ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth - Algore & AP Get A Smackdown



First Smackdown here, followed by another smackdown here.

Now, from the US Senate Majority Press Release:

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

What I find interesting about this press release is that, in addition to slamming Algore's "crockumetary" and the APs reporting of it, it also re-introduces several blogposts of mine (here and here) about global warming - and specifically the debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Regular readers of this blog know that Mann completely altered his scientific data to make sure that the Hockeystick would project a signficant and unprecendented increase in climate temperatures. Here's an excerpt from one of my previous posts on the subject:
One of the most damning quotes which came out of the controversy was from this Global Warming researcher:
"With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. so one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
D. Deming, Science 1995


Well, it's good to see that the scientific community, after reviewing the data and methodology, have decided that Mann is full of bunk:
[...]
“Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,” Senator Inhofe said. “Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

The NAS report also stated that “substantial uncertainties” surround Mann’s claims that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest in last 1000 years. In fact, while the report conceded that temperature data uncertainties increase going backward in time, it acknowledged that “not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented…’

In addition, the NAS report further chastises Mann, declaring “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990’s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium ...’”

“This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.

“Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.”
It seems that the two independent researchers were correct about the Medieval Warm Period and that some of the disciples of the Church of Algore (Bobbb and Wadard) owe me an apology.

Or are we to believe that the National Academy of Sciences is just full of a bunch of Exxcons?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (10)
Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

I noticed that you felt compelled to remove my previous comments - before quoting mis-science and then have the gall to imply that I owe you some kind of apology.

Do the research instead of just throwing stuff out there - Did you know that the period of "Mideval Warming" was only a fraction of what we are seeing now?

I know all about "Medevil Warming" as well as the other "warming periods" the earth has gone through.

Some were warmer than the one you refer to - If you did your homework out there on your sailboat - you would have at least had a better arguement.

The extreams in atmospheric CO2 content and temperature we are seeing today overreach anything that has occured in the last 650,000 years

How many Ice cores form antarctica have you analized? - have you read any of the published results?

Why are you SO afraid of real science?

WHY would you delete my previous posts if you think they can be so easily disputed?

What a cowardly and opressive thing to do

To put forth one opinion while supressing another smacks of communism

Not to mention sour grapes Mr Monteray

Drop the politics - and wake up

It is most certainly is you who owes everyone an apology - for deleting comments you have not the wit nor the understanding to dispute.

As for me - I stand by the science - be careful not to sail your little boat to far - for the earth might just be flat after all

St Wendeler said...

Bobbb - If your thoroughness in finding your previous comments on this topic and your spelling abilities are any indication of your research abilities, I think you've just undermined your arguments.

Your previous comments were never removed... they're here.

Remember the comment where you called me a criminal? Given that you're prone to getting emotional about this subject and sink to the level of calling people names when debating the subject, I don't think you're as objective as you claim to be when it comes to facts about global warming.

The National Academy of Science (ueber-partisan ExxCons?) questions Mann's research methods and refutes his claims, yet you still support his positions.

It sounds more like faith than science to me.

Regards,
St Wendeler

P.S. Next time I would recommend that you engage your opponent in a civil debate before attacking them. Readers on both sides of the issue might be more willing to listen to your arguments.

Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

"Yes I do believe that global warming is a problem – and an imminent one at that
This is not a political conclusion – it is a purely empirical one.

"Ten years – one hundred years – what difference does it make?
When you find out you are doing the wrong thing – you stop

You don’t ask “how long can I go on before the consequences catch up to me…"

Unless of course you are a criminal – this is the basis of criminal behavior"


as you can see - you take the name of criminal on yourself - the above statement doesn't speak to you - it speaks to a general form of behavior

Why should I worry about my spelling? - You obviously cannot read

Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

I don't know where you get your facts from - but it seems fair that you question where I get mine...

Here is some matreial you might want to catch up on before making up your minds:

Barnola, J. M., D. Raynaud, Y. S. Korotkevich and C. Lorius, 1987, Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2, Nature, 329, 408-414.

Chappellaz, J., J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. S. Korotkevich and C. Lorius, 1990, Atmospheric CH4 record over the last climatic cycle revealed by the Vostok ice core, Nature, 345, 127-131.

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, C. Genthon, N. I. Barkov, V. M. Kotlyakov and V. M. Petrov, 1987, Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years), Nature, 329, 403-407.

Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N. E. Barkov and Y. S. Korotkevich, A., 1985, 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice, Nature, 316, 591-595.
Alley, R.B., Meese, D., Shuman, C.A., Gow, A.J., Taylor, K., Ram, M., Waddington, E.D. and Mayewski, P.A., 1993, Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event, Nature 362, 527-529.

Grootes, P.M., Stuiver, M., White, J.W.C., Johnsen, S. and Jouzel, J., 1993, Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores, Nature 336, 552-554.

Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Whitlow,S., Twickler, M.S., Morrison, M.C., Grootes, P.M., Bond, G.C., Alley, R.B., Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Taylor, K.C., Ram, M. and Wumkes, M., 1994, Changes in atmospheric circulation and ocean ice cover over the North Atlantic during the last 41,000 years, Science 263, 1747-1751.

Enjoy!

Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

PS:
Also check out:
The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC)
ANSMET: The Antarctic Search for Meteorites
Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica
National Ice Core Laboratory Science Management Office
Rice University.
Climate Change Research Center
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, University of New Hampshire.

St Wendeler said...

You don’t ask “how long can I go on before the consequences catch up to me…"

Unless of course you are a criminal – this is the basis of criminal behavior.


You are essentially saying that anyone that disagrees with your dogma is a criminal. Not exactly the position of someone who is open to criticism.

St Wendeler said...

Oh, and I look forward to your apology for calling me cowardly and oppressive.

or do you reject the facts there as well?

St Wendeler said...

Oh, and for calling me stupid and lacking in wit as well.

You sure have a way of burning bridges that inhibits your ability to make a persuasive argument.

Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

Burning bridges…
I learned long ago that you cannot build a bridge to a closed mind

I have read the arguments against global warming theories – for 35 years
I still do
I still want to believe them too…
But I cannot – for every time I come close to convincing myself that the danger isn’t real
More evidence comes in to support it…

As to my comments here:

You are absolutely right
I apologize for all those things – much too verbose

Perhaps “FOOL” would have summed it up much more succinctly
But that doesn’t have to be the case – you just seem to have a need for denial

Now get back to your homework – those studies aren’t just going to read themselves
Educate yourself before it’s too late – you obviously have the capacity to do so.

None of the documents I have cited were written by Dr. Michael Mann
This is a slice of the hard core data

Those who have concerns are looking at a preponderance of evidence gathered from a multitude of sources
Perhaps they are wrong – but what if they are not?

You seem to have a problem with caring about the environment.
Over the years I have changed my ideals and my politics – more than once
But this issue has always perplexed me
I have never understood why anyone would not want to put the earth first
We live here – and we call it home. We have no other place to go.

Go back and read what Aldo Leopold had to say about “Land Ethics”
Those ideals met with the same kind of controversy as global warming theory does today
Even after the dustbowl
Yet those same ideas are accepted today as the truth
And old Aldo is seen as a visionary – not a left wing fear monger.

I won’t say the same is in store for Gore – I found his arguments lacking in fact
Overly simplified and generalized – he attempts to reach a very general audience

I have been beyond that for quite some time (1976)
I didn’t come here to defend the man - or his movie
I am not an “Al Gore Disciple”

I didn’t come here to argue Left / Right politics

I came here to defend the science. For I have followed this story since childhood.

You see it all comes down to two schools of thought:
Man against nature – or
Man as a part of nature

If you choose the former – it’s a no win situation

I learned about this in more than one way.
A good friend of the family was closely connected to research associated with the clean air act.
They were trying to identify the source of some of the most harmful air pollutants found in the nation’s big cities.
This research eventually led to the removal of lead from gasoline, as well as other measures taken by the Clean Air Act
I was young then and these policies were never even close to being political in my mind.
They just seemed to make good sense…
No one today would want to see the lead put back into gasoline, would they?

My summers took me out of the city as a child – to upstate NY where my family owns a modest tree farm
There I learned first hand about things like erosion and natural succession.
Eco systems and the concept of a nich for all things living there – the realization that all these things were somehow connected, man included.

Much of upstate NY had been logged bare in the 1800’s and my granddad immersed himself in the relatively new concepts of conservation and land management / forest management.
He made sure we all understood why. – The forests from his homeland in Germany were not so lucky
Again this was not political – it just made good sense
The concept was new and profound to me, that nature could be allowed to manage the forest with mans help.
Better for the environment – and better for man.

So if my argument seems impassioned – it is – and for good reason
All I ask is that you open your mind to the possibility that we just might be doing irreparable damage to our only home

St Wendeler said...

cereal

super-cereal


Don't disagree with you over conservation... as an Eagle Scout, I grew up enjoying wild places and making sure they stayed that way. And one important point is that active human intervention is beneficial.

However, much of the goals of the environmental movement (and the global warming crowd in particular) are focused on reducing economic output and the creative destruction which improves the lives of humans around the world. Much of the CO2 emmissions that are left out of the Kyoto protocol are coming from China and their profusive use of coal as their primary energy source. Add on India and that's two big elephants in the room that few are talking about.

In addition, much of the worst environmental destruction over the years have been perpetrated by the same command & control economies that the enviro-huggers seem to promote. (see Aral Sea)

Technology ultimately will resolve the issue... when this statement was posed to a enviro-crunchy-tree-hugger years ago, I was criticized for relying on developing technology to solve the problem. I should instead stop the consumption...

which, is a fine answer and all... unless you take into account human nature.