An Inconvenient Truth

[swansont]

The Earth has been around for billions of years and has gone though many changes. If you start off from the point of the Industrial Revolution then humans have only been polluting the planet for roughly 200 years. I don't think that in such a short time humanity could have done this much damage. For all we know this could just be a hot spell in the Earth's natural cycle and in about a hundred years we go though a new Ice Age. We can point at all this evidence about global warming, but human interferance has not been around in sufficent numbers to give a clear cut study. More comparative infomation is needed before we can say for sure that Global Warming is our fault or a natural cycle.

 

One of the functions of science is to limit the scope of uncertainty contained in "for all we know," and its utility includes neither argument from incredulity nor argument from ignorance.

[Pangloss]

Yeah, I was mad when 10,000 BC didn't actually represent 10,000 BC, too.

 

Stupid movies not living up to my expectations. WTF is wrong with those film makers? I mean, has anyone even bothered to check the historical accuracy of Lord of the Rings? It's not even supported by the fossil record. I'm totally disgusted.

 

Those are not documentaries purporting to represent the truth. There is a difference, and that is a bad comparison.

 

On the subject of Al Gore's house, I think it's important for people to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Al Gore needed a little reminding about his own contribution to GW doesn't mean he was wrong about the subject in general. Similarly, just because he was wrong on some points in his movie doesn't mean GW isn't real either.

[Donut.Hole]

Was Gore exaggerating on purpose? I don't blame him, as people aren't going to react if he doesn't.

[iNow]

Was Gore exaggerating on purpose? I don't blame him, as people aren't going to react if he doesn't.

 

Have you ever done something in your life and not really known why you did it?

 

We will never know what Gore's intentions were, and I'm personally inclined to accept that he is doing what he can as one single man on a planet of (currently) 6.3 billion to make things better for all of us collectively.

[SkepticLance]

Have you ever known a politician who was a stickler for exact scientific truth? If so, please let me know, and I will add it to my list of known miracles.

[iNow]

Have you ever known a politician who was a stickler for exact scientific truth? If so, please let me know, and I will add it to my list of known miracles.

 

Relevance?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

The relevance is that Al Gore is a career politician. To politicians, truth is a variable that can be altered to achieve specific goals. Politicians do not have the same reverence for objective scientific truth that I hope most of the contributors to this forum have. As a result, most smart people treat the utterances of politicians with some suspicion.

[swansont]

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I don't recall the particulars of various arguments. But from the context of the analysis of the judge's ruling, it seems like there was a distinction drawn between "what is likely to happen," and "what might happen," and also between the levels that global warming has contributed to some events — saying that X is a result of global warming, and the question between whether GW is responsible for 100%, or 80% or 50%, etc. of the event.

 

 

As the judge ruled, these were points for teachers to clarify. It was not ruled that the underlying science was wrong.

[Donut.Hole]

To iNow

 

The relevance is that Al Gore is a career politician. To politicians, truth is a variable that can be altered to achieve specific goals. Politicians do not have the same reverence for objective scientific truth that I hope most of the contributors to this forum have. As a result, most smart people treat the utterances of politicians with some suspicion.

 

Wasn't Gore a scientist (or at least an observer of it) when he was a student and before he got involved in politics?

[antimatter]

Gore was definitely not a scientist, nor was he an observer.

He graduated from Harvard with a B.A. in government,

and then he later went to law school, but he never was a scientist.

[barbie.=^.^=]

Honestly I don't believe Al, Hes a hypocrite (with his jet plane, and carbon footprints its just another word for excuse) and global warming makes no sense, maybe because i live in Utah, but you got to take in consideration solar flaring, but bagpipes killing our ozone i mean c'mon.

[iNow]

Honestly I don't believe Al, Hes a hypocrite (with his jet plane, and carbon footprints its just another word for excuse) and global warming makes no sense, maybe because i live in Utah, but you got to take in consideration solar flaring, but bagpipes killing our ozone i mean c'mon.

 

Barbie,

Short answer, all the stuff you mentioned in regards to the warming trend have been shown not to be the cause. It is the result of human activity, and there are countless examples in support of my statement. And bagpipes? Well, that's a pretty clear strawman of the actual position. C'mon right back atcha.

[bascule]

Honestly I don't believe Al, Hes a hypocrite (with his jet plane, and carbon footprints its just another word for excuse)

 

You don't have to believe Al Gore. Believe the scientists whose research he's presenting. Whether or not he's a hypocrite is irrelevant to the correctness of that information (i.e. ad hominem)

 

and global warming makes no sense, maybe because i live in Utah

 

What would living in Utah have anything to do with it? I mean, besides the systemic anti-scientific viewpoints that pervade the residents of Utah...

 

but you got to take in consideration solar flaring, but bagpipes killing our ozone i mean c'mon.

 

Solar forcings are most certainly considered by scientists in climate reconstructions:

 

 

Also WTF bagpipes?

[Taq_is_hot]

Global warming is just a scare. Sure, the earth was warming, but that doesn't mean it will cause major problems. Yes, if it continued for years. But when you think about how every several decades the earth goes through warming/cooling trends, you will realize that global warmng is just a false alarm. In the US at least, we had a colder winter than normal. Especially in the midwest LOL. I heard many times on the news (country-wide) that this winter was similar to the winters of the 70s and 80s. Now, those decades were cooler. We are ending global warming as we speak. Next year we probably won't even hear anything about it anymore. Humans keep the earth slightly warmer, yes. But things will even out. The world is not going to blow up, Al. See, Gore needed to make a name for himself so he scared the world with his video. He was upset that he didn't win that election so he needed his revenge>

[iNow]

Taq,

 

That's not a very useful post. You are simply spouting a lot of conclusions which have been REPEATEDLY demonstrated to be false. Please study this topic in greater detail before suggesting that you know so much about it.

 

 

In case you struggle with graphs, the one below demonstrates the relative impact of the various forcings on climate. You will see that CO₂ far surpasses the others. You also know that humans pour tons of carbon into the atmosphere at unprecendented rates.

 

So... carbon is the biggest factor in warming, we keep adding carbon to the atmosphere. You don't have to have a PhD in mathematics to understand the outcome.

 

 

[bascule]

Global warming is just a scare. Sure, the earth was warming, but that doesn't mean it will cause major problems.

 

What about water vulnerability? Hundreds of millions of people are going to lose access to safe drinking water, in addition to the billion plus people who already lack it.

 

Yes, if it continued for years. But when you think about how every several decades the earth goes through warming/cooling trends, you will realize that global warmng is just a false alarm.

 

Oh really:

 

 

In the US at least, we had a colder winter than normal. Especially in the midwest LOL. I heard many times on the news (country-wide) that this winter was similar to the winters of the 70s and 80s. Now, those decades were cooler. We are ending global warming as we speak.

 

"Global warming" refers to the multi-decadal trend in global average surface temperatures. The regional effects are varied, and can include things like colder winters. Looking at effects in a specific region say nothing about the effects globally.

 

For example, heating is disproportionately strong in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere.

 

Next year we probably won't even hear anything about it anymore. Humans keep the earth slightly warmer, yes. But things will even out. The world is not going to blow up, Al. See, Gore needed to make a name for himself so he scared the world with his video. He was upset that he didn't win that election so he needed his revenge>

 

*facepalm*

[Pangloss]

Consider my usual boilerplate about circumstantial evidence not equalling proof (just ask the IPCC) inserted, rejected by the board as politically incorrect, wups I mean "scientifically inaccurate", and the pointer moved forward.

[iNow]

What are you proposing was circumstantial, exactly? The stuff we countered with evidence, or the clarification in misunderstandings we tried to offer?

[bascule]

Consider my usual boilerplate about circumstantial evidence not equalling proof (just ask the IPCC) inserted, rejected by the board as politically incorrect, wups I mean "scientifically inaccurate", and the pointer moved forward.

 

I think you have something to say but are afraid of people pointing out why it's wrong.

 

I think you should go ahead and say it.

 

I doubt you'll find anyone here saying "you can't say that" so much as you'll find people pointing out what's wrong. The only person around here who seems to be pushing the "you can't say that" line is you.

[Pangloss]

Why, I'd be happy to, thanks for asking! Come now, Bascule, have you ever known me to be afraid to speak my mind?

 

I have no hesitation in that regard, I just question what the point is. This thread and much of this sub-forum have become about establishing political posturing and getting the last word on foolish red-staters. You're drowning out opposition, not establishing science. Why do you think Swansont has been riding herd on these discussions so asiduously the last few months?

 

The perfect example of this is that any time anybody raises the fact that the IPCC specifically stopped short of blaming humans for causing global warming, a well-defended and logical position based on the evidence, this board leaps up and drowns out that perfectly valid information with mounds of information, which while also quite valid, but which does not counter the actual point, which is that statistical evidence does not prove causality.

 

Which brings the whole issue of global warming -- which is really about what to DO about global warming -- right back into the arena of POLITICS, not science. Which is, quite frankly, what this is really about.

 

The basic problem is this:

1) We do not fully understand what causes global warming. The evidence strongly indicates human contribution, but it doesn't prove it outright.

2) Some people won't do anything about human contribution issues unless we can prove that GW is caused by humans.

 

That's not a science problem. That's a political problem. And acting like it's a science problem is hurting, not helping, both here and in society. And yet this post will no doubt be replied-to with charts and graphs and reports and statistical evidence, all of which ignores the point.

 

Let me use an analogy. I've got mileage records on my automobile, records of fill-ups, gas mileage (miles per gallon), fuel costs, tire wear, oil life, all kinds of useful data. That data STRONGLY suggests that SOMEONE has been driving my car. But it doesn't say who. But my analogy is not finished: I also have a lot of evidence around my house that I drive a car. The car keys sitting on the counter. The driver's license in my wallet. That sort of thing.

 

To extend that analogy to global warming, what we don't have is an insurance record tying my name to that specific automobile, or a print-out from the charge card showing me filling up a car with that license plate number, that sort of thing. That kind of evidence is missing from the global warming debate.

 

Now as I said people will no-doubt flood this thread with replies to my post pointing all all sorts of charts and graphs about the Earth heating up (completely ignoring the fact that I've acknowledged that point), and all sorts of charts and graphs showing human industrial actions, etc. None of which will answer the point I've made here.

 

So what's the point? You're not esablishing science, you're just drowning out the politically incorrect.

 

It is the result of human activity

 

The stuff we countered with evidence, or the clarification in misunderstandings we tried to offer?

 

These (above) are the kinds of posts I'm talking about, by the way. I'm not trying to be rude to iNow, who's opinions I do have great respect for, but in the final analysis those statements are political in nature, not scientific. The use of the word "we", the insistent and repeated declaration of something not established, the spin of saying you're just trying to clarify misunderstandings, those kinds of statements are about taking the high ground and establishing what this board's membership will tolerate and what it will not.

 

That's politics. Not science.

 

And it's a battle that's already been fought and won, by the way, by your side and iNow's. There is no debate, the debate's over -- you won, both here and in the scientific community, the media, and for the most part, the public at large, which is simply ill-equipped to do anything about it. Not the science, that hasn't been finished at all. But the DEBATE's over, because it's no longer tolerated.

 

Politics. Not science.

[iNow]

Isn't this akin to teaching the laughable "controversy" of ID in the evolution classroom? Should we also teach the stork concept about child birth? What about in astronomy class? Should equal time be spent on astrology? Or in chemistry, why isn't equal time given to alchemy?

 

Because it's wrong!

 

 

And, what PRECISELY about "human activity and anthropogenic contributions of CO₂ to the atmosphere are the primary forcing agent in the current increases in global yearly average temperatures" is NOT scienctific?!?

 

 

 

The basic problem is this:

1) We do not fully understand what causes global warming. The evidence strongly indicates human contribution, but it doesn't prove it outright.

2) Some people won't do anything about human contribution issues unless we can prove that GW is caused by humans.

This is wrong, which is why it gets challenged. As real as that thing below your fingertips is a keyboard or a mouse, the human impact on climate is a fact.

 

 

 

You're not esablishing science, you're just drowning out the politically incorrect.

Nope. Sorry. We're drowning out inaccurate and false statements. BIG difference.

 

If someone has evidence which shows that there is another forcing factor that exceeds the impact of human activity on global climate, I'd be glad see it. Until that time, I will smite happily ignorant comments with the parallel hope of educating people on the causes we already do very confidently understand, as well as the mountains of evidence in support of this understanding.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's funny, here I was thinking that the "politically correct" thing to do in America was to pretend that global warming does not exist. Hence, the Bush administration pushing for reports to avoid the topic.

[swansont]

The perfect example of this is that any time anybody raises the fact that the IPCC specifically stopped short of blaming humans for causing global warming, a well-defended and logical position based on the evidence, this board leaps up and drowns out that perfectly valid information with mounds of information, which while also quite valid, but which does not counter the actual point, which is that statistical evidence does not prove causality.

 

Greater than 90% certainty that the warming is anthropogenic is not "stopping short."

 

Statistical evidence, along with other investigations, can demonstrate causality. It's done in medical tests all the time.

 

Which brings the whole issue of global warming -- which is really about what to DO about global warming -- right back into the arena of POLITICS, not science. Which is, quite frankly, what this is really about.

 

And I wholeheartedly agree with this. But questions about the cause of the warming are ones of science, because if one erroneously concludes that the warming is natural, it is very easy to justify doing nothing. The political response has to be based on valid science. The political process can certainly bring other considerations into the decision, of course, and still decide to do nothing, but what can't be tolerated is the decision to do nothing, and then subsequently present only evidence that supports that decision.

 

 

The basic problem is this:

1) We do not fully understand what causes global warming. The evidence strongly indicates human contribution, but it doesn't prove it outright.

2) Some people won't do anything about human contribution issues unless we can prove that GW is caused by humans.

 

And that's a strawman, because science doesn't "prove" anything. It's one of the tactics that the denialists use, because they then equate "don't understand fully" with "don't understand." What science does, however, is to quantify the level of understanding.

 

If a rock is on a ledge one day, and the next there are bits of rock at the bottom of the ravine, that when you piece them together, strongly resemble the rock that used to be on the ledge, you'd probably agree that the rock fell, under the influence of gravity, and broke. But you can't prove it.

 

That's not a science problem. That's a political problem. And acting like it's a science problem is hurting, not helping, both here and in society. And yet this post will no doubt be replied-to with charts and graphs and reports and statistical evidence, all of which ignores the point.

 

Let me use an analogy. I've got mileage records on my automobile, records of fill-ups, gas mileage (miles per gallon), fuel costs, tire wear, oil life, all kinds of useful data. That data STRONGLY suggests that SOMEONE has been driving my car. But it doesn't say who. But my analogy is not finished: I also have a lot of evidence around my house that I drive a car. The car keys sitting on the counter. The driver's license in my wallet. That sort of thing.

 

To extend that analogy to global warming, what we don't have is an insurance record tying my name to that specific automobile, or a print-out from the charge card showing me filling up a car with that license plate number, that sort of thing. That kind of evidence is missing from the global warming debate.

 

I can't make the connection between your analogy and "missing" data or analysis.

 

Now as I said people will no-doubt flood this thread with replies to my post pointing all all sorts of charts and graphs about the Earth heating up (completely ignoring the fact that I've acknowledged that point), and all sorts of charts and graphs showing human industrial actions, etc. None of which will answer the point I've made here.

 

So what's the point? You're not esablishing science, you're just drowning out the politically incorrect.

 

Please, point to some specific examples.

 

These (above) are the kinds of posts I'm talking about, by the way. I'm not trying to be rude to iNow, who's opinions I do have great respect for, but in the final analysis those statements are political in nature, not scientific. The use of the word "we", the insistent and repeated declaration of something not established, the spin of saying you're just trying to clarify misunderstandings, those kinds of statements are about taking the high ground and establishing what this board's membership will tolerate and what it will not.

 

That's politics. Not science.

 

And it's a battle that's already been fought and won, by the way, by your side and iNow's. There is no debate, the debate's over -- you won, both here and in the scientific community, the media, and for the most part, the public at large, which is simply ill-equipped to do anything about it. Not the science, that hasn't been finished at all. But the DEBATE's over, because it's no longer tolerated.

 

Politics. Not science.

 

What science is missing? Asking for data or other rigorous supporting documentation is not politics, it's science. Objecting to cherry-picked data, or strawman (or other logical fallacy) claims is not politics, it's science.

[bascule]

The perfect example of this is that any time anybody raises the fact that the IPCC specifically stopped short of blaming humans for causing global warming

 

IPCC AR4 SPM says:

 

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

 

with "very likely" footnoted as meaning:

 

assessed likelihood, using expert judgment [...'] over 90%

 

I don't know what you want to imply by "stopped short", but the IPCC says they're over 90% certain humans are primarily to blame for recent warming, which they attribute to observed increases in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

statistical evidence does not prove causality

 

Hence why it's a theory and not a proof... proper scientific investigation will provide causal explanations within a certain degree of uncertainty.

 

Which brings the whole issue of global warming -- which is really about what to DO about global warming -- right back into the arena of POLITICS, not science. Which is, quite frankly, what this is really about.

 

I think generally this thread has been assessing the science of the movie, not Gore's policy recommendations. I suppose when the discussion at hand is something like An Inconvenient Truth, policy certainly plays into it, but if it's a policy discussion you're seeking, I think it should happen in Politics.

 

We do not fully understand what causes global warming. The evidence strongly indicates human contribution, but it doesn't prove it outright.

 

The only workable theory to date includes the radiative forcing of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the primary one affecting the climate system. No one has managed produce a model which can successfully reconstruct the climate of the past century without a boost from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

Alternative explanations (e.g. natural forcings dominate the warming trend) are stuck at the hypothesis stage and are not supported by present evidence, experimentation, and/or modeling.

 

We do not fully understand quantum field theory, but it's still the best scientific explanation available. There's no reason to doubt it just because it isn't fully understood.

[pioneer]

The confusion, as I see it, is due to two overlapping affects, which are lumped into one. If the earth never had any global warming and cooling cycles in the past, than x=y. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates that the earth has done this many times in the past, even without man made effects. So x may not equal y. It is being marketed as x=y.

 

If we graph the last billion years then this current cycle may look like more of the same. But if we plot only 0.000001% of that data and overlap this tail end with our own extras it looks different because we have no perspective. We could be going through one of those ups that occur but the plot won't show this since we use only a select piece of the all global warming data. I don't deny global warming, but I am not sure if cause and affect add.

 

Let me give an analogy of the affect. Say we plotted deaths from war since 1900. There were huge spikes during WWI and WW2 where millions died, and then it tapers off into the present. With global warming we limit the plot from 1990 to present, and fill the paper based on that scaling factor. That plot makes 1500 deaths from the Iraqi war look look huge. If we did the entire plot from 1900 to present, the 1990 to present looks flat. Which of these two are right. They are both correct, just one has a better scaling factor to scare people.

 

The data that made me skeptical was the polar ice caps melting on Mars at the same time they are on the earth. I sort of expected equal time but this was ushered out of the political theater. Then I looked to see if the funding for both points of view was balanced, to come to the truth. The funding is heavier on the global warming side. This is a convenient way to build a consensus by giving one side all the money to assure that one side wins the debate.

 

An analogy is GM and Ford needing government funding to help build an new hydrogen car. Both have valid designs. We give GM 90% and Ford 10%. Who is the chosen one to win the race. The deck is stacked. If we divided it equally between the two, may the best company win. But there is more political gain to be gotten out of one side winning the race. The moderate approach is boring and does not excite the crowd quite as much as the panic side. Fear is an easier way to get the herd to do things.

 

Here is what I wouldn't mind happening. Let us go with the global warming angle and run with it, lock, stock and barrel. If in the future, it turns out to be an exaggeration, we get to tar and feather all the players who made it possible. Or tattoo a GW on the forehead. We would see back peddling as scientists and leaders try to make sure this is what it really is.