Want comments on global warming ramble

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2007-04-10 09:06pm

I intend to post the following ramble elsewhere, but thought I should let others have a go at it first. Some people I know have either been suckered by the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" or want my views on it. The point of this ramble is to convince them that viewing such shows isn't the way to go and that they really need to figure out what the scientific community says on the subject.

It's been a month since UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I posted a bulletin previously asking for people to watch it and let me know what they thought. I got precisely one reply and that was to ask me my take on things. Sadly, I have to conclude that most people couldn't care less and certainly don't care enough to tell me what they think. I'm not really surprised though. In any event, I think it is a good time to blog on the subject.

Now you may be expecting me to go through the show and critique the issues it raises. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I not going to do that. If you would like to see the counter arguments to those points you can find them here:
http://portal.campaigncc.org/files/GWSS ... ponses.pdf
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007 ... ting_.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... /#more-414
http://www.google.com (if your googlefu is strong)

There are a few reasons I'm not going to rebut specific points found in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" myself. First, I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not familiar with the primary literature and haven't studied the scientific details of the subject myself. Second, much more qualified people have already done the job for me (see above links). Third, scientific debate is done through peer reviewed science. Moving on, I do have something to point out.

Unless you are a climate scientist, you are not qualified to judge the science of global warming. The reason for this is that you haven't studied the field of climate science, you don't know what the current theories are, you probably haven't read the scientific literature, and you probably wouldn't be able to critically analyze it even if you did. Nevertheless, the makers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" subtly appeal to your ego by asking you to judge climate science yourself and conclude that global warming is bunk. Now under other circumstances this might be thought of as simply an educational plot device. However, the makers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" entirely skipped the peer reviewed science process (read: they either haven't made scientific arguments or those arguments have been discredited by their scientific peers). Oops, that's a pretty big oversight.

To cover this "oversight" up the makers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" offer all sorts of reasons: there's a vast scientific conspiracy to cover up the truth, the greens have run amok, the government has silenced opposition, etc. This is all just a bunch of crap to get you to reject peer reviewed science and make scientific judgments (that they favor) which you aren't qualified make. Now you may be one of those people who reject science and by extension rational thought. If so we simply aren't going to agree.

If you do accept science you may be wondering how you're supposed to figure out the skinny on a science related topic. Obviously, most of us are not qualified to judge any science issue at all and the few of us with science backgrounds can only properly judge the field we're familiar with (which is guaranteed to be only a small part of science). Well that's okay. Even if you have no science background at all you can still figure out what science has to say. The best way is to read the scientific literature (assuming you can critically analyze it). Failing that you will need a qualified scientist in the area of interest to fill you in. This isn't as hard as you might think. Most scientists have webpages covering their research and one can find their contact info there. If you have strong googlefu you can probably locate other web resources provided by the scientists. Of course you'll have to ensure these resources are by scientists and/or accurately represent their views (which can be hard if the topic is highly charged: global warming, evolution, etc.). You can also go to your local university and simply ask around. Another method is to ask a scientifically literate friend to find those other pesky scientists for you. However, if you fail figure out what science has to say on a science related topic, you simply have to conclude you don't really know what’s up.

SeeingRed · Post by **SeeingRed** » 2007-04-10 10:56pm

If you do accept science you may be wondering how you're supposed to figure out the skinny on a science related topic.

Of course, nobody is guaranteeing that anyone and everyone CAN figure out "the skinny" on a science-related topic. People (not you; people in general) need to stop beliving that all scientific topics can be reduced to neat, easy-to-understand pieces. Science is messy.

Most scientists have webpages covering their research and one can find their contact info there. If you have strong googlefu you can probably locate other web resources provided by the scientists.

And also, for many of the "big" topics in science, there is/are one or a few scientists that do us all the service of writing a book that is sufficiently comprehensive (i.e., more so than a Scientific American article or whatever) while still being largely accessible. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene comes to mind, in the area of String Theory. Perhaps such a book has not yet been written for the climate change issue, but (and I know I'll get flak for this) An Inconvenient Truth is a good place to start, I think.

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-12 01:21am

Perhaps such a book has not yet been written for the climate change issue, but (and I know I'll get flak for this) An Inconvenient Truth is a good place to start, I think.

An Inconvenient Truth was taped primarily to be propaganda, which is likely to be a turnoff for people new to the issue. There's a NOVA documentary that aired a few years ago called What's Up With the Weather that I would recommend.

SeeingRed · Post by **SeeingRed** » 2007-04-14 11:53pm

TheLemur wrote:An Inconvenient Truth was taped primarily to be propaganda, which is likely to be a turnoff for people new to the issue.

And how, exactly, was it propaganda, may I ask?

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-15 12:28am

And how, exactly, was it propaganda, may I ask?

It was deliberately filmed to create public support for a certain set of ideas; Al Gore is quite open about this, I think. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it will tend to turn people off who are new to the issue, and for good reason. Suppose you lived in Backwardsistan all your life and you were trying to learn all the scientific details of electricity. Would you want to see as your primary reference a film produced by the light bulb company to sell more bulbs, even if it is factually correct?

SeeingRed · Post by **SeeingRed** » 2007-04-15 03:45am

TheLemur wrote:It was deliberately filmed to create public support for a certain set of ideas; Al Gore is quite open about this, I think.

Since when does expressing a particular point of view (or in this case, point of fact essentially) qualify as propaganda? Al Gore's intent in AIC is no different than the intent of an author writing a, say, high school level textbook on evolutionary biology -- to present the overwhelming majority of evidence / scientific consensus on a particular topic in a relatively simple, accessible manner.

TheLemur wrote:It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it will tend to turn people off who are new to the issue, and for good reason. Suppose you lived in Backwardsistan all your life and you were trying to learn all the scientific details of electricity. Would you want to see as your primary reference a film produced by the light bulb company to sell more bulbs, even if it is factually correct?

AIC is admittedly not a primer on the details of climate science; it was not my intent to claim any such thing (my comment above comparing AIC to e.g. The Elegant Universe was qualified by saying that it's only a place to start for this reason). It is, however, a reasonably objective consideration of the current scientific evidence on the subject; that said evidence happens to overwhelmingly inform a particular conclusion is not by design of Mr. Gore or anyone else.

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-15 03:35pm

Since when does expressing a particular point of view (or in this case, point of fact essentially) qualify as propaganda?

To check the dictionary:

prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

that said evidence happens to overwhelmingly inform a particular conclusion is not by design of Mr. Gore or anyone else.

Oh come on. Do you seriously intend to argue that Al Gore is just trying to present the evidence gathered by the IPCC and others, without any bias or agenda whatsoever? Look at An Inconvenient Truth's official website: under "about the movie", the very first paragraph reads:

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

This is obviously intended to shock viewers and motivate them into doing something, NOT to inform anybody about the underlying science. It goes on to say:

From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, which offers a passionate and inspirational look at one man's fervent crusade

A "passionate and inspirational look" at Al Gore's "fervent crusade"? Going back to the dictionary:

cru·sade /kruˈseɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kroo-seyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -sad·ed, -sad·ing.
–noun
1. (often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2. any war carried on under papal sanction.
3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

A vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea or cause. So Mr. Gore's official website boasts about how strongly he is pushing his cause.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-16 09:43pm

Oh come on. Do you seriously intend to argue that Al Gore is just trying to present the evidence gathered by the IPCC and others, without any bias or agenda whatsoever?

Who the fuck DOESN'T present something without a bias or agenda? Realistically a term like 'propaganda' by the very broad definition above can fit anything anybody would say when they open their fucking mouth.

It's just an exaggerated claim that people throw out in a suggested light of inaccuracy or mainly self-serving interest instead of focusing on the merit of the material. It's actually shades of an ad hominem attack when you get right down to it.

It's obvious Al Gore very much cares about the earth as he made clear in that video by referencing way back in his early days at college where he learned the dangers of this threat in its infancy. Why should this turn someone off? Are we now damning people for being passionate about something? Are we to only be truly receptive and non-judgemental towards peoples motives if they are dispassionate and clinical towards their presentations?

In this example the term 'propaganda' sounds very much like the same type of charge laid against gay activists fighting for their rights when they are labeled as part of the "gay agenda".

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-16 10:01pm

Who the fuck DOESN'T present something without a bias or agenda? Realistically a term like 'propaganda' by the very broad definition above can fit anything anybody would say when they open their fucking mouth.

True; however, propaganda is generally considered to mean a body of information that is deliberately prepared to support a cause. You are correct that a huge amount of information-gathering is for propaganda of one kind or another.

It's just an exaggerated claim that people throw out in a suggested light of inaccuracy or mainly self-serving interest instead of focusing on the merit of the material. It's actually shades of an ad hominem attack when you get right down to it.

How exactly do you define "merit"? Factual accuracy? Would you learn about WWII by watching Nazi propaganda films, even if everything in them was factually correct? The quality of the presentation? I believe "Triumph des Willens" has won several awards for being an excellent film.

Are we now damning people for being passionate about something?

I'm not trying to damn Al Gore; passion can be a very good thing in the right context. Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the merits of using his film as educational material.

Why should this turn someone off?

Because everyone claims, and a large majority of people believe, that they're fighting for a good cause. This includes Mahatma Gandhi. It also includes Adolf Hitler. You cannot simply *assume* that a person is righteous because they believe they're righteous.

In this example the term 'propaganda' sounds very much like the same type of charge laid against gay activists fighting for their rights when they are labeled as part of the "gay agenda".

There *is* a great deal of information deliberately spread to try and help further gays' civil rights. I consider this a good thing, because I think gay civil rights are a good cause, and this information is certainly better than the information disseminated by the opposite side. However, I would be equally leery if you proposed using this information to introduce everyone to gay culture.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-16 10:24pm

How exactly do you define "merit"? Factual accuracy? Would you learn about WWII by watching Nazi propaganda films, even if everything in them was factually correct? The quality of the presentation? I believe "Triumph des Willens" has won several awards for being an excellent film.

Well factual accuracy should certainly be a prerequisite. A Nazi propaganda film wouldn't just be showing factually accurate events, they would be also including philosophies, foregone conclusions and dozens of other misleading and distorted types of information.

Now people could try and claim a similarity to this and Al Gore, but it isn't really the same vein of comparison. From what I watched, which was only a few nights ago incidentally so it's quite fresh in my mind, he laid out very objective graphs showing measurements of earth temperatures, weather patterns, pictures of places in the world decades ago and now, etc. These are quite indisputible in the main, and indeed, VERY few scientists argue otherwise.

I'm with you on the general overtone you're getting at, but I don't think the general usage of the term 'propaganda' is even remotely deserving here. His cause should be EVERYBODY'S cause. Who the hell SHOULDN'T care about the state of our Earth? This is everyone's problem.

Because everyone claims, and a large majority of people believe, that they're fighting for a good cause. This includes Mahatma Gandhi. It also includes Adolf Hitler. You cannot simply *assume* that a person is righteous because they believe they're righteous.

True enough. That didn't come out quite right, or at least I didn't mean that directly at you. In fact a lot of what I said was more rhetorical then specifically fired at you.

I just find that it seems to be a common thing these days to suggest someone is disreputable just because they actually have a stake in something.

There *is* a great deal of information deliberately spread to try and help further gays' civil rights. I consider this a good thing, because I think gay civil rights are a good cause, and this information is certainly better than the information disseminated by the opposite side. However, I would be equally leery if you proposed using this information to introduce everyone to gay culture.

Oh I totally agree. There should obviously be a limit of what you are disseminating and in what manner you do it.

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-16 10:44pm

His cause should be EVERYBODY'S cause. Who the hell SHOULDN'T care about the state of our Earth? This is everyone's problem.

True. I have no problem with films that say "we need to care about the state of the Earth". However, AIT doesn't just say that; it talks about a specific risk, presents a specific scenario and then tries to push a specific plan for fixing it.

A Nazi propaganda film wouldn't just be showing factually accurate events, they would be also including philosophies, foregone conclusions and dozens of other misleading and distorted types of information.

Also true, but you can't really claim that kind of thing as factually inaccurate.

These are quite indisputible in the main, and indeed, VERY few scientists argue otherwise.

Indeed. The problem is usually not factual accuracy (I haven't seen it myself, but you can be fairly confident it's been checked for stupid mistakes). It's the way the information is presented, and more specifically which information is presented. The basic facts of WWII are not in dispute by anybody, but you can use these facts to push Communism, or Fascism, or Freemasonry or whatever you will. For global warming specifically, Al Gore tries to focus on cutting fossil fuel use and probably presents various ways in which it would help the environment, all or most of which have at least some truth in them. However, he seems to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that any enforced cutback in fossil fuel usage large enough to have a noticeable effect on global temperature would seriously damage the world economy, causing depression, poverty, etc. Which one is worse is a legitimate question for debate, but simply presenting the former and ignoring the latter is not a legitimate technique for an educational film.

Baal · Post by **Baal** » 2007-04-17 12:17am

SeeingRed wrote:
TheLemur wrote:An Inconvenient Truth was taped primarily to be propaganda, which is likely to be a turnoff for people new to the issue.
And how, exactly, was it propaganda, may I ask?

It was propoganda because it used style over substance and deliberate lies to try and make the point that Al Gore wanted to make.

No matter how much good intentions are there the fact that he intentionally lied on several points completely discredits him.

BTW, there was a challenge issued by some well known British fellow to debate Al Whore on the merits of Global Warming. Last I heard Whore had not responded in any manner.

Anyone know anything further on this?

Baal · Post by **Baal** » 2007-04-17 12:20am

Oh and it also does not help Al Gore and his case when several people who support his views act in truly horrible ways.

One of the heads of The Weather Channel was recently quoted as saying if a meteorologist does not believe in "Global Warming" then they should immediatly lose their license.

Yeah, when you are forced to suggest cheap shots like that everyone is going to believe your science is serious and rock solid and you dont have any fear of people finding flaws in it.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2007-04-17 02:58am

Baal wrote: It was propoganda because it used style over substance and deliberate lies to try and make the point that Al Gore wanted to make.

No matter how much good intentions are there the fact that he intentionally lied on several points completely discredits him.

BTW, there was a challenge issued by some well known British fellow to debate Al Whore on the merits of Global Warming. Last I heard Whore had not responded in any manner.

Anyone know anything further on this?

Intentionally lied about what?

One of the heads of The Weather Channel was recently quoted as saying if a meteorologist does not believe in "Global Warming" then they should immediatly lose their license.

Because someone being told they should accept a theory that not only is observable but with with mountains of evidence behind it or be called unprofessional/lose their license is a truly horrible thing right?

Or are you one of the special people who thinks that extreme changes in climate lately are nothing to do with the huge amounts of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. I mean, having no snow 2 years in a row when you have had snow at that time of year for hundreds of years is completely normal right? Summer being ~ 2 degrees hotter than it used to be and the estimate of current warming being 2 degrees warmer, not related I bet.

Baal · Post by **Baal** » 2007-04-17 12:22pm

Resinence wrote:
Baal wrote: It was propoganda because it used style over substance and deliberate lies to try and make the point that Al Gore wanted to make.

No matter how much good intentions are there the fact that he intentionally lied on several points completely discredits him.

BTW, there was a challenge issued by some well known British fellow to debate Al Whore on the merits of Global Warming. Last I heard Whore had not responded in any manner.

Anyone know anything further on this?
Intentionally lied about what?

One of the heads of The Weather Channel was recently quoted as saying if a meteorologist does not believe in "Global Warming" then they should immediatly lose their license.
Because someone being told they should accept a theory that not only is observable but with with mountains of evidence behind it or be called unprofessional/lose their license is a truly horrible thing right?

Or are you one of the special people who thinks that extreme changes in climate lately are nothing to do with the huge amounts of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. I mean, having no snow 2 years in a row when you have had snow at that time of year for hundreds of years is completely normal right? Summer being ~ 2 degrees hotter than it used to be and the estimate of current warming being 2 degrees warmer, not related I bet.

Well just going off the top of my head Gores use of the hockey stick as it is called is a lie. The hockey stick completely ignored historically known warm periods such as the Middle Ages Warm Period. It does this for obvious reaons, it wants to make it apparent that there has never been global warm periods except for the current one.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-17 02:44pm

Well just going off the top of my head Gores use of the hockey stick as it is called is a lie. The hockey stick completely ignored historically known warm periods such as the Middle Ages Warm Period. It does this for obvious reaons, it wants to make it apparent that there has never been global warm periods except for the current one.

You have obviously NOT seen this film. What did you get this so called 'evidence' of him lying from the Great Global Warming Swindle that has itself been torn to shreds?

He addresses this idiot red herring in the film. Sure there were periods of warming, but if you actually look at the entire graph over the centuries and see it all in CONTEXT, you'd see that it's not even fucking CLOSE to being comparable. The difference in then and now, particularly in the extreme conditions in such a short time with no end in sight is monumental. Watch the film before you make up your mind.

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-17 03:54pm

It was propoganda because it used style over substance and deliberate lies to try and make the point that Al Gore wanted to make.

Look at the bloody definition. Propaganda does not necessarily have to lie, nor does it have to be exceptionally stupid. In turn, just because something lies and is exceptionally stupid doesn't mean it's propaganda.

BTW, there was a challenge issued by some well known British fellow to debate Al Whore on the merits of Global Warming. Last I heard Whore had not responded in any manner.

The guy's name is Steven Milloy and he runs the website www.junkscience.com. His position is even more extreme than Gore's, in the opposite direction. He is not any better qualified than Gore is as a climate scientist and has no real claim to fame in other arenas (such as Gore's political position).

Oh and it also does not help Al Gore and his case when several people who support his views act in truly horrible ways.

Horrible? To my knowledge, nobody on either side has done anything that can be described as "horrible", at least not intentionally.

One of the heads of The Weather Channel was recently quoted as saying if a meteorologist does not believe in "Global Warming" then they should immediatly lose their license.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Gore's film. I'm tired of people taking single quotes and using them to try and discredit a person, position or political party.

Yeah, when you are forced to suggest cheap shots like that everyone is going to believe your science is serious and rock solid and you dont have any fear of people finding flaws in it.

AGW advocates are HUMAN; they make mistakes, they can be wrong and they have the same flawed brain architecture as everyone else. This does not discredit AGW.

Because someone being told they should accept a theory that not only is observable but with with mountains of evidence behind it or be called unprofessional/lose their license is a truly horrible thing right?

Not really horrible, but if we're going to start doing that we should start with the creationist morons, several of whom have doctorates and/or work at universities. Evolution is much, much better supported than AGW and we can't even bring ourselves to do that much.

I mean, having no snow 2 years in a row when you have had snow at that time of year for hundreds of years is completely normal right?

This is a common misconception that should be taken out and shot right here and now for the good of the public. Whether it happened to snow a lot this winter in one particular small spot has very little to do with AGW, and it's very easy to pick and choose your spots to make it seem like the Earth warmed 5 C this past century. Most city centers, for instance, have gotten several degrees C warmer than rural areas; this is a well-known phenomenon called urban heat island effect that has nothing to do with AGW.

Summer being ~ 2 degrees hotter than it used to be and the estimate of current warming being 2 degrees warmer, not related I bet.

Please learn the basics of AGW, or, failing that, listen to people who have. Entire seasons are routinely colder or warmer than average by 2-4 degrees C. The warming of the past century is only 0.6 C or so, and it's obviously going to get swamped. I live in the Northeast, and there's been so much snow this past week I've started greeting people "Merry Christmas"; does that mean we're in an ice age?

Sure there were periods of warming, but if you actually look at the entire graph over the centuries and see it all in CONTEXT, you'd see that it's not even fucking CLOSE to being comparable.

He's referring to the distortion of the graph by computer programs which analyze the data, not to trivial issues of scale. There was a report a while back that the program they used to analyze the tree ring data produced warming trends even when it was fed noise; I'll see if I can dig it up.