"An Innconvienant Truth "

[Abecrombie]

who plans on seeing this movie when it comes out?

I do. BIG TIME

FOR MORE INFO .....heres the official site

http://www.climatecrisis.net

Edited June 19, 2006 by Abecrombie

[Guest]

I've seen it, it's fantastic. Very informative and well explained. And Al Gore is a great presenter!

[__Kratos__]

Global warming: Some inconvenient glaciers

Al Gore says the world's glaciers are melting because humanity has emitted too much CO2.

However, a new peer-reviewed study shows that in South America's Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity.

The study, led by P.J. Polissar of the University of Massachusetts, found that Andean glaciers expanded only four times during the 600 years of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1250 AD to 1850. Each of those glacier advances occurred during a solar minimum, when the sun's lowered activity apparently dropped the mountain-top temperatures by 2–4 degrees C and increased precipitation by about 20 percent.

The Polissar team's report, "Solar Modulation of Little Ice Age Climate in the Tropical Andes," was recently published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team studied the glaciers' moraines -- piles of rocks, soil, tree trunks and other glacial debris left behind when the glaciers retreated. Then they matched the glacial debris with the sediment layers in nearby mountain lakes. The pronounced seasonality in the Andes precipitation allows the researchers to count years in the sediments and precisely date the glacial advances.

The Andes glacier study not only links glacial advances and retreats with the sun, but emphasizes that the earth's glaciers have often retreated -- and even disappeared -- during past centuries, long before humans built cars and smokestacks.

Most of the Andes glaciers must have disappeared during the Holocene Warming that ended just 5,000 years ago. Temperatures then were as much as 2 degrees C warmer than today's. So far, the Modern Warming has produced about only 0.8 degrees C of total temperature rise in its 150 years.

The sun has been linked to earth's climate changes for the past 400 years -- by sunspot records. Early astronomers noted that the two coldest periods of the Little Ice Age occurred when there were virtually no sunspots on the sun. The Sporer Minimum lasted from 1420 to 1570, and the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710.

The solar-earth linkage came to the fore again in the 1980s, when researchers brought up the first long ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. The 400,000 years of temperature history contained in the ice cores clearly showed a moderate, natural cycle that raised temperatures at the latitude of New York and Paris by about 2 degrees C, and then lowered them by a similar amount. The cycles averaged about 1500 years in length. Carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the ice clearly linked this temperature cycle to the sun.

The question for Al Gore is not whether our temperatures are rising; the key question is why they're rising. Antarctic ice cores tell us that temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere have tracked closely together through recent Ice Ages, but the CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by about 800 years.

Higher temperatures have produced more atmospheric CO2, rather than CO2 producing higher temperatures! That's because most of the planet's CO2 is stored in the oceans, and as the seawater warms, it can't hold as much CO2.

If CO2 is the driving climate force, why did the earth begin warming in 1850, while human CO2 emissions didn't start to really expand until about 1940? Mr. Gore doesn't tell us the answer.

Why did the earth's temperatures decline from 1940 to 1975, even as CO2 emissions were soaring? Mr. Gore doesn't say.

How warm will New York get in the Modern Warming? Apparently Mr. Gore can't tell us, but a total of 2 degrees C seems likely -- based on the history in the ice cores.

Source

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who do you believe more... educated scientists studying the earth or Gore?

I know I picked the scientists.

[x o i s k]

It’s all just perspective my friend.

[Abecrombie]

Kratos has not our ozone layer been depleiting due to pollution and gasses

from the over populated earth and its technoligies?

if the ozones layer is thinning out maybe that is why the sun has been

one of the reasons as well . it makes sense. have you seen the movie yet? a friend and myself are supposed to go this weekend.

and since the 1940's we have had world war 2 and the korean war and vietnam

war dessert storm but i think that was a little after the 80's.

war is fuel. smoke from fuel and is pollution.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Abecrombie

[E.B.E.]

Heres A Trailer For It:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

[DarlingNikki]

The trailer along with other information are available on their Myspace page! An Inconvenient Truth Myspace Link

[FrankBlunt]

Below is a link to a website, the agents of which are admired by Al Gore. A previous thread was created in regard to this film and is probably on page 2 or 3 of this forum by now. The link I posted to the article from the Canada Free Press is rather telling of Gore's belief versus proof.

Pay special attention to the 5th paragraph and the content that follows. Author Eric Steig refers to Gore's errors as small. As in math, there are no small errors in science. Science is correctable, and Gore is practicing faith.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi.../al-gores-movie

Gore states that there is a consensus in the scientific community that humans are causing global warming. There are plenty of climatologists, declaring allegiance to not a single political lobby, who disagree with Gore's position.

I find it curious that America is now planning a broad expansion of nuclear power plants, and they are in dire need of funding. Hmm...

[Startraveler]

Who do you believe more... educated scientists studying the earth or Gore?

I know I picked the scientists.

It would be wise to read the work of the scientists (not editorialists). From the conclusions section of the paper in question (the bracketed parts are mine but with text transplanted from elsewhere in the paper):

The data presented here suggest that solar activity has exerted a strong influence on century-scale tropical climate variability during the late Holocene, modulating both precipitation and temperature. Surface cooling is enhanced at high altitudes by feedbacks involving water vapor, ultimately depressing temperatures in the Venezuelan Andes by -3.2 +/- 1.4°C during the LIA [Little Ice Age]. It is likely that this mechanism also may serve to amplify the effects of warming trends, irrespective of their origin, which raises concern that global warming will adversely affect high altitude tropical montane regions (41). Supporting this concern, 20th-century temperature increases have raised the ELAs [equilibrium-line altitude--the elevation of the dividing line between the glacier accumulation and ablation areas, used by the authors as a climatically sensitive measure to document variations in glacier extent] of tropical glaciers, leading to accelerated ablation and disappearance in many cases (12, 42–44). Our data suggest considerable sensitivity of tropical climate to small changes in radiative forcing from solar irradiance variability. Conservative estimates of net anthropogenic greenhouse-gas radiative forcing for the next 50 yr surpass that of solar forcing in previous centuries (45), implying that profound climatic impacts can be predicted for tropical montane regions.

Turns out one can trust both Al Gore and scientists.

And I enjoyed the movie as well.

[Celumnaz]

haven't seen it. nothing can beat "the day after tomorrow"!!

Gore's movie won the "Humanitas Prize"... those awards go to "TV and film writers whose fictional work reflects "the positive values of life."

Got the quote from Yahoo an closed the window before I copied the link an don't wanna go looking it up again.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Celumnaz

[Startraveler]

Gore's movie won the "Humanitas Prize"... those awards go to "TV and film writers whose fictional work reflects "the positive values of life."

Actually, it won a Special Award

The documentary feature film “An Inconvenient Truth,” will receive a Special Award from the HUMANITAS Prize at its annual awards luncheon on June 28th. This is the first time in over 10 years that the organization has voted to grant a Special Award. “When evaluating films and television shows we ask, ‘does it make a significant contribution to the human family by communicating values, forming consciences and motivating human behavior?’,” commented Frank Desiderio, President of the HUMANITAS Prize. “‘An Inconvenient Truth’ does all of that and more. It’s a very important film, we want to shine a light on it.”

...

Although the HUMANITAS Prize is traditionally given for fictional stories, on occasion the

Board of Directors has voted to give an award to a documentary film. In 1995, a Special

Award was given to Bill Moyers and Judith Davidson Moyers for “What Can We Do about

Violence?” In 1993, Mary Jo Peltier and Arnold Shapiro received a Special Award for

“Sacred Silent: Ending and Exposing Child Abuse” which was broadcast simultaneously on

ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Startraveler

[+Sherapy]

I saw it also, it is well researched, well done...I opted out of the political scene many moons ago ...so i wasn't to familiar with Gore (just assumed he was no differnt then any other politician. the kings of B.S. turns out once in a blue moon one comes along that actually uses politics for a larger purpose and I myself couldn't think of a better cause to stand for then the planet that sustains us.....hats off to this man...

.Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

"WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press."

"While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/...gore_s_science

__________________

Edited June 27, 2006 by Sheri berri

[Celumnaz]

Directly related:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257909

Majority Press Release

Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797

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.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257909

[Startraveler]

A Republican press release, always the best place to look for insight.

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.”

It appears Senator Inhofe's press release misrepresents research his own committee commissioned:

Report Affirms 'Hockey Stick' Climate Change Data; UMass Amherst Climate Scientist Comments

June 22, 2006

Contact: Raymond Bradley

413/545-2120

AMHERST, Mass. – A National Academy of Sciences report released today confirms that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, affirming the findings of climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and his colleagues. The report was requested by Congress last year to clarify research involving surface temperature reconstructions published by the scientists in the late 1990s. Bradley issued the following statement regarding the report:

“The National Academy of Sciences released their report today, on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. This was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to clarify the controversy over the so-called “hockey stick” temperature reconstructions of the last 1,000 years by Michael Mann (Penn State University), Raymond Bradley (University of Massachusetts Amherst) and Malcolm Hughes (University of Arizona). These scientists concluded that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This drew the ire of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Joe Barton (R- Texas), who claimed the research was misleading,” Bradley says.

“The NAS report concluded that the Mann et al study “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.” They find it plausible that “the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.” They note that confidence in the record decreases back in time, especially before A.D. 1600, in agreement with the original conclusions reached by the university researchers. The Academy panel also concluded: “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” says Bradley.

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.

If I recall correctly, Kilimanjaro came in an extended sequence of slides demonstrating the widespread and extensive melting glaciers worldwide are experiencing. But as for Kilimanjaro specifically, if you look you'll find that the authors of those studies readily admit that it isn't a black-and-white issue and their work does nothing to rule out a possible influence on the melting from global warming: NYT article.

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.

This one's on thin ice, so to speak. Two rebutals to it are worth reading: thinkprogress and this more detailed analysis.