Al Gore, wrong again.

Hi Brit,

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the glacier melting scene from Al Gore’s propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Well, it turns out that the Global Warming alarmist wasn’t telling the whole truth:

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Experts question theory on global warming

It appears that the Climate Change fanatics have been cherry picking the data they consider, and not bothering to mention that not all glaciers show signs of melting or behave in consistent ways.  Of course, that would make the theory easier to support and, as a minor benefit, keep billions of dollars in research funding poring into the coffers of an otherwise minor area of science. 

the Grit

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Al Gore, wrong again.”

  1. reasic Says:

    Hey, “the Grit”. I’m curious as to what your purpose here is. Are you attempting to disprove anthropogenic global warming by presenting this study?

    The new IPCC report actually does not account for these glacial changes, and specifically because they are not very well understood as of yet.

    EurekAlert:

    In the summary for policy makers , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained its position saying, “Dynamical processes related to ice flow and not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude.”

    Also, if I’m understanding it correctly, this study does not suggest that the glaciers are not melting. It only says that the rate of retreat is not constant, which still means that they are retreating.

    So, while we may not be able to accurately predict the rate of sea level rise due to changes in glacial systems, we can still count on the rate estimated by the IPCC in AR4, plus whatever amount is conrtibuted by the glaciers, right?

    Would it also be correct to say that Al Gore’s movie accurately described the glacial melting as it was known at the time that the movie was made? This report was only recently released, right?

  2. britandgrit Says:

    Hi reasic,

    The purpose is, besides expressing my exasperation at the frantic rush of politicians to grab more power by jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, is to point out that the science on this issue is still in the guessing stage. Several time a week, most weeks, I find items expressing concerns over different parts of the “consensus” view of the science. I also find a consistent trend of glossing over any inconsistencies, both from the media and from individuals. This, being paranoid by nature, disturbs me.

    You, for instance, have skipped over the other article that shows the glaciers in India are not melting. I, and the Brit, have pointed out many distinguished scientists in the field who have different opinions on the subject, yet these are shouted down as “deniers.” It’s always been my experience that when scientists resort to calling people who challenge their views names, it really is an appropriate time to examine the “science” behind the arguments with extra scrutiny.

    Moving on, I would point out that having a political partisan such as Al Gore pushing the cause of Global Warming with a propaganda movie, does not reassure me in the least.

    As to the IPCC, you should hunt up their response to the question of how the summary could be written in advance of the actual report. Their spokes person indicated that it was no problem as the actual report would be altered to conform to the summary. That, I must say, truly makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

    Finally, my biggest concern is that the full implications of the rush to accept Global Warming and change the course of human development are not being discussed in public. All we get, as the general public, is “if we don’t screw you over now we’ll all die.” No one seems inclined to mention that, if we accept the new restrictions on development to limit greenhouse gases and cattle farts and such, hundreds of millions of people are going to die from disease and starvation as modernization in undeveloped countries stalls. While some may have enough pseudo-religious zeal to rush head long into this without considering every aspect of the situation, personally, I am not that ready to kill people because it’s not politically correct to not take the advice of nameless scientists.

    Oh, I forgot to mention that the “climate scientists” on whos’ collective expert opinion all of this is based, are not even respected enough to be given full credit in the IPCC reports. All that is given is first initials and a last name. No degrees, no way to check them out. I have yet to read a scientific article anywhere else where this is the case.

    Thus, I choose not to blindly follow the herd.

    the Grit

  3. reasic Says:

    Hmmm…. No offense, but it seems that you’ve not specifically addressed my questions. I do, however, appreciate your overview of concerns about climate science, as I have not discussed this issue with you before. I do have some questions for you about your concerns, if you have the time:

    1. “my exasperation at the frantic rush of politicians to grab more power by jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon…”

    How does “jumping on the global warming bandwagon” give a politician “more power”?

    2. “…the science on this issue is still in the guessing stage.”

    I think there’s a big difference between a “guessing stage”, which implies absolutely no logic or reasoning to the science, and at least 90% certainty among scientists. Would you agree that “guessing stage” is a misrepresentation of the current state of climate science?

    3. ” Several time a week, most weeks, I find items expressing concerns over different parts of the “consensus” view of the science.”

    Where do you find these items that express concerns? Are they from scientists? Are they published in peer-reviewed journals?

    4. “I also find a consistent trend of glossing over any inconsistencies, both from the media and from individuals.”

    Could you provide some examples of inconsistencies that are glossed over? Is it that they are glossed over, or are they explained, using scientific evidence?

    5. ” This, being paranoid by nature, disturbs me.”

    I find it interesting that you bring up being paranoid, because that’s how I interpret many of the skeptics’ arguments. There seems to be an unnatural distrust of anything mainstream, consensus, or global (UN), just for the simple fact of what they are, rather than the actual validity of the arguments. Just an observation.

    6. “You, for instance, have skipped over the other article that shows the glaciers in India are not melting.”

    I did not skip over it. I will agree that I skimmed it, but I did not address it simply because I do not see how the few Indian glaciers that have been studied not melting debunks prevailing climate science theory. I’m not discrediting anyone’s work here. I’m just pointing out that the first study is not supportive of an argument against global warming and I didn’t mention the second, because I don’t see how it affects anything. The main threat of global warming is not that glaciers are melting, and glaciers melting is not the main proof of global warming.

    7. “I, and the Brit, have pointed out many distinguished scientists in the field who have different opinions on the subject, yet these are shouted down as ‘deniers.'”

    I would be careful here to be sure that you’re not ignoring what may actually be a substantive argument against the findings of the particular scientist that you espouse, THEN followed by the “denier” claim. I’ve run into the same problem that you are complaining of here, but in the next step of the argument. Many times I have been presented with a skeptical argument, and after I spend a lot of time researching the data to come up with a substantive argument against the one presented to me, my argument is completely ignored, and I am accused of ignoring their argument and dismissing their scientist as a “denier”. It’s kind of ironic how that works sometimes.

    8. “It’s always been my experience that when scientists resort to calling people who challenge their views names, it really is an appropriate time to examine the “science” behind the arguments with extra scrutiny.”

    I agree 100%. Just make sure that the name-calling is not a direct result of a preceding thorough review of the facts, followed by a rejection of logic by the skeptic. That said, I agree that name-calling gets us nowhere, which is why I try not to do that. I may occasionally use terms like “doubter” or “skeptic”, but they are only meant to be descriptions of the views held by the person I’m referring to, rather than some derogatory terms.

    9. “Moving on, I would point out that having a political partisan such as Al Gore pushing the cause of Global Warming with a propaganda movie, does not reassure me in the least.”

    First of all, I do not subscribe to prominent global warming theory because of Al Gore or any other politician or famous person either. However, neither does any particular person’s involvement in a certain movement deter me from joining that movement, simply because of their involvement. For instance, I know that people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are against the Iraq War, but that doesn’t deter me from making my own decision about the war based on the facts that are available, which I have done. So, while it may not reassure you, please do not let it deter you.

    10. “As to the IPCC, you should hunt up their response to the question of how the summary could be written in advance of the actual report. Their spokes person indicated that it was no problem as the actual report would be altered to conform to the summary. That, I must say, truly makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.”

    I’ve seen the IPCC’s response, but the one I saw didn’t say anything about writing the summary after the report. I’ve also hunted down the IPCC procedures for putting out their report. Here are a couple of quotes:

    Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. These changes shall be identified by the Lead Authors in writing and made available to the Panel at the time it is asked to accept the Summary for Policymakers, in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the end of the session of the Panel which adopts/accepts the report.

    The Summaries for Policymakers should be prepared concurrently with the preparation of the main Reports.

    Approval of the Summary for Policymakers at the Session of the Working Group, signifies that it is consistent with the factual material contained in the full scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment or Special Report accepted by the Working Group. Coordinating lead authors may be asked to provide technical assistance in ensuring that consistency has been achieved.

    I see your concern, but it’s routed in a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. The summary was not written before the report – they were written and finalized together. The summary was released before the report. There’s a big difference. The report has not been released because it will be released in book form, which requires a much longer publishing time. There is no time for substantive editing. The idea that one must conform to the other is taken from these procedures, which simply state that the two must agree. This is another skeptical conspiracy theory that is not based on fact.

    11. “Finally, my biggest concern is that the full implications of the rush to accept Global Warming and change the course of human development are not being discussed in public.”

    If not in public, where should this discussion be held? Do you not want any say in what is going to happen. I think what you are interpreting as a vast conspiracy is in reality only an attempt to inform and educate the public about what is happening and what they can do to help. It’s not as alarmist as you make it sound, and exaggerating the claims that have been made does not contribute to the debate. It only confuses the issue.

    12. “No one seems inclined to mention that, if we accept the new restrictions on development to limit greenhouse gases and cattle farts and such, hundreds of millions of people are going to die from disease and starvation as modernization in undeveloped countries stalls. While some may have enough pseudo-religious zeal to rush head long into this without considering every aspect of the situation, personally, I am not that ready to kill people because it’s not politically correct to not take the advice of nameless scientists.”

    This is what I was just talking about. There are several baseless claims made here, which do not contribute to the debate and do not help you and I or any passer by become any more educated on the subject. Is your intent to learn, educate, or confuse? I would like to see the serious proposals to cut down on cattle flatulence or that would result in death.

    The other problem I have with this is that you are a skeptic who is jumping into the debate about what to do about global warming. How can you possibly honestly evaluate the possibilities for mitigating a problem that you don’t believe exists? I mean, you can do what you want, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t. I’m just suggesting that you focus on step one, which is agreeing that global warming is happening. If you don’t agree with that, you can’t possibly accept that we’re the cause. And if you don’t believe that, you surely can’t agree that there’s anything we can or should do about it, no matter what the proposal is, but especially not if it might require any sacrifice on your part.

    13. “Oh, I forgot to mention that the “climate scientists” on whos’ collective expert opinion all of this is based, are not even respected enough to be given full credit in the IPCC reports. All that is given is first initials and a last name. No degrees, no way to check them out. I have yet to read a scientific article anywhere else where this is the case.”

    I’m not sure what list you looked at, but here is a list from the IPCC website of the authors that were involved in the production of the first portion of AR4, complete with full names, countries, and area of contribution.

    14. “Thus, I choose not to blindly follow the herd.”

    I would not recommend that you blindly follow the herd. However, I would also not recommend that you blindly avoid the “herd”, simply because it’s a herd. I would definitely encourage you to examine the facts on both sides of the issue and then make your determination. There is a lot of misinformation out there, which only serves to cloud the issue, but if you want, I’d love to discuss it more in detail with you.

    15. Finally, I would like to request a reponse to this question from my prior comment: “So, while we may not be able to accurately predict the rate of sea level rise due to changes in glacial systems, we can still count on the rate estimated by the IPCC in AR4, plus whatever amount is conrtibuted by the glaciers, right?”

    Grit, I thank you for your cordial response and for your time. I also apologize for my lengthy reply, and for the numbered, outline feel of it. I am an engineer, so I think in numbers. 😛 I am very interested in continuing this discussion with you on all of these points, if you are willing.

  4. reasic Says:

    Discard #11. I read over it again, and I realize now that I first misinterpreted your response. I see now that you want a public debate about the “implications of the rush to accept Global Warming and change the course of human development”. If you want an honest debate about this, let’s have it. It’s not going to start with talking about cow farts and killing people, though. We’d have to actually discuss what the implications are. Do you want to start?

  5. britandgrit Says:

    Hi reasic

    I am sure that the Grit will add a considered response to your comments, which I personally found extremely well constructed and well put. Oh that all debate could be conducted in such a respectful manner. However, I would like to respond to one or two of the points that you mentioned if I may, and I will bullet these to make the number points of your comments that I am addressing.

    1) Politician – power. I cannot speak for the US, but in the UK and the EU politicians are using the popularity of “global warming” theories to enhance their standing with the public, and garner support. For example, our Prime Minister, who has recently been involved in a “cash for honours” scandal, has been accused of using this route to deflect attention away from the scandal itself. Other politicians have been using the same issue to increase their media profile. However, in this respect I would accept that this, over here at least, is a typical reaction from politicians. Find an issue and make a name.

    3) In a post that I recently made here regarding the issue of cosmic rays, this came from a respected scientist, who was previously an editor of New Scientist. This publication is highly respected and most of the issues dealt with within it are from renowned and qualified experts. We try and validate the information that we place on here but, like others we can get it wrong and I personally welcome any response that questions our words.

    6) Simply a question here my friend. Is not the melting of glaciers held up to be a consequence of global warming? If so I wonder if there is a relevance here that should be considered.

    It is a pleasure to be able to discuss these issues in such a congenial manner and by the way, I cannot speak for the Grit, but I am a statistics and accounting person so numbered responses do not faze me.

    By the way there is no need to apologise 🙂

    the Brit

  6. britandgrit Says:

    Hi reasic,

    What a comment! Truly it deserves a prize. I’ll reply and be more than happy to continue the discussion, as time permits. The Brit and I are in the process of moving to our new home, britandgrit.com, which we hope to have all shined up and ready for guests this weekend. If you have no objections, I’ll repost your comment there, as having this blog and another with almost the same name is getting confusing.

    the Grit

  7. reasic Says:

    Thank you for your kind comments. I can wait for a response. Thank you also for letting me know about the potential delay.

    Brit,

    1. First, I would say that politicians, at least in the US, have also used opposition to global warming consensus to make a name for themselves (i.e., Senator Inhofe and Rep. Rohrabacher, who famously suggested that a previous warming event was a result of dinosaur flatulence). Also, I would say that we should be careful not to assume one’s motives without absolute proof. I know when our former President Bill Clinton was faced with a sex scandal (Monica Lewinsky), the Republicans accused him of simply trying to distract the public from the scandal when he authorized military actions in Somalia. As we now know, Clinton was actually dealing with a real threat.

    3. Are you referring to the work of Nigel Calder?

    6. Yes, it is considered a consequence. However, the assertion is not that all glaciers have or are melting. The assertion is that they will. So, I think it’s more important and more prudent to look at the temperature data and make a determination about the climate first, rather than waiting until Antarctica has melted significantly. By then, we would surely know because the sea level would have risen significantly.

    This talk about glaciers in general, I think can be very confusing, because they can be spun to seem like skeptical arguments. Many glacial studies that I’ve seen championed by skeptics as proof that global warming is a myth are studies that show melting on the outside and thickening on the mainland. The claim is then made that the glaciers are not actually losing mass. However, the increase is due to an increase in precipitation, which is also an expected consequence of global warming in these areas.

    Thanks again for your replies.

  8. britandgrit Says:

    Hi reasic,

    I just finished installing forum software on our new blog. I suspect it will be the best place for long conversations like this. I will try to create topics from each of your points before we throw open the doors. We strive to make every visit to our virtual home as pleasant and entertaining as possible. You have been an excellent guest.

    the Grit

  9. reasic Says:

    Cool! I’ll check out the new site. Is it up now?

  10. reasic Says:

    I was having trouble posting on the forum.

  11. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    I’ll check. There are lots of settings and I probably checked the wrong box somewhere.

    OK, that was fun. While I did have a setting wrong, it still doesn’t work. Fortunately, even though the plugin is free software, it has a support forum which I’ll have to look through for a solution. Sorry.

    the Grit

  12. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    Found the trouble, the forum plugin is incompatible with the Google Analytics that I spent 4 hours making work. Give the forum another shot; it should work now.

    Sorry Brit, I’ll get us another stat thing.

    the Grit

  13. reasic Says:

    Yeah, it’s working now. Nice new site.

  14. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    Thanks. I really prefer the double sidebars so one doesn’t have to scroll around so much. We are always interested in suggestions, so feel free! Of course, once I read up on HTML, php, css, and all the other new languages, I’ll probably write our own custom job, in a year or five 🙂

    the Grit

  15. reasic Says:

    I have a little experience in HTML and CSS, if you ever have any questions. If I couldn’t help, I might at least be able to point you to a reputable source.

  16. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    Thanks. I figure if I can learn c++ most things are within my grasp, with a considerable bit of effort! As I piddle with it, I will keep your offer in mind. Most of it seems straight forward, although rather wordy. Fortunately the touch typing class I took in high school is still paying great dividends.

    the Grit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: