From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype (Global Warming)

[El Supremo]

March 13, 2007

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”


the rest at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[ixion]

1. yeah, that's right, you morons... just keep hemmin' and hawin' and before you know it

it'll be here. :banghead:

Here's a simple piece of logic: 6 billion creatures pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is guaranteed to change the environment into which it is being pumped. This is simple cause and effect.

[kimmerspixelated]

3. I know!

Seems like a no-brainer to me!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I know Don Easterbrook.

I'd like to know specifically which statements he finds inaccurate.

[w4rma]

4. Call him up/E-mail him and ask him. Tell us. I'm interested, also. (nt)

[Barrett808]

7. That would be very cool! n/t

[endarkenment]

6. I'd like to know if he is any relation to Gregg Easterbrook

As Gregg Easterbrook is a notorious rightwing hack who has made a career out of throwing confusion and doubt about this issue into the public discourse.

[Tempest]

8. I'd like to know what a geologist knows about climatology

I'm willing to bet it's squat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Geologists know plenty about climatology.

Especially the geomorphologists.

[Tempest]

17. What does the study of landforms have to do with climatology?

Geomorphology is the study of landforms, including their origin and evolution, and the processes that shape them.

The discipline is practiced within geology, geodesy, geography, archaeology, and civil and environmental engineering.

[daleo]

18. Climate changes landforms

Ice ages, for example, have a profound effect on landforms. So geomorpholoy seems relevent to me.

[Psephos]

21. Atmospheric CO2 is directly related to its interaction with, and deposition into, rock strata

As well into ocean water. Most of the carbon buried in the Earth is not in the form of fossil fuels, but locked into carbonate rocks, such as limestone. As tectonic plates move about, and continental landforms evolve, exposure of sedimentary carbonates has major effects on atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, carbonate deposition continues in the deep ocean plains as the remains of dead microscopic sea creatures rain down and eventually become buried in the trenches at the plate edges.

Climate and atmospheric chemistry are directly related to interaction between land, sea, and air.

You might consider reading a good book like Nick Lanes' Oxygen or John McPhee's Assembling California to come up to speed a bit on how Earth's various geomorphic and atmospheric systems interact.

Peace.

[Morgana LaFey]

24. I am not surprised you know Easterbrook.

The name is familiar to me because of a horrible pseudo-science anti-gloabl warming hack job he did several years ago, IIRC for one of the industry front groups.

[Barrett808]

5. Haven't scientists, in general, praised the film?

That was a headline just a few months ago.

[Tempest]

10. Scientists who study climate changes have

It's the geologists, like this guy, and other non-climate study scientists who are the skeptics.

[w4rma]

12. I expect it's over minor irrelevent, but technical, details that have little to do with the overall

points on global warming. Scientists obsess over every tiny detail of a study. It's to be expected, as it's their job. But, some see the trees and miss the forest. The hard science folks usually aren't people people. They are used to talking to other scientists who are often perfectionists.

Basically some of these guys are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

And then there are the paid-off by big oil, shill "scientists" who aren't scientists but only have some degree, many times not even in a relevant science. Being a big business propagandist appears to make *very* *very* good money.

[Lorien]

22. I know a fair number of geologists at OSU

they think the film is optimistic.

[killbotfactory]

9. Broad Irony

The first rule when criticizing popular science presentations for inaccuracies should be to double check any 'facts' you use. It is rather ironic then that William Broad's latest piece on Al Gore plays just as loose with them as he accuses Gore of doing.

We criticized William Broad previously (Broadly Misleading) for a piece that misrepresented the scientific understanding of the factors that drive climate change over millions of years, systematically understating the scientifically-established role of greenhouse gases, and over-stating the role of natural factors including those as speculative as cosmic rays (see our recent discussion here). In this piece, Broad attempts to discredit Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" by exaggerating the legitimate, but minor, criticisms of his treatment of the science by experts on climate science, and presenting specious or unsubstantiated criticisms by a small number of the usual, well-known contrarians who wouldn't agree even if Gore read aloud from the latest IPCC report.

read the rest here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419

[truthisfreedom]

13. So, Mr. Smartypants, why did you not mention any of the "exaggerated and erroneous" central points?

Why all of the generalizations and no specific facts, Mr. Scientist?

“But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

In the statements that you are seeing? STATEMENTS BY WHOM? Gore?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. API called. The $10K check is in the mail.

[Nickster]

15. And the mandatory debunking of said article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/debunking-the-nyts-slopp_b_43310.html

"For those who are, let's summarize: Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.

Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed. "

[fasttense]

16. William Broad sounds a lot like Judith Miller making her case for WMDs. n/t

[Robbien]

20. William Broad has co-authored a book with Judith Miller

they are ascloseasthis in both thought and deed.

[Beaverhausen]

19. This has been debunked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=401412

[politicat]

23. What movie were THEY watching?

If An Inconvenient Truth is alarmist, I must need to have my pulse checked. Farenheit 9/11 was alarmist. AIT was... informative. Sensible. Low Key.

And the science was solid, not fringe. Nor were the predictions terribly outre.

Poor Dr. Vranes. He should comment about public consumption climate change films as much as I comment about the historical accuracy of 300. Not at all, in other words. Experts really should recognize that what we consider a huge issue within the field is generally a tiny piece of WTFery to non-experts.