An Inconvenient Truth

[Erasmus00]

Some statements regarding some of the claims put forth by Al Gore in the movie:

 

A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:

 

I attempted to look for the published, peer reviewed literature where these experts made their claims. I cannot find it,and its made more difficult that the author of the article completely fails to indicate where he got his quotes. I've emailed the author but so far, no luck.

 

So, I ask, do we trust the specific studies cited in the movie? (which were from peer reviewed journals) or quotes attributed to experts with no citations that don't seem to appear in any peer reviewed scientific literature?

-Will

[Cedars]

I attempted to look for the published, peer reviewed literature where these experts made their claims. I cannot find it,and its made more difficult that the author of the article completely fails to indicate where he got his quotes. I've emailed the author but so far, no luck.

 

So, I ask, do we trust the specific studies cited in the movie? (which were from peer reviewed journals) or quotes attributed to experts with no citations that don't seem to appear in any peer reviewed scientific literature?

-Will

 

 

I only searched a few of the people listed. While not all of them have publications I could find on the web, the few I list here (I did not search every expert from the canadapress link) seem to be educated enough to speak on the level they did in the canada press link:

 

Dr. Petr Chylek

Dr. Petr Chylek

 

DR. PAUL REITER *notice his employment history

Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut

 

Arcticnet - Get the news from the scientific community concerning the impact of climate change

 

Dr Chris de Freitas is Associate Director of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

 

ZoomInfo Cached Page

 

Have you researched the experts in Al Gores movie? You did notice the medieval warming period was missing in Al Gores "hockey stick" also right?

[Cedars]

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

 

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

 

I searched for the actual letter written and could only find one copy/paste in another forum that alleges it is the actual letter. I did not follow every link that came up in my searches due to time constraints. Take it with a grain of salt, but I do find it suspect that none of the news sites bothered to show the actual letter.

 

Dear Prof. Schroeder:

 

The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.

 

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.

 

From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.

 

If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.

 

Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.

 

Cordially,

 

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar

 

Now if this is the actual solicitation, I do not find any reason to be alarmed by this.

[Zythryn]

Now if this is the actual solicitation, I do not find any reason to be alarmed by this.

 

I think the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

The letter you quoted, didn't that seem a bit leading to you?

I think a good article on the paper and what some scientists are saying regarding it can be found at Exxon-funded group offers cash to critique climate study - Feb. 2, 2007

[Erasmus00]

I only searched a few of the people listed. While not all of them have publications I could find on the web, the few I list here (I did not search every expert from the canadapress link) seem to be educated enough to speak on the level they did in the canada press link:

 

I don't discount their education, and that they are capable scientists. I'm just curious as to whether or not they made the claims in the article as SCIENTISTS, or whether its their opinion. If they made the claims as scientists, they should point to peer reviewed studies to support their claims. Say what you will about the movie, Gore DID point to (and gave the information to find on your own) peer reviewed studies that support what he is saying.

 

Have you researched the experts in Al Gores movie? You did notice the medieval warming period was missing in Al Gores "hockey stick" also right?

 

As I'm saying, I don't discount that these people are experts. HOWEVER, experts often have their own agenda, and make comments OUTSIDE OF PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE and outside their area of expertise. Obviously, a peer reviewed study carries much more weight than such comments.

 

As far as I can tell, none of the quotes in the article you referenced has been supported in the actual scientific literature.

-Will

[Cedars]

I think the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

The letter you quoted, didn't that seem a bit leading to you?

I think a good article on the paper and what some scientists are saying regarding it can be found at Exxon-funded group*offers cash to critique*climate study - Feb. 2, 2007

 

After reading the cnn link it seems the reprint of the actual letter may be right on. Whether I think its leading or not should be irrelevant as long as the researchers who (if any do) step up to take the 'pepsi challenge' are able to critique the IPCC without bias.

 

There have been many questions and outright miscalculations based on 'climate modeling' computations in the past. I think it is legitimate to question any finding related to climate modeling calculations being as climate modeling (as I understand it) cannot even reproduce past climate status accurately, when we feed known information into the model.

[Zythryn]

After reading the cnn link it seems the reprint of the actual letter may be right on. Whether I think its leading or not should be irrelevant as long as the researchers who (if any do) step up to take the 'pepsi challenge' are able to critique the IPCC without bias.

 

I look forward to their peer reviewed results. I am still curious that you would lean towards one scientist who is given less than a year over over 1200 who spent multiple years working on the IPCC report.

 

More information is always a good thing. After all, we (humanity) have collected lots of additional information since the last IPCC report which have allowed us to narrow the error bars and focus predictions.

 

There have been many questions and outright miscalculations based on 'climate modeling' computations in the past. I think it is legitimate to question any finding related to climate modeling calculations being as climate modeling (as I understand it) cannot even reproduce past climate status accurately, when we feed known information into the model.

 

To what degree of reproduction? If you are looking for a climate model to predict the temperature next Wednesday, that will not occur for quite some time, if ever.

However, if you are looking for a close approximation, see if this fits the bill: Logical Science. Links are included to the model itself and any references you may like to follow.

 

Now, this isn't exact, but it seems the track the trends pretty darn accurately and very closely.

[Cedars]

I look forward to their peer reviewed results. I am still curious that you would lean towards one scientist who is given less than a year over over 1200 who spent multiple years working on the IPCC report.

 

 

I am not leaning towards one scientist and I will read any critiques of any counter points put forth. But the IPCC is not infallable and has engaged in some misleading tactics in the past (most notably leaving out the medieval warming trend on their hockey stick graph).

 

I am skeptical of the 'omg its all mans fault' crowd especially the promoters of Kyoto as a cache all when they exempt china, india (who will overtake the US emmissions in a few years) and other countries. Either were all involved equally or the solution isnt one. But we know why they are exempted, they wont sign on otherwise.

 

I am also skeptical of the recent snippets reported regarding if we cut all greenhouse gasses by half it would take a thousand years to undo what has occured, and I would like to see this statement scrutinized for accuracy.

 

And I look forward to the further reports on 'solutions' from the IPCC, especially what they have to say about population growth. Will they walk on this sacred ground or avoid it?

 

I am all for energy use reduction. I consciously try to live my life with a less impact mentality. A commitment I made to myself when growing up and watching the battle for the Clean Air/Clean Water unfolding and various other impacts that founded my idealisms regarding the whole of the planet and its ecology. But I am not convinced this current situation we are seeing is man made or even changable.

[Zythryn]

Cedars, I agree no one is infalible. That is why I put so much emphasis on peer review and research conducted by a number of different researchers.

 

Regarding the midieval warm period. This apparently has been studied by a number of people. There is no evidence that this was a global phenomenon, but instead localized. This is the reason it isn't reflected in the hockey stick graph.

 

More information can be found here: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

 

Here is some more in depth information (with links to resources): "The Hockey Stick is broken. Michael Mann refuses to release his code & data." | Logical Science

 

The reasoning, and science seem very sound. Information about accuracy are freely listed. Other scientific groups have reviewed the IPCC and have backed their conclusions (some think they are even too conservative).

 

Again, discusion is good, oposing viewpoints are good to. Where are the papers though (other than editorials).

 

For example, the gamma ray idea. Do we have measurements of gamma rays that strike the earth's atmosphere over the last 5, 10 or 20 years? Is there a correlation? If so, this is a great starting point for a hypothesis.

 

edit- upon further searching I have found an abstract. No data from the abstract (I don't have a subscription to that particular journal). However it is still a very interesting idea. Abstract at: SpringerLink - Journal Article

An argument against this idea (with resources) can be found at: RealClimate » Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

[TheBigDog]

I don't discount their education, and that they are capable scientists. I'm just curious as to whether or not they made the claims in the article as SCIENTISTS, or whether its their opinion. If they made the claims as scientists, they should point to peer reviewed studies to support their claims.

The problem right now is that the peer review process itself is probably biased. Many of the top scientists in the field have a clear emotional investment in the evidence supporting their claims, and their conclusions were made before they ever entered the field of study. Often they entered the field because they were so passionate about the environment and preservation as children or young adults.

 

Money is not the only motivation for bias in this world.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

The problem right now is that the peer review process itself is probably biased. Many of the top scientists in the field have a clear emotional investment in the evidence supporting their claims...

 

Hmmm, I don't suppose you care to share what led you to this conclusion?

 

I have heard it said before, typically by people critical of GW. However, I have yet to see evidence of this about the scientist, much less "many of the top scientists".

[Cedars]

OK I read the hockey stick info and will wait for additional information before using it as a further example.

 

I also looked into logical science and think there is bias on what information this person is devoted to producing. Thats ok, we all have an opinion and agenda.

 

Our goal is simple: to help layman separate science from politics

 

Jack Sparrow

 

Bioinformatics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

But for this thread I think we have drifted a bit off topic and maybe should be posting in one of the warming threads.

[Zythryn]

True, I suspect that the site author does have an opinion. However, I find the site very useful as the information is fully documented with references to scientific reports, authors and research papers.

 

I don't mind biased sites, as long as they give resources.

 

We may be a bit off topic here, there is another thread titled Global Warming which may fit better.

[TheBigDog]

Hmmm, I don't suppose you care to share what led you to this conclusion?

 

I have heard it said before, typically by people critical of GW. However, I have yet to see evidence of this about the scientist, much less "many of the top scientists".

For me this is from personal impression, rather than anything concrete. when I see interviews with scientists in documentaries, and they tell their anecdotes about things they observed as children, and things they observe today, and how they respond to those who see the evidence differently from themselves. I don't think I could place anything before you that would not be purely subjective on my part, and refutable in one way or another. My point is that the dismissal out of hand of anyone who disagrees with global warming as being incompetent or following an agenda is wrong. There is certainly an agenda in both directions. I think that the peer review process has merit, but it is not beyond bias, corruption and politics. Clearly (to me) Vice President Gore has an agenda beyond pure scientific inquiry or love of the environment.

 

I will stand by the statement in hopes that it brings people to look at both sides with the same jaundiced eye.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

As a contrary datapoint, check out the article, "Methane, Plants and Climate Change" in this month's SciAm (Feb07). These scientists who do seem to be convinced of global warming write an article that exposes data that says that plants produce a LOT more methane on their own than anyone ever expected. Methane is *much* worse as a greenhouse gas that CO2.

 

They did recognize this issue both because it exposed something that the current theory says is impossible (that plants produce it) as well as its impact on the Climate Change issue:

...we began to think about the consequences of our findings and how to present them to other researchers. Difficult as this discovery had been for us to accept, trying to convince our scientific peers and the public was almost impossible--in large part because we had to explain how such an important source of methane could have been overlooked for decates by the many able investigators studying methane and puzzling over climate change.

 

Bottom line of course is that while they found a new natural source, methane being pumped into the atmosphere has gone up from 233 million metric tons per year 200 years ago from plants and other natural sources to 600 million metric tons per year today, nearly half produced by man.

 

Its nice to know that that there are some honest scientists, and they get published by magazines who are on the record as supporting global-warming-warming-is-real theories, all in the name of honest and open scientific endevor.

 

I honestly don't even think "most" of them are biased, but there's no denying that there's bias out there on both sides and for sometimes nefarious reasons.

 

Hey who cut the greenhouse gas,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

The problem right now is that the peer review process itself is probably biased. Many of the top scientists in the field have a clear emotional investment in the evidence supporting their claims, and their conclusions were made before they ever entered the field of study.

 

Thats true, however, consider: if it were impossible to publish data that suggests man cannot change the climate than no "anti-global warming" scientists would exist. Scientists SURVIVE by publishing. Clearly, data can be published by both sides. If a scientists is making a claim inside his area of expertise, a claim about his research, it CERTAINLY will have been published. The real problem is that scientists with no real expertise in climate change (on both sides) often take the time to go on record with their opinions. This just obscures things. As a rule, I take only peer reviewed claims to have any substance.

 

Also, a question: the environment is clearly changing, the real question is whether its man made or not. So, why risk it? If we assume its real, and pump tons of money into alternative energy sources, and cleaner emissions, and then it turns out to be false, what have we lost? We have helped stimulate the economy by providing new, enterprising companies with start up capital. We have cut the electric bill of everyone in America (high effiecieny appliances use much less power). We have reduced dependancy on foreign oil. We have cleaner air and water in cities.

 

Now, lets say we assume its false, and then it turns out to be real. We find ourselves behind the important technology curve (every other first world country is, more or less, treating this as real). This puts us as IMPORTERS instead of exporters of crucial technology. We have possibly damaged major population centers (the biggest cities in the country seem to be on the coasts). etc. So, again, why risk it?

-Will

[TheBigDog]

Very good points, Will. I have no issue with transitioning to cleaner more efficient energy. It is an evolutionary imperative for all the good reason's that you state. So why the scare tactics then? Have you seen the commercial with the little girl in the path of the train? This is communicating "action now or certain death for the next generation". The dishonesty of campaigns like that discredit the good science that going on. According to the report just released we are past the point of stopping global warming. So the implication that doing anything right now will change things for the next generation is contradicted by others on the same side of the debate.

 

Maybe if the hyperbole were turned down a few notches we would make faster progress.

 

Bill