Should British school children be warned of the bias in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth?

Question

In February, the U.K. Government decided that all British school children should be forced to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, without any warnings about how exaggerated and one-sided the film is.

A British judge has just ruled that they must be given such a warning. (See... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811 )

He has stated that the film *does* promote "partisan political views", and that children should be warned that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

Global Warming Alarmists say that An Inconvenient Truth ‘got the basic fact right’, but if the rest of the film is now officially labelled as promoting a political agenda can we finally agree that the film is *not* to be recommended as a good source of information regarding climate change?

Comments?

Answer 1

Obviously, children should not be force fed propaganda even with warnings. The fact that it needs warnings should be reason enough to bar it from discussion. Since it is not about science, it should not be included in science related classes. Perhaps it might be appropriate for mythology or religion under similar warnings.

Answer 2

READ THE FULL DECISION, not a biased newspaper article. Available here:



http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/87ffb8db671bf175?



The plaintiffs asked that the film be banned. The judge denied them and said it could be shown provided that it was explained that SOME things in the film were political, something necessary because of strict English laws. He specifically found that:



"The following is clear: i) [the movie] is substantially founded upon scientific research"



"These propositions [that global warming is mostly due to man, is dangerous, and can be fixed by man], Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists."



"It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils."



"I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."



There were some relatively minor points the judge found inadequate proof for (not that they were wrong), but the full decision makes it clear he found the film basically correct. As do scientists.



http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

Answer 3

Admittedly, it's been a long time since i saw the film, but I don't remember it being "partisan", in the definition that brings to mind party politics. rather they might have meant a less commonly thought of def. along the lines of "a fervent and even militant proponent of something." ...meaning only to remind people that while his (Gore's) views are supported by many in the scientific community, they are not to be taught as ardent facts at this time, because there is not a relatively full consensus on that.

"partisan political views" only implies that the film is designed to support his (gore's) arguments, and is not intended to be a representation of ALL sides of the issue. This does not detract from its value, or the credibility of its information. It is still a good source of information, particularly if you want to know about what "Global Warming Alarmists," or other groups that take similar standpoints view, theorize, conclude, or understand when talking about global warming.

The government in the U.K. would simply like people to realize that they do not consider it the only view, just a good representation of 1 view. ...1 view that they still consider worth distributing at this time.

Answer 4

I think its possible that global warming is not a result of rising CO2 levels caused by humans over the last 100 years or so, but a result of natural changes in the sun. There are plenty of scientists who have shown evidence for this theory which clearly shows that Gore's information is not as accurate as he would have us believe.



Children should learn as many points of view as is possible, only then will they be able to make advances in future science.

Answer 5

I think it's a bit ridiculous. According to the article:



"This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film."



Of course there are other opinions. There are differing opinions on every issue. Should teachers have to specify that not everyone agrees with the evolutionary theory, or that there are people who think the Holocaust didn't happen, just because "there are other opinions" about those issues?



Fact is that the film did get the basic science right, so it's a decent teaching aid for that purpose (teaching the basics of global warming science). I think it would be good if there were an accompanying discussion of the likelihood of the various scenarios depicted in the film (i.e. the Greenland Ice Sheet probably won't melt for such-and-such number of years), but to have some generic warning that there are other views just seems totally useless.



If you're wary of the content, then discuss the content.



*edit* You're wrong. The IPCC estimates do not take into account feedbacks or the possibility of land ice melting prior to 2100. That's the scenario Gore discusses, but he doesn't put a timeline on it, so he's correct.



The film is accurate enough for climate scientists, Nobel Laureates, and the Nobel Prize award committee. But I'm sure you're smarter than all of them.

Answer 6

If your aim is to have your child becomes proficient in studying equally money and lowercase letters. Then you will require this system, Children Learning Reading from here https://tr.im/D8ahH .

Children Learning Reading teaches your child phonemes so they've a truly solid foundation in the abilities that may allow them to go on to be a prolific reader. With Children Learning Reading will also centers around developing on the skills learned allowing your child to take their examining abilities to another location level.

With Children Learning Reading is simple to show your son or daughter how exactly to read.

Answer 7

Far too often schools go into the realm of programming opinions verses providing fact and allowing students to develop their own opinion.



A Calif textbook said that the Chinese were weaving silk into fine textiles while Europeans were living in caves. Give me a break! Give them the truth.



Smart judge.

Answer 8

Here is a good link where you can download winrar for here: http://bit.ly/1BooiXa



You can use winrar to decompress zip files and a bunch of other formats. Other good programs are 7zip and winzip but in my opinion winrar is the best one. Fuctionalities are pretty similar for all programs: basically you can decompress a file simply by right-clicking it and by choosing the destination folder.



Winrar is available for free under a trial licence. The good thing is the trial period never ends so you can use it for free with no limitations.



Winrar opens all formats like .zip, .rar, .7z, .iso, .tar, .jar etc. That's why I recommend it.

Answer 9

I have not seen the film.



It is a huge leap to go from 'promote partisan political views' to not recommend it as a good source of information. 'Promoting a partisan political' view could refer to no more than one sentence, and I't's the way the law works that this is taken account of.



The judge passed no judgement on the accuracy of any information, contrary to Stuart Dimmock's claims of inaccuracy.



In fact it is only the partisan political view which is the subject of the ruling, perhaps the judge is suggesting that Zack Goldsmith may have a better plan for combatting climate change.



For those from the US, The Daily Mail is THE right wing, idiot, axe grinding paper and indicates the validitity of anyone's argument who reads and quotes from it.



Listening does not take place unluss you are willing to be affected by what you hear.

.

Answer 10

Do womens magazines come with a warning on that they will make you feel ugly?



Do advertisements come with a warning that they play on false emotions and that materialism and consumption will not lead to happiness?



I encourage debate on this but I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the irony that the 'Daily Mail' is leading on this - the right-wing, facist paper that spurts 'Single Mothers Cause Cancer' and other such offences. A 'good source of information'??

Answer 11

1

Answer 12

I use Winrar. This a good link to download it http://bit.ly/1p3Pd1d

WinRar is the software you need to decompress all kind of compressed files, documents or folders.

Answer 13

If children have to watch an inconvenient truth they they should also have to watch the great global warming swindle.

Answer 14

It's equivalent to requiring that school children also be exposed to Exxon and BP propaganda, somewhat like requiring they be exposed to the concept of 6000 year old T. Rex fossils.

Answer 15

Sure. People should know that the reason why Algore used animated polar bears is because the real ones are doing just fine and are not in trouble. They should be aware that there are other graphical enhancements that make the weather worse than it really was.



Anything short of full disclosure is propaganda.

Answer 16

Yes. In fact, they should see both sides of the issue.

Answer 17

There has to be a better way of teaching children about global warming. Gores film is nothing but a fear tactic designed to make him money.

Answer 18

I believe that children from British schools as well as children from any other schools should be kept away and protected against any politics.

Answer 19

Not as long as it's bundled with the Toxic Avenger. They're both as realistic.

Answer 20

Yes they should, becasue they should know that the movie is not the whole truth and that it is propaganda.

Answer 21

I don't know. But I would highly recommend a turkey sandwich and this movie to cure insomnia.

Answer 22

probably, but what does it matter, all politicians lie for their own benefit. Al gore invented the internet and Global Warming. I think he should have a warning lable on his forhead that says "Warning: may spout dangerous lies for own benifit!"

Answer 23

no they shouldnt have to watch a movie based on lies.

Answer 24

Yeah

Answer 25

Of course they should. Al Gore was indeed promoting a partisan agenda with his film.

Answer 26

should there be a warning everytime bush opens his mouth stating



"views and opinions expressed are not consistent with those of the American People, nor do they make logical, economical, or intellectual sense. Please Ignore the following"

Answer 27

BULL. It frightens me the way Republicans think they can explain away the horrible things we are doing to our planet. Have fun drowning polar bears.

.

Answer 28

What bias?



Are you biased against him?

Answer 29

This reminds me of the creationism "debate" in the US.



Evolution directly confronts the established dogma. Theists have been trying to get around the theory for 150 years. Their most recent tack is to invent creation "science" and claim it deserves equal time. They have tried to have disclaimers inserted in the preface of biology textbooks, and have creationism included with the science curriculum. Smart juries have seen through this in Kansas and recently Chester Pennsylvania.



The Global Warming theory directly confronts the established dogma of the capitalists and cornucopian economists. Despite your protests to the contrary, the film is entirely apolitical. Your camp manufactures the politics exactly because it is a threat to the established dogma.



When you say the ends justify the means - yes exactly - the "denialists" will go to any length to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Are radical environmentalists guilty of the same sin? Yes. But we are not talking about radicals. We are talking about the mainstream scientific community.



Start with the premise that the Earth is finite. If we don't stop populating and polluting eventually resources will run out and the biosphere will be damaged to the point that it will no longer regenerate. No matter how much you or I wish it were not so, how much you believe we can somehow circumvent the limits, how much you believe someone will come and save us before its too late, every bit of objective science in existence today only reinforces the fact that we are bound to and by the environment we live in. If you don't understand this or "believe" it, I would say that you are either willfully ignorant or pitifully dogmatic.



And if the alarmists are wrong, we will not have diverted resources for nothing. We will have solved one of the most intractable problems of our age - how to move beyond the age of petroleum and into the age of renewable energy.



The theory of Natural Selection has only become more robust with time, now has applications throughout science, and may be one of the most profound scientific concepts ever discovered. A theory of Global Ecology will come to be seen as another great scientific discovery. We must begin to live within the bounds of the natural systems on which we depend, or we will suffer the consequences. Todays alarmists, far from being discredited and marginalized in 30 years, will be chastised for not being vocal enough while we still had time.



Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide pollution. Explain to me how it is benign to release millions of years of stored carbon in the space of 150 years?



***



“The concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by man has risen significantly during the historical record and it is absolutely known (by reproducible, verifiable lab experiments on the physical properties of these gases) that these gases cause warming by absorbing the outgoing radiation from the earth. The skeptics have not produced any evidence that this rise in the greenhouse gas concentrations occurred by some natural process and they have also failed to explain how all the industrial emissions could have been absorbed by some natural process during the recent historical period. There is no way to explain the observed greenhouse gas concentrations without human interference, and there is no credible way to claim that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused a warming of the Earth’s surface. While there are other natural processes at work and while the climate system is highly complex, trying to discount the role of human involvement in recent climate change is speculation and opinion, not science.” - Asher Siebert.



***



*****



Earth Policy Institute

Plan B 2.0 Book Byte

For Immediate Release

October 2, 2007



THE NATURE OF THE NEW WORLD



http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB2ch01_ss2.htm



Lester R. Brown



We recently entered a new century, but we are also entering a new world, one where the collisions between our demands and the earth's capacity to satisfy them are becoming daily events. It may be another crop-withering heat wave, another village abandoned because of invading sand dunes, or another aquifer pumped dry. If we do not act quickly to reverse the trends, these seemingly isolated events will occur more and more frequently, accumulating and combining to determine our future.



Resources that accumulated over eons of geological time are being consumed in a single human lifespan. We are crossing natural thresholds that we cannot see and violating deadlines that we do not recognize. These deadlines, determined by nature, are not politically negotiable.



Nature has many thresholds that we discover only when it is too late. In our fast-forward world, we learn that we have crossed them only after the fact, leaving little time to adjust. For example, when we exceed the sustainable catch of a fishery, the stocks begin to shrink. Once this threshold is crossed, we have a limited time in which to back off and lighten the catch. If we fail to meet this deadline, breeding populations shrink to where the fishery is no longer viable, and it collapses.



We know from earlier civilizations that the lead indicators of economic decline were environmental, not economic. The trees went first, then the soil, and finally the civilization itself. To archeologists, the sequence is all too familiar.



Our situation today is far more challenging because in addition to shrinking forests and eroding soils, we must deal with falling water tables, more frequent crop-withering heat waves, collapsing fisheries, expanding deserts, deteriorating rangelands, dying coral reefs, melting glaciers, rising seas, more-powerful storms, disappearing species, and, soon, shrinking oil supplies. Although these ecologically destructive trends have been evident for some time, and some have been reversed at the national level, not one has been reversed at the global level.



The bottom line is that the world is in what ecologists call an "overshoot-and-collapse" mode. Demand has exceeded the sustainable yield of natural systems at the local level countless times in the past. Now, for the first time, it is doing so at the global level. Forests are shrinking for the world as a whole. Fishery collapses are widespread. Grasslands are deteriorating on every continent. Water tables are falling in many countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions exceed CO2 sequestration.



In 2002, a team of scientists led by Mathis Wackernagel, who now heads the Global Footprint Network, concluded that humanity's collective demands first surpassed the earth's regenerative capacity around 1980. Their study, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, estimated that global demands in 1999 exceeded that capacity by 20 percent. The gap, growing by 1 percent or so a year, is now much wider. We are meeting current demands by consuming the earth's natural assets, setting the stage for decline and collapse.



In a rather ingenious approach to calculating the human physical presence on the planet, Paul MacCready, the founder and Chairman of AeroVironment and designer of the first solar-powered aircraft, has calculated the weight of all vertebrates on the land and in the air. He notes that when agriculture began, humans, their livestock, and pets together accounted for less than 0.1 percent of the total. Today, he estimates, this group accounts for 98 percent of the earth's total vertebrate biomass, leaving only 2 percent for the wild portion, the latter including all the deer, wildebeests, elephants, great cats, birds, small mammals, and so forth.



Ecologists are intimately familiar with the overshoot-and-collapse phenomenon. One of their favorite examples began in 1944, when the Coast Guard introduced 29 reindeer on remote St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea to serve as the backup food source for the 19 men operating a station there. After World War II ended a year later, the base was closed and the men left the island. When U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist David Kline visited St. Matthew in 1957, he discovered a thriving population of 1,350 reindeer feeding on the thick mat of lichen that covered the 332-square-kilometer (128-square-mile) island. In the absence of any predators, the population was exploding. By 1963, it had reached 6,000. He returned to St. Matthew in 1966 and discovered an island strewn with reindeer skeletons and not much lichen. Only 42 of the reindeer survived: 41 females and 1 not entirely healthy male. There were no fawns. By 1980 or so, the remaining reindeer had died off.



Like the deer on St. Matthew Island, we too are overconsuming our natural resources. Overshoot leads sometimes to decline and sometimes to a complete collapse. It is not always clear which it will be. In the former, a remnant of the population or economic activity survives in a resource-depleted environment. For example, as the environmental resource base of Easter Island in the South Pacific deteriorated, its population declined from a peak of 20,000 several centuries ago to today's population of fewer than 4,000. In contrast, the 500-year-old Norse settlement in Greenland collapsed during the 1400s, disappearing entirely in the face of environmental adversity.



Even as the global population is climbing and the economy's environmental support systems are deteriorating, the world is pumping oil with reckless abandon. Leading geologists now think oil production may soon peak and turn downward. Although no one knows exactly when oil production will peak, supply is already lagging behind demand, driving prices upward.



Faced with a seemingly insatiable demand for automotive fuel, farmers will want to clear more and more of the remaining tropical forests to produce sugarcane, oil palms, and other high-yielding biofuel crops. Already, billions of dollars of private capital are moving into this effort. In effect, the rising price of oil is generating a massive new threat to the earth's biological diversity.



As the demand for farm commodities climbs, it is shifting the focus of international trade concerns from the traditional goal of assured access to markets to one of assured access to supplies. Countries heavily dependent on imported grain for food are beginning to worry that buyers for fuel distilleries may outbid them for supplies. As oil security deteriorates, so, too, will food security.



As the role of oil recedes, the process of globalization will be reversed in fundamental ways. As the world turned to oil during the last century, the energy economy became increasingly globalized, with the world depending heavily on a handful of countries in the Middle East for energy supplies. Now as the world turns to wind, solar cells, and geothermal energy in this century, we are witnessing the localization of the world energy economy.



The world is facing the emergence of a geopolitics of scarcity, which is already highly visible in the efforts by China, India, and other developing countries to ensure their access to oil supplies. In the future, the issue will be who gets access to not only Middle Eastern oil but also Brazilian ethanol and North American grain. Pressures on land and water resources, already excessive in most of the world, will intensify further as the demand for biofuels climbs. This geopolitics of scarcity is an early manifestation of civilization in an overshoot-and-collapse mode, much like the one that emerged among the Mayan cities competing for food in that civilization's waning years.



You do not need to be an ecologist to see that if recent environmental trends continue, the global economy eventually will come crashing down. It is not knowledge that we lack. At issue is whether national governments can stabilize population and restructure the economy before time runs out.



# # #



Adapted from Chapter 1, "Entering a New World," in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), available on-line at www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB2/index.htm



Additional information at www.earthpolicy.org

Answer 30

no.

Answer 31

In your own comments following the question, and in the answers there appears to be a lot of conflation of two issues: the science in Al Gore's movie and the political opinions voiced in his film. As far as I can see the judge has only firmly ruled on one of these issues - the political issue, yet the article does seem to be low on facts. For instance, what part of Al Gore's movie is politically partisan? Vague accusations like this are not very useful. Accepting the science as correct, is it that controversial to argue that we probably need to take action to mitigate the effects of global warming? Is the alternative to Al Gore's position a simple "do nothing", or is it more subtle? Is there some policy aimed at reducing CO2 emissions that his critics would advocate, perhaps, Chuda, you'd be happier to just let the market fix the problem? These are genuine questions that need to be answered.



What are the other mainstream alternatives to Al Gore's political solutions? ie. what are the other policy suggestions from those accepting AGW which should be shown to children?



Aside from CEI's non-scientific opinion does any credible criticism of the science in AIT exist? I can think of two points where he could be criticised for not making things clearer, but on the whole he got the science right. If you look at the IPCC's fourth report it paints an equally compelling case to take action to mitigate the problems:



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html



I genuinely feel that we should be showing children documentaries made by scientists, perhaps then we could remove the asserted "bias".



It would be nice to see some answers to some of my questions, but nevermind. RE: final para. I think that we should have a movie made by scientists which tells the science like it is, just like the IPCC report I linked to. I think by doing this any of this politically motivated criticism could then be washed away. The problem is that the science is unequivocally telling us that our actions are going to make the world a less pleasant place to live in. The political question is whether to act or not (and how), but given the picture painted by the IPCC, and it's supporting science, you'd have to be a odd kind of political operator to look that in the face, ignore it and arrive at the conclusion that we should take no action. You will never escape the political link between the science in the journals, in the IPCC reports and their political implications simply because the message in the science is clear, continued emission of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures and the associated problems. My point, a movie made by scientists about the science is not going to help your position or your denialist friends at CEI, it will only serve to crystallise in the minds of the public the fact that we are facing a problem.



Oh, another point, in my final paragraph I inserted the word "asserted", hoping that this would show that this wasn't my opinion. You, and Dimmock, are the ones asserting that there is a bias and inaccuracies.



----------------



You've picked up on a very good point with regard to sea level rise, and this was one of my points with regard to scientific problems. Al Gore is quite explicit in stating that 20 feet of sea level rise would result from the melting of Greenland. What he didn't mention how long this would take i.e. 100s if not a thousand years. The IPCC's estimates are based on scenarios for the next 100 years only. You can't compare the two, but you can legitimately state that Al Gore should have clarified that Greenland isn't going to melt in the next 100 years. I've been examining melt data of ice sheets recently and apparently thins are melting faster than the IPCC anticipated due to unforseen ice sheet dynamics.



To put Al Gore's point regarding Greenland in a wider context, yes, Greenland will melt if we take no action to curb our emissions and we will see 20 feet of sea level rise, but this may take hundreds of years. This doesn't make it any less of a problem in my eyes. OK, we are not looking at a catastrophe (do you agree that 20 feet of sea level rise in 100 years would a catastrophe? It doesn't look like a picnic), but we are looking at significant problems and issues that future generations will have to deal with (if we take no action).



----------------



RE: polar bears. Your source is apparently selective and ignores the fact that half o the polar bear populations (of the exisintg 13) are in fact declining. Half are doing fine. But drowned polar bears are appearing for the first time on record in amongst the declining population groups.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/521451.stm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Threats_natural_and_unnatural

--------



RE: 20 feet of sea level rise. Your central thesis rests on an estimate of current sea level rise obtained from who knows where. 20 ft = 6100 mm.



If you look at the satellite altimetry measurements of sea level rise:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise



you can see that the actual rate of increase is 3.1 mm per year (since 1993). Which places your estimate for the timescale of change at a factor of ten too high. In fact if you look at the wiki sea level page you can see that it discusses the IPCC's estimates in detail which can also be viewed in here:



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch04.pdf



The range of possible sea level rise includes an upper limit which goes up to 770 mm per century. This upper limit is easily fast enough to achieve 20 ft of sea level rise within 1000 years. I see this as being an issue of concern, so why was Al Gore wong to point it out. The IPCC even talks about what would happen to sea level if Greenland melts, one rule for Al Gore and one for scientists?



And may I highlight this extract from page 361. "Until recently (including IPCC, 2001), it was assumed that velocities of these outlet glaciers and ice streams cannot change rapidly, and impacts of climate change were estimated primarily as changes in snowfall and surface melting. Recent observations show that outlet glacier and ice stream speeds can change rapidly, for reasons that are still under investigation. Consequently, this assessment will not

adequately quantify such effects."



Thus, the estimates in the wiki page on sea level (including 770 mm per century) do not include these unquantified icesheet dynamics. I have read several papers recently pointing out that ice sheets are melting at the fringes far quicker than the upper IPCC estimates. And thus, I see no problem with mentioning that we might be facing an imporant problem and issue of large scale sea level rise. Well done to Al Gore for mentioning it, but as I said, he should have made it clear what the minimum possible timescale was, but does even that make it any less of a problem. I would urge you to read the IPCC reportand the recent scientific literature on current ice sheet dynamics which simply counters the misinformation being peddled by CEI on this issue.



You should also be aware that there is enough coal, tar sands and shale oil to raise CO2 concentrations up well above 1500 ppm. That would appear to be two and half doublings of CO2 which equates to a temperature of rise of about 7.5 oC based on a climate sensitivity of 3oC per CO2 doubling. Can you really carry on asserting that Greenland won't ever melt? In a world deplted of standard oil sources coal processing is going to look mighty attractive if we haven't created the market conditions to develop alternatives.



----------------



RE: hurricanes. You can not attribute a single weather event (including hurricanes) to global warming. That is not possible. You can attribute trends in climate and weather events to global warming if you understand the fundamental processes causing those events. You ought to be aware of two facts which have been highlighted in recent publications regarding hurricane behaviour:



* Hurricanes intensity has increased during the last 30 years.



* Hurricane frequency has increased during the 20 th C.



Hurricanes are known to be spawned by warm sea surface temps (SSTs). Hurricanes have been observed to increase in intensity rapidly when they pass over warmer water. Given that SSTs have risen in this same period there is plausible linkage between hurricanes and global warming. Thus, citing hurricanes as being an issue spawned by AGW is not dishonest, it merely reporting the facts at hand. I can't say for sure what Al Gore said regards to Katrina, but if he didn't directly attribute it, I see no issue.



With regard to your conclusions, I strongly disagree. AIT should contain a warning saying that there are other political opinions on AGW, but the science in it is sound. You can only arrive at a conclusion that it isn't sound by selectively reading CEI publications and ignoring reports published by scientists and the IPCC. I say again, a movie made by scientists reflecting current science and observations is not going to help your cause and paint a rosier picture.



-------------



News just in, the judge has ruled that there are 9 scientific errors in AIT.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm



They think that the 20 ft claim is over the top and I have to agree that if Al Gore said "in the near future" then that was wrong. However, the judge reckons it would take millenia (you rckon it won't ever happen), and the latest evidence is showing that it might happen within 1000 years ie. within a millenium - singular. Gore has used imprecise qualitative language, when he should have presented the plausible timescales. Again, my main point, would a film reflecting the latest science help you or Dimmock?



RE: drowned polar bears, so there were only four of them, that is still unprecedented and the evidence is showing that some polar bear populations are declining.



More info:



It turns out that there is some misrepresentationgoing around about the scientific errors. Apparently Burton is only talking about the nine alledged 'errors', have a look:



http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php#more



-----------



No need to spit the dummy. You can read the IPCC report for yourself to get more information about the rate of sea level rise, I have linked to it above. If you choose to ignore the upper limits in the report, and the specific mention that these upper limits simply don't include non linear ice sheet dynamics, then so be it, but that is what the report says. You should be aware that current ice sheet melt in Greenland and the Antarctic pennisula is occurring at a faster rate than the IPCC are considering. Again take it or leave, but unless you show me some evidence to the contrary I am not going to change my mind that a rise of 20 feet within 1000 years is possible. Reading the report and current science shows this. Saying that Greenland will melt if it gets warmer isn't that controversial either, it will melt if it gets warm enough. Disproof by incredulity doesn't cut it.



-------------



Polar bears. The BBC link describes a study carried out by Canadian polar bear experts, again this is just what the data is showing. I agree that not all polar bears are in trouble, but some populations are. Quickly scanning the literature I can see that there are several reports of the worsening condition and decline within 4 polar bear populations in and around Northern Canada. Couple this with the news reports of direct studies of their numbers and you get a different picture to the one that you advocate; I say again, some polar bear populations are increasing in populations, and some are declining. It would be cherry picking to only select one dataset. Have a look at the IPCC working group 2 report and look at page 668 onwards. Linky:



http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/15.pdf



------------



Hurricanes. Try this wrt to hurricane frequency (it's an extract of the study I hinted at):



http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-hurricane-paper-of-what-promises.html



Webster has also identified the upward trend in hurricane intensity. Given the causal link between SST and hurricanes, and given these trends it really isn't odd to link hurricanes to AGW. More study is required, yes, but the evidence shows we should be concerned. For the IPCC's take try this:



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch03.pdf



on page 304 onwards.



----------------



To clarify, and to end this discussion, I would like to say that Al Gore's movie should be sent out with the warning that some polar bear populations are doing fine, whereas some are not; that Greenland may well melt (according to the IPCC) but this could take any where between ~800 and several thousand years; and that hurricane trends show x and y but you can't link a single hurricane to AGW and that the link between the two isn't certain yet. These caveats aren't controversial and are in fact supported by the IPCC....you should try reading the report some time.



-------------



Given that your latest post has taken on a distinctly personal note, can I add that it must take some cheek to call me insane given the fact that you rarely take the time to provide evidence or links (save for CEI), you haven't taken the effort to read the IPCC report which contains information relating to this discussion and you have been caught on numerous occasions either cherry picking evidence or misrepresenting / misreading evidence....some cheek.



---------------------



Finally, do you honestly think that the IPCC position doesn't paint a worrying picture? You seem to be advocating that AIT is biased and wrong and that the IPCC report is correct. Fair enough, but I can't understand why you seem to be against taking action if you agree with everything in the IPCC reports. Could you explain in the thread I started up.



----------



Regarding cherry picking and misrepresentations the more frequent and observant posters here will not have missed it even you did. How about this example regarding recent warming which is unabated despite (yet again...sigh) your claims (without a shred of credible evidence save some cherry picking) to the contrary:



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071005140628AAQqHcG&show=7#profile-info-g6axaIcUaa



Why not bother to look at the whole dataset?



http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/lsst.jpg



Please desist in making this false claim.