FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
NYT Article: 'Gore Exaggerates, Yet Accurately'

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:59 am    Post subject: NYT Article: 'Gore Exaggerates, Yet Accurately' Reply with quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Let's play Spot the Psy-Ops:
(emphasis added)

Quote:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Eric Lee/Paramount Classics
Al Gores film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007



Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

I dont want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made the most important and salient points about climate change, if not some nuances and distinctions scientists might want. The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger, he said, adding, I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.

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 globes recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

Hes 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.

(What an accidentally 'inconvenient' situation - the politicizing of the issue. Now how did that ever happen? - R4)

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 groups president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. Theres no question hes read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.

(I read a lot too. Where's my big-budget movie? - R4)

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees, adding that Mr. Gore often did so better than scientists.

(See? He's better than those scientists, with their slide rules and fancy talk and all. - R4)

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice presidents work may hold imperfections and technical flaws. He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is, Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. On the other hand, Dr. Hansen said, he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.

In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. Of course, he said, there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.

He said not every single adviser agreed with him on every point, but we do agree on the fundamentals that warming is real and caused by humans.

Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. I have received a great deal of positive feedback, he said. I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments. He gave no specifics on which points he had revised.

He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, I think that Im finally getting a little better at it.

While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of shrill alarmism.

Some of Mr. Gores centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globes warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gores message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the worlds seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

('Visual implication'. Also know in the movie industry as 'CGI'. - R4)

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. Climate change is a real and serious problem that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. The cacophony of screaming, he added, does not help.

(See, it's not what Al is saying - it's how loudly he's saying it. - R4)

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gores portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gores film did indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios. But the June report, he added, shows that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.

(Wow, an actual point made. Better change the direction quickly... - R4)

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gores claim that the energy industry ran a disinformation campaign that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

(Ah, that's better - have the energy industry deny they colluded against GW, while reaffirming that indeed "humans are the culprits". - R4)

Hardly a week goes by, Dr. Peiser said, without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory, including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet, Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gores claim that our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to 20 times greater than the warming in the past century.

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gores assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. Ive never been paid a nickel by an oil company, Dr. Easterbrook told the group. And Im not a Republican.

(Ahh, I see. That guy is a disrespectful "mocker" of Professor Gore. We can discard his previous factual statements. - R4)

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warmings effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims, Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

(What? Run that by me again. - R4)

On balance, he did quite well a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject, Dr. Oppenheimer said. For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, youre going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.


Ah, I see. He got it right, therefore he's credible. How self-aggrandizingly simple. Confused

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so... by "scientific consensus" he means scientists whose names were put on IPCC's report without their consent and were not removed from said report without threats of legal action (many dissenting scientists simply didn't bother). and he also must mean those scientists who have held their tongues because they don't want their research budgets slashed...

and by "scientific," he must mean that "new" science... where when carbon dioxide concentration changes follow temperature changes by some 800 years, CO2 makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere and is one of the least effective greenhouse gasses, and human beings only account for 1% of the world's yearly output of CO2... that means there is "irrefutable scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming and it's all your fault." man this new science is tricky. it doesn't seem to follow any logic at all... but i guess we should trust algore because... well... he's a celebrity and a politician!! which makes him the foremost authority on the "new" science.

_________________
Can't be beat, won't be beat, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janama



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 410
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

to say you are 90% sure is NOT science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rosalinda



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject: AL GORE'S "MESSAGE IS MORE THAN HOT AIR": Reply with quote

[Source: The Telegraph, March 14]

AL GORE'S "MESSAGE IS MORE THAN HOT AIR": THE REAL ISSUE IS
THE "BOOMING MARKET IN EMISSIONS TRADING," reported {Daily
Telegraph} economics reporter Tom Stevenson today. Gore "can spot
a trend," and "carbon trading is the hottest ticket in town."
Chancellor Gordon Brown's speech called for a $100 billion trade
in CO2 emissions, "but most people involved believe the City has
already secured its position at the heart of the nascent carbon
business," Stevenson wrote.

London took the lead already in 2002, with a
215-million-pound plan to get companies to reduce emissions.
Based on this, Barclays Capital environmental markets head Louis
Redshaw said, "when the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
came along in 2005 they picked up business automatically." The
ETS accounts for more than 60% of the volume of carbon traded
around the world and 80% of its value, the {Telegraph} wrote. The
amount of "carbon" traded this year could be 2.4 billion tons, up
from 1.6 billion tons last year and just 799 million tons in 2005.

There would appear to have been a lot of cheating in the
ETS, according to the Telegraph: For the first phase (2005-2007),
most EU states overestimated their emissions, so the market is in
6%-7% surplus, and the price of carbon is less than a third of
its peak a year ago. But in the next phase, beginning 2008,
allowances will be cut sharply, so, presumably, the price will shoot up.

Some of the world's biggest investment banks are getting
involved, the {Telegraph} reported. Goldman Sachs has bought a
10% stake in the London-listed carbon trader Climate Exchange,
and Morgan Stanley says it will invest $3 bn in the carbon
trading market over five years. There is also a "niche"
investment bank, Climate Change Capital, which just launched a
$1-billion fund, and chief executive Mark Woodall is promising
returns "commensurate with a venture capital or infrastructure investment."

While London is now "the home of carbon trading" because of
the ETS, Al Gore seems to have other ambitions, if his speech in
Denmark yesterday is any guide. Gore predicted U.S. involvement
in a global plan within a few years of the new post-Bush administration.

[Source: chicagoclimateexchange.com; "Free Market, Cleaner air,"
by Marianne Lavelle, U.S. News and World Report, 7/24/05;

LONDON'S GAS BUBBLES: THE EUROPEAN CLIMATE EXCHANGE --
EUROPE'S LEADING C02 TRADING VENUE -- AND THE CHICAGO CLIMATE
EXCHANGE (CCX) are both owned by London's Climate Exchange PLC.
Heading both the Goldman Sachs-funded London and the Chicago
carbon exchanges is Richard Sandor, the former chief economist
for the Chicago Board of Trade, infamous for having transformed
the Chicago Board of Trade into a financial futures market.

A baby boomer who came out of Berkeley in the 1960s, Sandor is a
specialist in "inventive activity in the future markets,"
involved in developing every "exotic" derivative around, from
interest rates, to weather, Ginnie Mae, insurance, etc.
Sandor began pushing for "monetizing emission reductions" as
far back as 1990, using his "Environmental Financial Products"
company. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) -- a for-profit,
private company -- finally got off the ground in 2001, after the
Joyce Foundation put up the money for feasibility studies.
Joining him on the board of CCX is none other than
Maurice Strong.

CCX describes itself as "the world's first, and North
America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry
reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in
North America and Brazil." (Whew!) They sell "Carbon Financial
Instruments" (CFIs), which are equal to 100 metric tons of Co2.
At present, a carbon "unit" of trade is selling around $4.00.
Lunatic Sandor says there is no difference between his 1970s
fight to create interest futures and the CCX today. "Back then,
you had to price money, and now you have to price clean air.
These are both scarce commodities," he told {U.S. News and World
Report} in 2005. His next target: water. According to {U.S. News
and World Report}, the Joyce Foundation gave him $440,000 to
explore the idea of trading in another scarce commodity: water.
Among the 85 affiliated CCX entities are Cargill, the
infamous Green Mountain Power, the World
Resources Institute (Al Gore on its board), DuPont, and others
which are part of the U.S. Climate Action Group (USCAP),
founded in January 2007, to provide a patina of green
"business" backing, along with Portland, Chicago and other towns
and associations. On Feb. 26, Smithfield Foods, the largest pork
producer and processor in the USA, joined the CCX.

[Source: Combined; chicagoclimateexchange.com; LondonStock Exchange.com, March 14]

BLAIR'S MILIBRAND NUT LEADS BUMS' RUSH TO "MONETIZE" GLOBAL
WARMING FOR THE WOULD-BE NEXT BUBBLE. David Miliband, the U.K.
Environment Minister, told Ch. 4 London TV "News at Noon" on
March 14, that the Blair government's new carbon emissions bill
proposed on Tuesday, will be part of developing new technologies
to ensure that carbon trading can be extended "across the
economy." The London Stock Exchange article said, "while half of
the UK's economy is currently covered by the European carbon
trading plan, the new carbon exchange bill should extend this...."

On March 15-16, Miliband will meet with Environmental
Ministers of 27 European Union member countries, in Pottsdam to
further the London initiative. Miliband, accompanied by Sir. Nicholas Stern,
promoted Britain's "emission trading" bubble scam among the U.S. Congress,
during appearances last Feb. 13-14 in Washington,
including an address to the Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) shindig.

_________________
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rosalinda



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:58 pm    Post subject: ARGENTINE SCIENTIST SAYS AL GORDO IS FULL OF HOT AIR. Reply with quote

[Source: article by Eduardo Ferreyra, "Al Gore, A Hypocritical
Truth," MidiasemMascara, 3/8/07; Buenos Aires.]

Eduardo Ferreyra, president of the Argentine Foundation for
Scientific Ecology, pointed to news published in the U.S. on all
the energy Gore consumes with total abandon at his Tennessee
mansion. According to the DOE, Ferreyra notes, Gore "devoured"
almost 221,000 KW/h in 2006, more than 20 times the national
average. In August alone, he continued, Gore produced CO2 worth
22,619 KW/h--more than double what poor Americans do in a whole
year. With his wild energy consumption, Ferreyra notes, "Gore has
become the "Louis XV of the 20th Century, yet this Louis XV
advises us to save energy, or the world will come to an end.'"

The combined electricity and natural gas used by Gore at his
Tennessee home in 2006 is valued at $30,000, Ferreyra notes.

At that rate, it's no exaggeration to say that "we're dealing here
with a Galactic category HYPOCRITE!." On its website, the
Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology describes itself as a
group of individuals knowledgeable in many fields of science,
who, like the scientists who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, are
"worried about the emergence of an irrational ideology which
opposes scientific and industrial progress, and prevents economic
and social progress." One of the links it provides is to 21st
Century Science and Technology, which it describes as containing
many "excellent" articles, known to be "politically incorrect."

_________________
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:56 am    Post subject: Re: ARGENTINE SCIENTIST SAYS AL GORDO IS FULL OF HOT AIR. Reply with quote

Rosalinda wrote:
[Source: article by Eduardo Ferreyra, "Al Gore, A Hypocritical
Truth," MidiasemMascara, 3/8/07; Buenos Aires.]

Eduardo Ferreyra, president of the Argentine Foundation for
Scientific Ecology, pointed to news published in the U.S. on all
the energy Gore consumes with total abandon at his Tennessee
mansion. According to the DOE, Ferreyra notes, Gore "devoured"
almost 221,000 KW/h in 2006, more than 20 times the national
average. In August alone, he continued, Gore produced CO2 worth
22,619 KW/h--more than double what poor Americans do in a whole
year. With his wild energy consumption, Ferreyra notes, "Gore has
become the "Louis XV of the 20th Century, yet this Louis XV
advises us to save energy, or the world will come to an end.'"

The combined electricity and natural gas used by Gore at his
Tennessee home in 2006 is valued at $30,000, Ferreyra notes.

At that rate, it's no exaggeration to say that "we're dealing here
with a Galactic category HYPOCRITE!." On its website, the
Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology describes itself as a
group of individuals knowledgeable in many fields of science,
who, like the scientists who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, are
"worried about the emergence of an irrational ideology which
opposes scientific and industrial progress, and prevents economic
and social progress." One of the links it provides is to 21st
Century Science and Technology, which it describes as containing
many "excellent" articles, known to be "politically incorrect."

Yes, that's all true - but it's another example of politicizing the issue to distract from the issue's actual validity. Al Gore has no problem playing the hypocrite as long as the 'Right' people are pointing it out.

We will see plenty of criticism of Gore that is unrelated to whether or not his evidence of the causes of GW or the agenda he's pushing are valid. There will be no shortage of sensationalist, ideologically-identifiable points the Right will be served up across the MSM, so that their attacks on Al can infuriate the Left into a stronger defensive posture.

It's all about making sure everyone who criticises GW is portrayed firmly in the MSM as doing so from an obviously partisan angle - either anti-Democrat or pro-energy industry.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rosalinda



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[
Quote:
Source: article by Eduardo Ferreyra, "Al Gore, A Hypocritical
Truth," MidiasemMascara, 3/8/07; Buenos Aires.]

...

The combined electricity and natural gas used by Gore at his
Tennessee home in 2006 is valued at $30,000, Ferreyra notes.

At that rate, it's no exaggeration to say that "we're dealing here
with a Galactic category HYPOCRITE!."


...

Quote:
Yes, that's all true - but it's another example of politicizing the issue to distract from the issue's actual validity. Al Gore has no problem playing the hypocrite as long as the 'Right' people are pointing it out.

We will see plenty of criticism of Gore that is unrelated to whether or not his evidence of the causes of GW or the agenda he's pushing are valid. There will be no shortage of sensationalist, ideologically-identifiable points the Right will be served up across the MSM, so that their attacks on Al can infuriate the Left into a stronger defensive posture.

It's all about making sure everyone who criticises GW is portrayed firmly in the MSM as doing so from an obviously partisan angle - either anti-Democrat or pro-energy industry.


It is very true the image campaign is the ground reality in a certain sense.

either anti-Democrat or pro-energy industry - this is how it will be framed

Still, look into Al Gore's genealogy; his father Albert Gore Sr was involved

in some deep shit; Al Gore Srs patron and mentor was Armand Hammer.

Hammer of course was close friends with Russian leader, Vladimir Lenin.

Hammer ran huge back-channel commerce w Russia all through the 1930s

_________________
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.