An Inconvenient Hype
Al Gore, environmental hero and best pal of Leo DiCaprio, is encountering some calls to pipe down, and not from the usual suspects:
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician.
Translation: he didn’t lie too much for a politician…for the record, as I think my regular readers probably already know, I am concerned about climate change and global warming. I happen to think it’s real, and a real problem (not necessarily the same thing).
But I’m quite suspicious of the zealotry the subject inspires from a certain class of progressive, and I’m quite certain that no one can be as sure as some of these environmentalists claim to be.
Has Gore done a good or a bad thing with his movie? I don’t presume to know…but my b.s. detector has a way of ringing whenever he’s around…the worst thing about the whole issue is it’s very, very hard to know who to trust: everyone seems to have an ax to grind…
Sigh…the world has been coming to an end for thousands of years, it seems.
I love how the global warming “skeptics” talk about how ridiculous it is for people to be doomsaying about the possibility of catastrophic consequences of inaction; and then they immediately turn around and say that addressing global warming will basically kill the world.
So should I be made to understand that any time a conservative decries Al Gore’s doomsaying, they’re really just saying “When’s goan be my turn?”
> Also, Andy Freeman, congratulations on comparing those who disagree with you to Nazis. I didn’t really think it’d be done, but there we are.
Fargus is too modest. He “forgets” that he’s on the side of the angels, the folks who assert that skeptics are like “Holocaust deniers”. And this time, they’re not going to wait – they’ve already decided to throw folks in jail and are just arguing over who goes first.
> Rationality abounds.
Ah yes. Fargus provides a “convincing to him” argument and when it turns out to be wrong, he trots out another, his conclusion unchanged.
The “one of the skeptics is a kook” argument is yet another example. That will be important until someone gets around to pointing out some of the believer kooks.
Science is supposed to be falsifiable. Every time his faith survives when his argument falls, he shows that the arguments don’t matter, he believes.
Save your Holocaust denier crap. I never said it, so it’s inadmissible against me.
As for my arguments turning out to be wrong, I just have to chuckle a bit at your naked presumption at how right your own arguments are, brooking no disagreement.
Fargus wrote:
> I’d like to see some peer-reviewed, evidence-backed articles about how Gore’s view is wrong.
I’d like to see some peer-reviewed, evidence based articles about how his view is RIGHT! Gore is not a scientist, and it shows. (To take just one of his particularly outrageous claims, please show me the peer-reviewed science that established that a sea level rise of 20 feet or more is in our future due to global warming.)
[Also, when I say "evidence-based," I mean based on empirical data and known physical laws, not based on computer simulations that amount to glorified curve-fitting combined with unproven positive feedback effects.]
[F]ew if any groups benefit from (for example) [policies designed to reduce global warming] – Peter
Peter, are you serious? Those who favor the status quo are not be be trusted (because their self-interest taints their opinions), while those who advocate doing something are to be trusted (because they have nothing to gain from the policies they advocate). I’ve never found it useful to try and read someone’s mind, much less their heart. Instead, I’ve always tried to focus on the the consequences of a policy rather than the motives of the various parties.
However, since you state you are unable to understand the science, let’s look at one example of someone who is advocating anti-global warming policies and see if we can identify any potential conflicts of interest. Let’s take Al Gore as our example, since he’s been in the news a lot lately. Al proposes significant changes in policy and preaches that we should all strive to be “carbon neutral” in our private lives. Possible conflicts:
1) Al founded a company that sells carbon offsets and serves on the company’s board. He stands to make a lot of money if more people buy carbon offsets.
2) Al is a politician whose signature issue is global warming. The more the public believes “something” must be done, the greater Al’s influence and power. If the issue becomes large enough, it might even sweep Al into the White House. Even if he is never elected, he will be a power broker for years to come and will have a lot of say on how any carbon tax revenues get spent.
So, Al advocates changes in policy that stand to increase his personal wealth and his power and influence in society. That does not mean he’s not a true believer. It just means that you are wrong to suggest that only those on one side of the debate have any incentives that might shape their opinion.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to focus on the consequences of a policy than the motivations of advocates. However, if a research group funded by Philip Morris tells you that tobacco really isn’t so bad — as was the case for years — then I think you have a good reason to be skeptical. Similarly, if a research group which gets funding from automotive companies tells you that global warming is no big deal, then I think you also have good reason to be skeptical.
Are all advocates of a deliberate approach to the global warming issue pawns of industries who can benefit from the status quo (oil, coal, auto, manufacturing, etc.)? Of course not — but many are. I’ve seen enough advocates on television who, when pressed for the companies which support their “research institute,” reveal that there are self-interested parties funding them. I have no doubt there are sincere scientists who have no self-interest involved who think global warming is a hoax.
Is this proof positive that global warming is the absolute truth and those who deny it are all imposters? Not at all — but it is a doubt creator and a reason to be skeptical.
As for Al Gore: your point is well taken. However, he was a big proponent of doing something about global warming when it wasn’t cool to do so, and his was a fairly lonely voice about the issue. Healso opposed the war from the get-go, when war opponents were routinely castigated as traitors, terrorist sympathizers, pacifists, and worse. Whether you agree or disagree with him, it’s hard to doubt his sincerity. So I would consider the ancillary benefits which he may accrue to be mostly irrelevant to the veracity of his claims.
> I just have to chuckle a bit at your naked presumption at how right your own arguments are, brooking no disagreement.
Um, I haven’t made any arguments. (Arguments involve data and proofs.)
> Save your Holocaust denier crap. I never said it, so it’s inadmissible against me.
Actually it is. The claim was that a Nazi “correlation” was somehow novel. Now we find that Fargus was well aware of it being used by his co-believers.
He could have complained that such references were wrong no matter who made them. Instead he suggested that they were a new feature, something that he’s now admitted was false.
Fargus doesn’t need me to stick up for him, but Andy, this Holocaust denier stuff is just out of place here. Let’s keep the Nazi references to a minimum, shall we?…Or shall we just give up debate and cave to Godwin’s Law?