If the Warmers care about getting the science right, why don't they correct Al Gore's errors?

Question

In the movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore says Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph is right because it is supported by Lonnie Thompson's ice core "thermometer." One problem: the chart Gore shows is not from Thompson's ice core data, it is Michael Mann's chart with temperature data spliced onto it. (This is really funny when you look at it because it shows annual global averaged temps going up and down in the same year!) Anyway, Thompson knows it is an error. Mann knows it is an error. Gore knows it is an error. Yet no one has bothered to tell the public about this error. If these people really wanted credibility, they would get the science right.

Read the story for yourselves and then give me your opinion on why they don't set the record straight?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2598

Answer 1

Failed communist revolution? New religion?  Hippies? Warmers?

Come on people, OPEN YOUR EYES! The two sets of data on the chart were from different places in the world. In one of those places, the temperature rose drastically. In another it fell slightly. While the planet is heating up,  weird wind patterns and changing sea currents cause some areas to TEMPORARILY cool down. Eventually, everywhere is going to heat up.

If YOU are so interested in sticking to science,  DO NOT make false accusation, generalizations, or stereotypes about the people you disagree with. The whole point of science is to progress by challenging  accepted beliefs with  physical data. Currently, 98% of the data says your wrong. You can either cling to that 2%  chance that you are right, or you can actually research the topic with an open mind and maby learn something about the fate of the planet while you're at it.

Answer 2

Because they want to keep their hippies. This is just going to be another failed communist revolution...

And to the first answer....

WE KNOW IT'S NOT MAN MADE SO WHY DO ANYTHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW ISN'T HAPPENING?

That's like saying you may have cancer or you may not but we will give you chemo anyway... See the point.

Answer 3

Micheal Mann got the right graph and the right answer and it's propelled him to fame ever since.  

The graph is not correct in a technical sense, but it is exactly what proponents of global warming were ready to see.  The graph fit the greenhouse theory so well and much better than anything historians or palentological sceintists persuing other types of research had produced that it inspired faith like the words from a holy profit.  

The trouble is that the hockey stick graph was produced using an error in Mann's algorithm (if it really was an error).  It is not so much science as science fiction.

In using it Al Gore has not stretched the truth but abandoned it.

On a parent sueing the UK government - I'm impressed he that he was as successful as he was.  In the UK, judges are not elected they are appointed.  Not only does the government make the law, they appoint the judiciary and they also have very good lawers.  It's very hard to successfully sue the government and it would be a bad career move for a judge to find too heavily against his bosses.

Answer 4

Because it's really unimportant.

Gore has the basic science right.  Scientists say so:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/200...

and it's been proven in a British court of law.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Gore's slide show is currently being given by teams of presenters, and I'd be very surprised if most all of the minor errors are not corrected in those.  Fixing minor science errors in an old movie is a waste of time.  We all know science marches on.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 5

Al Gore does not have his science right.  He lied to millions with his movie, and I thought he even acknowledged that some of it is innaccurate.

Plus he brought up a bunch of irrelevant facts, like the population of some species of animals.  Global warming wont kill any species, we already did that by directly taking the land that was theirs and making it our own.  Plus, Al Gore must not know that when one niche opens up when something goes extinct, something will take its place.  

I saw a documentary where they showed water innundating half the continent of africa!!!  Areas where the elevation is above 1000 feet, they showed water covering it as "sea levels" rise!  Isnt that rediculous?  To think that stupid people see that little graphic, and they actually believe that will happen!  Ha.

Answer 6

The claim that much of Gore's evidence has "now been discredited" is itself an untruth. In a work of such breadth and scope as An Inconvenient Truth, the occasional inaccuracy, such as when Gore states that the number of polar bears is diminishing when infact the numbers were not declining (2006 remember), does not therefore mean that the ice is not melting and in no way disqualifies An Inconvenient Truth as an accurate assessment of global warming due to human activity.

No single work has gone so far to educate so many.

Answer 7

I want you to watch this video... its only a few minutes long...

http://ca.video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid...

Its not about whether global warming is or isnt happening... its an entirely different controversy.

Ignore the debate on whether or not its happening and question whether or not, if its happening, we should do anything about it.

This video discusses the actual costs and benefits of combating global warming, whether or not its happening.

This video doesnt aim to convince anyone one way or the other as to if its happening... but only suggests that our focus should be on risk management

No science, just logic.  One conclusion

Essentially it boils down to this one question... do the costs of combating something not happening outweigh the risks of not combating something that is happening?

Whats the worst that can happen if its not happening and we do nothing?  Nothing!

Whats the worst that can happen if its not happening and we do something?  Policy changes, fees, etcetera... all of which would benefit the environment anyway.

Whats the worst that can happen if it IS happening and we do something?  We avert disaster... any financial cost is an acceptable cost

Whats the worst that can happen if it IS happening and we do nothing?

Those who insist on ignoring the doom-sayers are only doing so out of a refusal to accept the possibility.  Or because they dont want the financial burden.  But none of them care about their descendent's and their posterity.  I doubt few actually believe, on rational basis, that the science is flawed.  And if it is, so what?

A global (possibly apocalyptic) catastrophe dooming millions and severely burdening the human race for centuries, stunting our civilizations growth.

OR... a few extra bucks out of your pay check.

Really... what do you care about more?

I have been arguing against global warming for a while now... because I too think the science is flawed.  But this video, this argument, convinced me wholeheartedly that we should actively try to avert global warming whether or not its happening.

I'd like to believe that even the most hardened skeptic can appreciate this argument.  I hope it makes more sense to act with the assumption that global warming is happening WHILE debating if its happening.

===

In response to the third answerer... you only validate my points.

First... no conclusions have been conclusive, scientifically.

Secondly, that is exactly the lazy, apathetic mentality people have... why do anything?  Its not happening?  God forbid youre wrong.  I hope youre not.

Again, its not about whether or not it is happening, its about whether or not you care to prevent it.  The possibility, no matter how slight, should not be brushed off for our grandchildren to endure.

===

Youre still not grasping my point.  Why reduce your argument to IF its happening?  And even then, why default to "its not, without doubt"?

I see no issue with putting forth a little preventative effort.  If we compensate for man-made influence... then, if it happens, it happens... maybe we didnt do enough and maybe its a naturally occurring process bound to happen anyway...  and if it doesnt happen, that doesnt prove we didnt prevent it... and it certainly doesnt prove that it wont still happen later.

The only proof you guys will have is by tempting fate.  We do nothing and nothing happens... hurray... you can take pride in being right.  Nothing like putting the planet and humanity at risk all for ego and greed.

===

Tell me, do any of you "global warming is a farce" people appreciate this very simple argument?  Have you been swayed?  Or has this only added fuel to the doom-sayers fire?

Answer 8

Because it doesn't matter.

Whether you like it or not, Gore's film got the basic science right.  That this one particular graph was not perfectly accurate is a minor detail.  Several temperature reconstructions since then have found essentially the same results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_...

But really, who cares?  When was the last time you saw any of us citing Gore's film as a source?  Every so often somebody new will come here and suggest that another new person watch the film, and that's about it.  It's a good starting point, no more.

Answer 9

AL can`t see the truth

Answer 10

There are at least ( if not more ) than 400 scientist that say GW is basically a big joke but yet Al " I love donuts " Gore refuses to debate with them. In other words if he did he would loose big time and be out a TON of money

Answer 11

They need the "hockey stick" graph to convince "the dumb masses", that's us, how serious the problem is. Even if it is not correct, it is an important tool for the environmentalists and the UN. They want to take money from the greedy, rich, capitalist, in order to fund the UN and the agenda.

Here is a web page about the "hockey stick" and the data that was used prior to it, by the UN / IPCC:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.h...

Answer 12

A. What makes you think that the hockey stick is broken?

Nearly a dozen independent research groups have since reconstructed the average temperature anomaly for the past two millennia from proxy data and they all support the general conclusions of Mann et al (1998): that the rate of global warming during the late 20th century is unusual and unprecedented when compared to the last one or two thousand years, and that the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time within the last two thousand years.[1][2][3]

B. What makes you think that the hickey stick matters at all?

Paleoclimatology is rather interesting, but it really doesn’t matter whether or not the Medieval Warm Period was a couple of tenth of a degree warmer or cooler than Mann’s reconstructions.  What really matters is the future. It is perfectly clear that global warming over the past few decades is accelerating, and that greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible. The average global temperature is expected to rise by 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100, with the most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C.[3] “If humanity takes no action and this century will bring a temperature rise of 2 ºC, 3 ºC or even more, the current discussions over whether the 14th Century was a few tenths of a degree warmer or the 17th a few tenths cooler than previously thought will look rather academic.”[4]

“The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change,’ he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong.”[4]

Answer 13

If I remember correctly, the original post about Thompson's 'thermometer" on CA was quickly debunked by Tim Lambert (in the comments section). I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

I thought it was quite funny, really.

Edit: Here it is:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2328

Funny stuff. Funnier still by the fact that Steve M is still upset by it. I'm sure he thinks it's a NASA conspiracy of some sort (and I bet James Hansen's got something to do with it because he's up to something. And Gavin Schmidt that cocky b*stard).

Edit: Poor choice of wording on my part. But whatevs. It's still just another case of paranoid Steve M and his lackies at CA making mountains out of molehills. That's what they do best, after all. That and insinuating that climate scientists are engaged in fraud (Steve M would never make the accusation outright, of course, he's too careful, or too timid, for that). Here's a funny comic that puts Steve M's paranoia into pictures:

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/01/audit...

Answer 14

No one really cares about Al Gore's movie.  Like any propaganda, it's going to have exaggerations.  But his fundamental premises are correct.

Answer 15

They don't want Al to have to give his Nobel back.

Global warming's more like a religion than science at this pt. No need to "get the science right."

Anyway, if the earth is actually warming, I don't think we can do anymore about stopping it than we could about stopping the global warming going on on Mars, Pluto, etc.  

Interesting article tho. thx.

Answer 16

Because it's a trivial error and doesn't disprove the fundamental physics, which is that CO2 is a radiatively active trace gas, whose increase in the atmosphere can be shown to affect longwave radiative transfer, leading to an increase in the longwave radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m^2.  The effect of this increase in radiative forcing is to cause a warming of the planet. The important part is that the paleo evidence shows that the global climate is extremely sensitive to subtle changes in the atmospheric and planetary radiative forcing, with ice ages triggered by changes that are a fraction of that.  

This chain of physics, which is indisputable unless you want to argue large parts of science done in the 20th century are wrong, is what lead people like Jim Hansen and Al Gore and Steven Schneider to conclude anthropogenic CO2 is a very large problem in terms of climate.  The difference between them and people like Lindzen and Singer and Ball is that they understand the links in the causal physics, and that the causal physics are not wrong.  

If you think CO2 isn't a problem, what part of the physics is wrong?  If you argue CO2 does not radiatively force the planet, or that forcing is different from 1.6 W/m^2, then you have to believe something is wrong with IR spectroscopy and electromagnetic radiative transfer theory.  If you say 1.6 W/m^2 is a trivial increase in radiative forcing, then you have to explain why that forcing is unimportant when the change in forcing estimated from the Milankovitch cycles, solar oscillations etc. are fractions of that, and the climatic implications of those are huge.  

Where is the physics wrong, in your opinion, that would make Gore's incorrectly attributing a temperature record data source so important?  What you are doing is nitpicking when the 900-lb gorilla who is the physics sits in the corner, not going away.