Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth��“an embarrassment"

[Fred H.]

Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,� is an embarrassment to US science. Surprise, surprise. From CFC (Canada FreePress), http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris060406.htm Guest Column�Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe�The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists, By Tom Harris, Monday, June 12, 2006:

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "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." Patterson asked the committee, "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?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "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."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "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."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[TomJrzk]

Very interesting, thanks. But I don't know what it has to do with Evolutionary Psychology...

[Fred H.]

TomJ: But I don't know what it has to do with Evolutionary Psychology...

You don’t know what Gore’s panicky declaration of imminent climate change/global catastrophe, based on junk science, has to do with evolutionary psychology and/or science? Well Tom, perhaps not a whole lot, except that Margaret’s so-called “axiom of human nature,� actually seems to have some validity when applied to those having ideologies and delusions similar to Gore’s and/or hers�her “axiom� tells us that Gore “used his brains to justify� his belief that global catastrophe is imminent, apparently b/c that’s what he believes b/c that’s what feels good to him b/c, as MM’s “axiom� asserts, “people believe what feels good to them,� thereby enabling Gore to “use his brains to justify� that belief, although there is little to no actual real and hard “science� (or truth) to support his declarations.

Ironic that Margaret’s “axiom,� while circular and pretty much useless, does nevertheless, sort of, explain why people with gore's and her “liberal� ideology push and even believe their own BS agendas, apparently unable to discern truth and/or reality.

[TomJrzk]

So the intent was to provoke more examples on EP's forum of people's Repression Modules hiding differing facets of reality from them? I think we already have enough.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: So the intent was to provoke more examples on EP's forum of people's Repression Modules hiding differing facets of reality from them? I think we already have enough.

Well Tom, I suppose you could look at it that way�Gore’s so-called “Repression Module,� apparently interacting with his preconceived notions/beliefs, hid facets of reality from him leading him to his conviction that global catastrophe is imminent; whereas my, and apparently even your, Repression Module, didn’t . . . allowing us to objectively evaluate the available science and evidence to see that in fact Gore’s conviction was based on nothing more than junk science and emotion.

Ergo, this example proves that the Repression Module hides facets of reality . . . except when it doesn’t. Yep Tom, your repression module hypothesis seems to be about as useful as MM’s axiom of human nature.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

Gore’s so-called “Repression Module,� apparently interacting with his preconceived notions/beliefs, hid facets of reality from him leading him to his conviction that global catastrophe is imminent; whereas my, and apparently even your, Repression Module, didn’t . . .

I don't know whether you're intentionally missing the point or your repression module is making you miss it but I appreciate the chance to reiterate my argument.

Gore is completely invested in being a Democrat, his repression module would filter anything that didn't directly attack Bush and the Republicans; unless he was willing to acknowledge the rest of his brain that tries to represent reality.

Plus, while I'm not sure there isn't the god you're so invested in, I'm very sure that you'd be defending whatever god your culture supported. You'd be arguing that there must be a Mercury god carrying the sun in his little chariot, if only you'd been born a couple millennia ago in a different place. If you'd been born in China, or in the Australian outback, or in the Yukon, or in Jordan, or in India, you'd be just as convinced that you're right about everything you now think is wrong. I know this because you have never met your god and talked with him; you only parrot the dementia that you've heard and read. That you can't see this is sad.

And you might still be defending this 10 commandment objective moral generator til you're blue in the face against evolution and brain modules in part because of this repression module. The part you're missing is that the repression module acts in defense of your own ego; maybe you ought to read the article again here: http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=728.

You've invested far too many of your ridiculous arguments to admit that you've been so wrong for so long, no matter how obvious the repression article shows that the brain is far more potent than any invisible spirit you can dream up. But you psychologically NEED yourself to be right, so you're probably unable to acknowledge the power of the repression module and the regret module. Maybe to punish those like me who tell you the truth; maybe to grant you the mansion in the sky for eternity that you long for; maybe just to be right for a change. I don't know for sure; but I also know that you don't, either.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: The part you're missing is that the repression module acts in defense of your own ego; maybe you ought to read the article again here: http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=728.

You've invested far too many of your ridiculous arguments to admit that you've been so wrong for so long, no matter how obvious the repression article shows that the brain is far more potent than any invisible spirit you can dream up. But you psychologically NEED yourself to be right, so you're probably unable to acknowledge….

Really Tom, you’re projecting. Your reliance on page 4 of that article that you’ve referenced (noted above)�“Freud Returns,� by Mark Solms, obviously something of a Freud disciple himself�regarding your repression module hypothesis (supposedly acting in defense of what Freud unscientifically opined is the “ego�) is lame at best. Hello?

Seriously Tom, ask Carey and/or Todd and/or JimB to review that article and I think they’ll all pretty much say the same.

And again Tom, I can’t find where I’ve been “defending� “God,� as you so hastily and/or disingenuously assert. Got a link? No, I didn’t think so.

Nevertheless, for your edification, again, here’s my view of things: I’m obviously no atheist; and the current science and evidence undoubtedly supports what these great scientists (obviously not atheists) have had to say:

Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe�a spirit vastly superior to that of man....�
Max Planck: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.�
Roger Penrose: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

your repression module hypothesis (supposedly acting in defense of what Freud unscientifically opined is the “ego�) is lame at best. Hello?

You might have to read it again, Fred. Here's a synopsis:

1. Woman's arm is paralyzed.
2. Woman denies paralysis.
3. Woman's brain is stimulated in 'experiment'.
4. Woman realizes she's paralyzed, and that she had been all along.
5. Simulation wears off.
6. Woman denies paralysis.
7. Woman remembers everything about stimulation experiment EXCEPT that she admitted that she was paralyzed.

The 'EXCEPT' is the kicker. Something in her brain is actively repressing her memory as well as her perception of her disability. She can not accept that she's suffered because her brain will not let her. There's no free will there.

You're wrong, Fred.

[Fred H.]

TomJ:
1. Woman's arm is paralyzed.
2. Woman denies paralysis.
3. Woman's brain is stimulated in 'experiment'.
4. Woman realizes she's paralyzed, and that she had been all along.
5. Simulation wears off.
6. Woman denies paralysis.
7. Woman remembers everything about stimulation experiment EXCEPT that she admitted that she was paralyzed.

The 'EXCEPT' is the kicker. Something in her brain is actively repressing her memory as well as her perception of her disability. She can not accept that she's suffered because her brain will not let her. There's no free will there.

Tom, like that poor woman, there seems to be something repressing your discernment, rationality, freewill. Perhaps Carey, Todd, or JimB can review that article and stimulate your brain, but I suspect your paralysis is untreatable. Sorry, and good luck.

All the best,
Sigmoid Fred

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

Tom, like that poor woman, there seems to be something repressing your discernment, rationality, freewill.

So, you choose not to refute the scientific evidence that illustrates that I'm right and you're wrong. I would expect that from you, Fred.