documentaries go, i would assume.

[iNow]

Most of the nine appear to be more "over stated" than true "errors." I suggest that the accurate points far outweigh the errors referenced, and that this would make for high quality discussions in the classroom.

 

 

Too bad they didn't have similar disclaimers on the sex education tapes shown in gym class. Talk about double standards.

[ParanoiA]

Sounds fair to me.

[Fred56]

Isn't there a group of climate scientists who are saying that the "millenial" time-scale for the ice sheets is only a guess? That no-one really knows how stable any of them are (except maybe East Antarctica)?

[john5746]

I don't remember Gore attributing Katrina to global warming. I think it was stated that the strength and number of Hurricanes would increase, similar to what occurred in Florida and the Gulf. I guess it could be implied, but I don't think he actually said it.

[Phi for All]

I took the Katrina reference the same way, with Gore stating that the number and severity of storms rises with the global temperature (whatever the cause), causing problems similar to what happened in New Orleans. Is this not the case?

 

And the part about potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor”, what exactly is "very unlikely [to happen]"? I recall him saying that it had already happened once before. Was that not true?

[iNow]

People seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

 

And how do we know she's a witch?

[swansont]

It should be noted that the judge was not, in fact, pointing out scientific errors; he termed the movie "broadly accurate." What he was doing was pointing out where the movie deviated with the consensus view (i.e. the IPCC), because of the political implications (which is the point of the law that was being applied. (what will be interesting is how many anti-GW people parade this ruling around, unaware of the implicit acceptance of the IPCC report as truth)

 

From Burton's ruling:

"It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

 

There's a reason he put "error" in quotes in many places throughout the document. They are what Downes alleged to be errors. The judge did not rule them to be scientific errors, as claimed by the artricle.

 

Some scientific analysis of the the judge's points

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err.php

[DrDNA]

I took the Katrina reference the same way, with Gore stating that the number and severity of storms rises with the global temperature (whatever the cause), causing problems similar to what happened in New Orleans. Is this not the case?

 

 

Do you mean that, because of global warming, we can also expect increases in corruption at local levels?

 

Or that we can expect George Bush to "bomb the levies" elsewhere?

 

Seriously though, wasn't New Orleans a unique case at least in part because:

1. It is a city built in large part part below sea level. Burbon St is mostly above sea level and was spared.

2. US gov allocated (a LOT of) funds to fix the levies but that money was misdirected away from levy upgrades and repairs.

3. The local government was (and still is) apparently corrupt (much more than the norm) and had (still has) victim's syndrome. The problems in the dome were perhaps unique to New Orleans. Nagin was certainly neglect in duty when he decided not to evacuate.....while the school buses sat idle.

4. A lot (most?) of the damage came from flooding as a result of Lake Ponchatrane (sp?)

 

How many cities in the US, or the world for that matter, that are in hurricane danger zones, are like New Orleans (in the aspects listed above)?

[CDarwin]

Seriously though, wasn't New Orleans a unique case

 

Different but not unique by any means. Examples:

 

1. It is a city built in large part part below sea level. Burbon St is mostly above sea level and was spared.

 

As is Bangladesh and the Netherlands

 

2. US gov allocated (a LOT of) funds to fix the levies but that money was misdirected away from levy upgrades and repairs.

 

How many funds do you think the Maldives is going to direct for levies?

 

3. The local government was (and still is) apparently corrupt (much more than the norm) and had (still has) victim's syndrome. The problems in the dome were perhaps unique to New Orleans. Nagin was certainly neglect in duty when he decided not to evacuate.....while the school buses sat idle.

 

New Orleans is absolutely the only place in the world with ineffective local government.

 

4. A lot (most?) of the damage came from flooding as a result of Lake Ponchatrane (sp?)

 

Flooding causes most of the damage in most hurricanes. Plenty of cities built near the ocean are also near other bodies of water, and in any bad hurricane, those are going to flood.

[DrDNA]

As is Bangladesh and the Netherlands.

 

The Netherlands came immediately to mind when I typed that, it is not considered to reside in a hurricane danger zone.

 

Bangladesh is another hot spot, but as a US citizen, what do you propose that I do, except perhaps donate to relief funds.

 

 

How many funds do you think the Maldives is going to direct for levies?

Little to none. Therefore they are not going to build below faulty levies and then expect nothing bad to happen....because they can't afford to build them in the first place.

 

 

New Orleans is absolutely the only place in the world with ineffective local government.

Of course not. But it may be the only one below sea level that has a unique blend of stupidity and corruption so severe that, in a hurricane prone zone, they built below sea level (proper zoning should have prevented that), would not evacuate before the storm of the century, misappropriated federal levy funds, and then blamed the federal government and racism for all the problems that ensued. I watched the congressional hearings and was shocked. Many people actually believed that the levies were "bombed" to flood them out of the area. They heard the bombs go off so it must be true.

 

You must admit that the major societal stratification and helpless child-like mentality along with severe victim's syndrome, plus insanity is fostered and actually promoted in the US, especially in socioeconomically depressed areas, like no where else in the world.

 

 

Flooding causes most of the damage in most hurricanes. Plenty of cities built near the ocean are also near other bodies of water, and in any bad hurricane, those are going to flood.

 

But most of them are located above the level of the surrounding ocean, lake, and/or delapodated levies.

New Orleans happens to be below all three. Plus the additional points above.

[john5746]

Of course not. But it may be the only one below sea level that has a unique blend of stupidity and corruption so severe that, in a hurricane prone zone, they built below sea level (proper zoning should have prevented that), would not evacuate before the storm of the century, misappropriated federal levy funds, and then blamed the federal government and racism for all the problems that ensued. I watched the congressional hearings and was shocked. Many people actually believed that the levies were "bombed" to flood them out of the area. They heard the bombs go off so it must be true.

 

You must admit that the major societal stratification and helpless child-like mentality along with severe victim's syndrome, plus insanity is fostered and actually promoted in the US, especially in socioeconomically depressed areas, like no where else in the world.

 

Very true, but you still think that it makes sense to keep building beach front property everywhere while thinking the hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity?

[DrDNA]

Very true, but you still think that it makes sense to keep building beach front property everywhere while thinking the hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity?

 

 

Of course not.

And I don't think it makes sense for my government to continuously bail out everyone that doesn't have insurance, or that has insufficient insurance, but decides to build/live in flood prone zones anyway.

You take that risk. You pay for it.