Inconvenient Lies
Back in June, I took a lot of heat for suggesting that some of the more popular views about global climate change are not as accurate as many people think. And now, four months later, Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in this very area.
The night before he won, a British judge reached a decision in a court case about the distribution of Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. Apparently, this film had been given out to every state secondary school in the UK as part of a five-pack of edumacational films. In response, one school governer, also the father of two children, took the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to court for this “unlawful” distribution.
At the heart of the matter wasn’t a copyright or political issue … it was the accuracy of the film. After reviewing the movie and the scientific evidence that was presented, the judge ruled that much of the content was based on inaccuracies and illogical arguments.
Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
After determining which parts of the film were based on inaccuracies, the judge ruled that the film could still be distributed but that students must be warned of the film’s factual errors.
Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.
In the end, I really like this judge’s decision … not because of what it exposes, but because it is a conscious effort to keep the dialogue alive. The students will still see the film but will have the opportunity to learn about the inaccuracies it contains and hear some of the other relevant perspectives on this issue.
That kind of intelligent discourse about real-world happenings is so important … and approaching it with maturity, not censorship, is the only way to go!
October 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pm EST
nice links - looks like the folks in the UK have better common sense than most of us in the USA!
October 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm EST
Well, we’re more prone to subscribe to sensationalism, that’s for sure. There are many good and true things going on in the discussion about climate change and responsible living, but I personally believe that Gore’s antics have done more long-term harm than good.
Personally, I’d rather live among wise people who struggle with reality than crafty people who get cheap solutions through alarmism and guilt.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm EST
I was going to say something about this, but I can’t. My brain isn’t working right because it gets 0.000000000000000000000000015 degrees warmer every day, and thats been pretty rough on me lately. In any case, I don’t know if tracking temperatures over the last 30 years and seeing that they have gone up like 0.0000005 degrees is a statistically significant enough sample for somebody who believes the earth is “millions” of years old (try telling that to Jakob and listen to him shoot you down). And it certainly isn’t significant if you believe in a young earth, as I do.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 am EST
are you saying you should have gotten a nobel peace prize?
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 am EST
That’s exactly what I’m saying!
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 am EST
Boy thought to be crying wolf, ignored by townspeople who are busy planning lucrative gated community public land allotment deal and deciding over plans for new sprinkler system on public golf course. Boy thought to be crying wolf yet again, many townspeople grow increasingly annoyed with alarmist boy as they listen to news reports on their Hummer’s XM radio knowing full well that wolves were driven to extinction long ago. Boy’s last attempt at warning townspeople of wolf goes unheded as most townspeople are busy at the town meeting deciding how to more fully implement creationist curriculum, make sure that scientific method includes prayer and hearing closing arguments on who should get school lunch program contract, McDonalds or Pizza Hut……
This just in: strange reports surfacing recently on many “biased liberal media” outlets that small town in middle america was devoured by wolves, only known survivor is a small boy currently being questioned by authorities. And now a word from our sponsors…..
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 am EST
The earth is infinitely adaptable. Even if the temperature is rising, that creates evaporation (if ice is indeed melting); that evaporation will cause clouds (blocking the sun a tad, cooling things down); and rain; and the cycle will continue (and this might take a few hundred years). We’re so myopic to think that a short time (30 years or more) defines and earthly pattern; how do we know its not 100 years, 250 years, 300 years that the earth cycles? And if its an “old” earth, than the earth has probably done this 1000s of times.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 am EST
As I said in a recentpost on my blog, I don’t understand how a person can win a peace prize for a subject that causes nothing but arguments…
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am EST
Wolves should be edible. Lance should have some Chinese wolf recipes around somewhere…
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:57 pm EST
Mmmmmm…… Wolf steaks….. The best sentence in this article is that it tastes like chicken!
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 am EST
The earth is certainly a very adaptable thermodynamic system, although the creatures that live within this system have more finite and narrow ranges of tolerance than the system itself is capable of sustaining. Most eukaryotic organisms are particularly adapted to a narrow range of tolerance, and our species is no exception. When scientists investigate the occurence of changing climate patterns on a global scale they generally do so with an eye towards how it will effect complex life forms. In the grander scheme of geologic or cosmic time, where thermodynamic systems tend towards maximal entropy, it can surely be argued that our current view of what is happening to the climate in this time is myopic. It is still relevant ,however, to us as a species that would like to survive, to understand some of the possible negative outcomes of this change since it is largely preventable. It is not such a leap of pragmatic thinking to suggest that once a harmful trend has been identified we should do what we can to reverse or at least minimize the suffering this change will cause our species, especially when it is likely to hurt the poorest and weakest among us with the most cruelty.
And as far as people who win the Nobel Peace Prize are concerned, Al Gore is hardly the only recipient to champion a cause that results in heated debate. Need I remind folks of the 1994 slate of winners Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - now there is a peaceful bunch of guys who never spurned any contention in world politics (sarcasm fully intended).
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm EST
Sentence 1 translates as “the earth is not capable of sustaining the creatures that live on it”. Hogwash.
Also sentence 2 is false, since humans are capable of tolerating a very WIDE range of conditions, and especially variations in climatic change that are measured in the range of
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm EST
Sentence 1 translates as “the earth is not capable of sustaining the creatures that live on it”. Hogwash.
Also sentence 2 is false, since humans are capable of tolerating a very WIDE range of conditions, and especially variations in climatic change that are measured in the range of
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm EST
Sentence 1 translates as “the earth is not capable of sustaining the creatures that live on it”. Hogwash.
Also sentence 2 is false, since humans are capable of tolerating a very WIDE range of conditions, and especially variations in climatic change that are measured in the range of
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm EST
Guess not. WordPress is censoring me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm EST
Hmm … sorry about that, Willy. I don’t know how WordPress could possibly censor just part of your comment … I’ve never seen that before. Maybe there’s something wrong with your Internet browser or computer.
Or maybe you (and my other regular readers) should register … being logged in should get you past most of the spam filters I have set up. They’ve been catching about 50 spam comments per day … but I’d hate it if some real comments are getting filtered out too!
October 24th, 2007 at 2:29 am EST
Sentence one was simply meant to point out that the earth will be just fine existing in tempurature ranges that are not compatible with human life. And as far as humans are concerned, when compared to bacteria and archaea (which happen to be far and away the most numerous and diverse forms of life on this planet) our range is pathetic. Typical human communities live in temps ranging from about -10 degrees celsius to about 40-42 degrees celsius. There are more than a few species of bacteria and archaea which can thrive at temps in excess of 130 degrees celsius and below negative 20-25 degrees celsius. Many bacteria are capable of forming spores when conditions become too harsh and theese spores can lie dormant for thousands of years until conditions become right again for germination. These are of course only a few examples but they are meant to illustrate the point that when you take the larger view of living organisms our species is limited in its resilience and tolerances. Putting the word wide in caps doesn’t make it true. We are of course free as individuals to believe whatever we want.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm EST
I’ll try again, and see if my comment can be completed…
Also sentence 2 is false, since humans are capable of tolerating a very WIDE range of conditions, and especially variations in climatic change that are measured in the range of
October 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm EST
ahhh… I just figured it out. Illegal character…
Also sentence 2 is false, since humans are capable of tolerating a very WIDE range of conditions, and especially variations in climatic change that are measured in the range of less than 10 degrees fahrenheit.
Sentence 4 is a doozy; maximal entropy means a total dispersion of order (and hence heat) and would result in temperatures near absolute zero. How is global warming in any way related to maximal entropy?
The major argument is whether any climatic change is preventable or reversible, and whether humans have any significant impact at all on climatic change. Climatic change occurred in the past on a much grander scale than anything observable at the present time, and there were no humans to blame back then.
The fact that some measurable long-term change in annual temperatures has been observed (assuming that changes in measurement techniques are not skewing the observations) during the past several centuries is not a valid argument for human-caused climatic change. Correlation does not prove causation (unless you are a trial lawyer getting a percentage of the settlement), and to so argue would be superstition and not science.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:20 pm EST
My question still is this…does anyone actually know what the optimal temperature of Earth should be?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am EST
0.000000000000000015 degrees warmer than last year, of course!
Seriously though, thats a VERY good question!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm EST
Optimal temperature for me is the one that keeps my natural gas bill under $100 per month year round.
HP’s change rate of 10 to the -18 degrees (I also love Avogadro’s number!!) is interesting, and brings to mind the fact that delta temp calculations, run backward, can yield the total delta heat of a system. This causes reflection on all sources of delta heat : solar activity, tidal friction and tectonic activity, and organic reactions in the environment. The question then becomes : has the relative delta heat for all naturally occuring sources been compared to the total delta heat attributable to human activity? To my knowledge, the human-caused global-warming fear-mongers have not addressed that question.
For the Mother Earth worshippers under High Priest Al Gore, a fundamental question might be, “What temperature does Mother Earth find optimal?” If humans are so destructive, Mother Earth may find them worthy of extinction, in which case the optimal temperature might be a hundred degrees higher than current levels (lower would not do, since humans can deal with cold a lot easier than they can deal with heat).
The devotees of Mother Earth talk like they do not want to see human extinction, but they want human development reduced to levels that do not change the environment (an absurdity, since humans, by definition, are environment changers). If they are not hypocrites, they might well want to explore the idea that from Mother Earth’s perspective, sudden and massive global warming might be her salvation.
That they ARE hypocrites is evidenced by their unwillingness to suffer martyrdom for their goddess.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pm EST
You guys sound smart … all’s I know is:
Less waste is good,
Efficiency pays for itself,
Smart choices cost less,
Creation is beautiful, &
I want to leave everything I touch better than I found it.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:27 am EST
Lance, that’s all i’m sayin…..trying to leave the world a little better than how we found it seems like something close to stewardship, and if I’m not mistaken someone said stewardship was a pretty good idea.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm EST
Oh, and one more thing. Apocalyptic scare tactics, especially when founded on exaggerated data, do nothing to encourage wise behavior and responsible living. They promote fear and ignorance. Period.
And that goes for people on both sides of the argument.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm EST
Gore has never changed a light bulb in his life, but now he knows how to change the weather