An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore

[Ushtey]

The main point of this evening though is to get the debate started in Government circles. Whilst those who have researched the issues and feel strongly one way or the other can debate endlessly on here, we need our appointed and elected officials to be thinking about these issues themselves. Unless events like this are encouraged, we're likely to spend the next five years blaming them all for not knowing about and/or discussing these sorts of issues.

 

I've encouraged those contacts I have in Government to attend next Thursday, not necessarily because I want them all to sign on the "Green dotted line" straight away, but to expose them to some of the debates currently going on.

 

I'm especially pleased to know there are senior members of local construction firms who are not only attending but actively encouraging others to attend becuase they want to change some of the approach to construction on the Island, which can't be a bad thing for the rest of us.

 

So by all means carry on debating here, but please mention this to those people you know who aren't already aware of the issues to attend and maybe start looking into some of the issues a little more themselves.

[VinnieK]

The main point of this evening though is to get the debate started in Government circles. Whilst those who have researched the issues and feel strongly one way or the other can debate endlessly on here, we need our appointed and elected officials to be thinking about these issues themselves. Unless events like this are encouraged, we're likely to spend the next five years blaming them all for not knowing about and/or discussing these sorts of issues.

 

Is a viewing of "An Inconvenient Truth" the best way to introduce our elected officials to these issues or motivate them to think them through though? I don't question the sincerity of Al Gore's convictions regarding the issue of environmental change at all, what I do question is how suitable his film, which, as its description as an impassioned documentary suggests, is hardly a substitute for an objective review of the scientific and economic literature, is as a method of encouraging our politicians to debate the issues.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist, or an economist, and although I'm sure in his political career he has had plenty of access to various reviews and summaries of the relevant academic literature, his film represents "second hand knowledge", and he as a source can easily be dismissed (accurately or otherwise) as not comprehending the whole debate, or being guilty of presenting only that evidence that supports his views by those who disagree with him. If our politicians are to know about these issues, I would hope that they did so by organising a proper expert driven review of the evidence, both scientific and economic, regarding the issues surrounding climate change in the wider sense and, more specifically, how it and any of the various proposed remedies can affect the Isle of Man as well as its business.

 

It's not the job of the public to inform their politicians about these issues, or to convince them to debate a given issue or to take action - Government exists not solely to cater to the concerns of its populace, but to take it upon itself to consider issues that may be important regardless of the levels of public awareness and concern surrounding them (environmental change being a prime example of this latter obligation). This is not to rubbish 'An Inconvenient Truth', or to dismiss or criticise its screening, but I can't help thinking that it has little place in the context you suggest.

 

Yes we may debate endlessly here, that's our privilege, but our politicians, if not already discussing the issues debated here, should at some point soon be prepared to initiate a proper study, consulting the proper experts because that's their job. If they don't, then anyone who wants to is entirely within their rights to complain that their politicians have let them down, regardless of how many or, more relevantly, how few events have been encouraged to raise the government's awareness.

[Charles Flynn]

The IOM Government will some be publishing the Acclimatise Steering Group Report on how Climate Change is likely to affect the IOM. It has input from many Manx stakeholders.

[Charles Flynn]

POSITIVE ACTION GROUP ...........................

 

Might be a good idea to remove the lady's telephone and e-mail address Charles. Not everyone has the same good intentions as yourself.

 

 

Thank you Lone Wolf. I understand the ladies have agreed for these office details to be published. I hope nothing untoward will happen. Thank you for your concern.

[Lost Login]

I have to admit while I may be concerned at the thought of global warming and potential consequences I like the vast majority leave it at that and the on few quid on petrol or airfares is not likely to alter my behaviour much. My family will still drive two cars, we will probably leave TV's and Computers on Standby, the central heating on when we are out etc, etc.

 

I like to think that in terms of the enviroment and our effect on it I have a conscience and would happy to do my bit but in reality when it comes to it is something I think about and leave at that. I do not go out of my way to do it. If it was simple and did not inconvenience me then fine and I am sure that there are a lot of people out there who are similar.

 

Leaving aside the big businesses of the world if presuure groups and Governments want to address the issue be it CO2 or the use of world resources on a personal level then they have to address issue like this and make it easy and part of the everyday lives for people like me. As an example I am poor at recycling i.e I do not really do it except when across at my parents when they get seperate bins for paper & plastics. Putting them in the right bin does not inconvience me so I automatically do it. But why do I have so much rubbish well Junk mail, advertising inserts, packaging from supermarkets and shops, plastic bags etc. Ireland have cut down the latter and it would not inconvenience me to change nor would it if when you bought food or especially toys the foam packaing etc etc was reduced. Every time you get McDonalds takeaway the buger comes in foam packaging I believe. Fish and chips the same now when as a hid I was perfectly happy with them wrapped in newspaper

 

I leave my TV's and computers on standby rather than turning off when not in use. Maybe that function should go.

 

Changing many of those things would probably not affect the majority or inconvenience us in any way. This would obvioulsy be a saving in resources both in materails and in manufacturing of them and probably would have more effect that just another 2p on a litre of petrol.

 

I have to admit this sounds a bit selfish as it is passing the buck to others and not taking responsibilty myself which as a concerned citizen I really should do but it is the reality of the situation. Show me a documentary or a report and I will be concerned but will I do anything in response when apart from a day or then probably not.

 

 

The IOM Government will some be publishing the Acclimatise Steering Group Report on how Climate Change is likely to affect the IOM. It has input from many Manx stakeholders.

[Charles Flynn]

Your remarks and attitudes are the norm. I believe only if we make things reasonably simple and easy for people or hit them in the pocket or give them a cash incentive will they change.

 

I believe that nothing is achieved by preaching at people to change their ways. It, in fact will turn most people off so the challenge for government, and it has to be government as only they can help us to adjust to the new realities, is to work on ways that enable businesses and individuals to do what is necessary.

[Charles Flynn]

Your remarks and attitudes are the norm. I believe only if we make things reasonably simple and easy for people or hit them in the pocket or give them a cash incentive will they change.

 

I believe that nothing is achieved by preaching at people to change their ways. It, in fact will turn most people off so the challenge for government, and it has to be government as only they can help us to adjust to the new realities, is to work on ways that enable businesses and individuals to do what is necessary.

 

 

 

There is still some seats avaiable for the 7.45 p.m. show so contact Mr Tomlinson urgently.

[Charles Flynn]

I write to say a big thank you to all who came to "An Inconvenient Truth" this evening. The first house which I attended at the Manx Museum was full with Tynwald members, business people, environmentalists and those who wish to learn more about global warming.

 

Your interest and support are very much appreciated by the sponsoring groups.

 

Now translate this into ACTION.

 

These organisations will be pleased to include you on their contact list if you get in touch with them.

 

Positve Action Group www.positiveactiongroup.org

 

IOM Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.im

 

One World Centre www.oneworldcentreiom.org

 

Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment www.spmce.com or preferably email me from this site. (I'll reply late next week)

 

Zero Waste Man P.O. Box 22, Ramsey IM99 4JZ.

 

Please supply:

 

Name e-mail Telephone number Mobile

and someone will be in touch.

[steven !]

I was at the second showing. Packed out.

 

A film you can't ignore.

 

......Al Gore is obviously very intelligent, he can

command an audience with his speeches and slide presentations,

stand up in front of a crowd of scientists and give a compelling argument,

he understands global matters

he sees how the World works

etc.

 

..........and he lost out in the Presidential Election of the United States of America to ......... George Bush

 

[Albert Tatlock]

I write to say a big thank you to all who came to "An Inconvenient Truth" this evening. The first house which I attended at the Manx Museum was full with Tynwald members, business people, environmentalists and those who wish to learn more about global warming.

 

Your interest and support are very much appreciated by the sponsoring groups.

 

Now translate this into ACTION.

.

However, always remember that you can always tell the quality of a leader by the people who follow him. One fkwit presents an unfactual film (whereas in reality the bulk of climatologists disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emissions) and off we all jolly well go. FFS.

 

Next you'll be telling me that planting trees in the northern hemisphere to offset CO2 emissions from journeys actually works.

[Lost Login]

Either you are one of the most gullible individuals around or you are a lobbyist for the energy industry. I bet you even believe Uri Gellar has phsychic powers and as for Mystic Meg. For somebody who continually prints as "facts" press releases issued by energy lobbyists that contain information which is at the best disingenous how you can describe Gore as a fkwit presenting an unfactual film I really find difficult to fathom. Is it on the base you describe yourself as a half wit who presents lies?Yes he may have an agenda and yes it may not be totally impartial but generally the facts he quotes are correct unlike the guys you quote who basically are printing lies such as the ice cap is thickening. I presume you have seen the film.

 

But go on humour me. Tell me about all this majority of climatologists who disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emmissions. Let me guess are going to argue that it is the amount that is created by the natural enviroment such as plant and animals etc. Well before you bother if you are able to think for yourself rather than just regurgitate claptrap concentrate that is an irrelevant argument. The concern is the increase in CO2 emmissions over the years and the effect that may be having. Now that increase, what are you going to put it down to if not man.

 

 

However, always remember that you can always tell the quality of a leader by the people who follow him. One fkwit presents an unfactual film (whereas in reality the bulk of climatologists disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emissions) and off we all jolly well go. FFS.

 

Next you'll be telling me that planting trees in the northern hemisphere to offset CO2 emissions from journeys actually works.

[Albert Tatlock]

Either you are one of the most gullible individuals around or you are a lobbyist for the energy industry. I bet you even believe Uri Gellar has phsychic powers and as for Mystic Meg. For somebody who continually prints as "facts" press releases issued by energy lobbyists that contain information which is at the best disingenous how you can describe Gore as a fkwit presenting an unfactual film I really find difficult to fathom. Is it on the base you describe yourself as a half wit who presents lies?Yes he may have an agenda and yes it may not be totally impartial but generally the facts he quotes are correct unlike the guys you quote who basically are printing lies such as the ice cap is thickening. I presume you have seen the film.

 

But go on humour me. Tell me about all this majority of climatologists who disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emmissions. Let me guess are going to argue that it is the amount that is created by the natural enviroment such as plant and animals etc. Well before you bother if you are able to think for yourself rather than just regurgitate claptrap concentrate that is an irrelevant argument. The concern is the increase in CO2 emmissions over the years and the effect that may be having. Now that increase, what are you going to put it down to if not man.

From List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

 

The Earth is not warming

Since 2001, no climate scientists have expressed skepticism that warming, of the magnitude described by the IPCC, has occurred.

 

[edit]The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.

 

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago… [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future..." [4]. He has also said "Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." [5] (Also in WSJ, June 26, 2006, Page A14)

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3°C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.", George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003 [6]

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.", George C. Marshall Institute, WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE ON SCIENCE & PUBLIC POLICY, Satellite Temperature Data, March 2006 [7]

David Deming, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[8]

Claude Allegre, French geophysicist, writes: “In all likelihood, there is a climate change, but the latter is characterized more by sudden shifts, both in space and time (the heat wave or the “rotten summer”, just like the violent tornadoes or the increased frequency of floods, are examples of these) than by global warming. The cause of this climate change is unknown. Is it man? Is it nature?” [9]

 

[edit] The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes may be more to blame than human activities.

 

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [10]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 [11])

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [12])

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." [13] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." [14]

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [15]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [16]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [17] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [18].

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." [19]

Tim Patterson [20], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [21]

Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [22])

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [23])

Leonid F. Khilyuk and George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California write: "The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." [24]

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [25]

 

[edit] Global warming is good for human society

This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

 

Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.", Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World, co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30 ([26]).

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

[VinnieK]

(whereas in reality the bulk of climatologists disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emissions)

 

Just out of curiosity, how many climatologists are there in the world, and what proportion of them disagree that man is the main source of CO2 emissions (or, to put it in a form less open to dishonest manipulation, those who disagree that man is responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions over the past century or so)?

[VinnieK]

That's an excellent list of scientists.

 

Twelve! There are obviously less climatologists than I thought if they make up the bulk of that body of people, especially since only six of those twelve are environmental scientists (also, each of those scientists are primarily skeptical about whether the earth is heating up, and the accuracy of our predictive tools regarding the environment. Not, it must be said, about CO2 emissions or wider effects on the environment of humanity's activity).

[Chinahand]

Albert, my understanding is that there is almost 100% agreement that the increase in CO2 levels is due to man. The main evidence of this is that the ratios of C14 to standard carbon show that the increase is being caused by prehistoric carbon: ie coal and oil. Link.

 

The next issue is how serious is this increase in CO2 on temperature - this is much more uncertain and difficult to model - however there is alot of evidence that the greenhouse effects of CO2 are significant and CO2 levels are unprecedented and increasing.

 

You've previously claimed that carbon dioxide levels fluxuate around the mean and so the current levels of 380 ppm aren't so unusual. I do not think that is true. The mean fluctuates - previously the biggest influence was the glacial cycle (see graph below), but in any given period there are not large instantaneous fluctuations about this mean.

 

In the graph below the average level was 280ppm about 120 thousand years ago ... AFAIK this level was not 280ppm +- 100 meaning todays levels of 380 ppm are not so different from 120 thousand years ago. The variation 120 thousand years ago was something like 280 +- 10 and this +-10 figure is pretty constant over time). Given this todays levels of CO2 at 380 are absolutely unprecedented and all the evidence points to this causing a temperature increase. What this exact increase will be and how it will manefest itself around the world is extremely uncertain. But given the known physical properties of CO2 and the known levels of CO2 in the atmosphere the number of climatologists who dispute temperatures are going to increase are very very few.

 

 

The skeptics are fighting against some pretty clear physical properties of CO2 - what is the equilibrium temperature increase for every ppm increase in CO2.

 

Obviously because the climate isn't in equilibrium there is a lot of wriggle room and valid scientific debate, but unless the increase per ppm is 10 times less than the mainstream concensus thinks it is then at a basic layman's level global warming will happen with some finessing about how that will manefest itself around the world.

 

To claim the increase per ppm is 10 times less than the mainstream thinks it is is very difficult given its physical properties.

 

An argument within Climateology about the science is being distorted politically by oil and car lobbiests. They make out legitimate scientific differences to be disagreements about whether global warming will occur. Something similar is happening within paleantology with Fundamentalist christians making out that debates about human origins and evolution within the scientific community show that evolution has not occurred.

 

I think both are distortions and greatly harm the pusuit of objective truth. The number of climetologists who claim that levels of CO2 at 380 ppm will not cause global warming are so insignificant as not to be worth arguing about. But politically motivated lobbiests are claiming that what is pretty much a consensus is in fact a major disagreement.

 

I think that is wrong.