Gore Movie Rebuttle (1 Viewer)

[Stinger]

Here are some rebuttle points made by Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)
(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.
(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).
(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."
(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.



http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F


​

The first review I read of the film was this morning in USA Today. The reviewer was obviously an entertainment reporter and not a scientist. She gave great credence to the film as I'm sure the rest of the media will. I missed it but I understand he was on the Today show and I bet nothing in the movie was challenged, I bet he was smothered in praise. So do you think his movie will recieve scrutiney in the mainstream media or will it be accepted at face value?

 

[jfuh]

Here are some rebuttle points made by Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)
(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.
(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).
(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."
(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.



http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F


​

The first review I read of the film was this morning in USA Today. The reviewer was obviously an entertainment reporter and not a scientist. She gave great credence to the film as I'm sure the rest of the media will. I missed it but I understand he was on the Today show and I bet nothing in the movie was challenged, I bet he was smothered in praise. So do you think his movie will recieve scrutiney in the mainstream media or will it be accepted at face value?

So what's your argument? Global warming is BS? THe movie is BS?

 

[aps]

So what's your argument? Global warming is BS? THe movie is BS?

LOL Who knows? Who cares? Isn't it obvious? The cons will go out of their way to discredit anything that is pro-environment. They don't give a rat's a$$ about our air quality or anything else related to the environment. It's called selfishness. Why do you think they don't care about the tax cuts for the rich? Because they care about people? Nope.

I am curious what party this Arizona State University professor is a member of.

 

[Stinger]

So what's your argument? Global warming is BS? THe movie is BS?

These aren't my arguements they are the arguements of the Professor of climatology I cited. HE makes the arguement that the movie is BS. Can you rebut the specific points he makes?

 

[Stinger]

LOL Who knows? Who cares? Isn't it obvious? The cons will go out of their way to discredit anything that is pro-environment. They don't give a rat's a$$ about our air quality or anything else related to the environment. It's called selfishness. Why do you think they don't care about the tax cuts for the rich? Because they care about people? Nope.

I am curious what party this Arizona State University professor is a member of.

IOW since you can't rebut him on a factual level you will resort to demogory. You even got a "tax cut for the rich" line in there. I knew it wouldn't take long.

 

[Hoot]

Dr. Balling is funded by the coal and oil industry. I think that says quite a bit about where his loyalties lie, right there.

http://www.epilogicconsulting.com/cascadiac/altviews.htm

The News Council decision against the Star Tribune's editorial on global warming skeptics was mistaken
by Michael Noble, executive director, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy

The Star Tribune did not treat two scientists unfairly when it said they disseminate unsubstantiated opinions without peer review, and their ideas have been found to lack merit. The views on global warming of Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling have been rejected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), which represents perhaps the most intensive, peer-reviewed scientific process ever undertaken in human history Michaels' and Balling's climate views are generally not found in peer-reviewed journals, except as unreviewed letters to the editor. Instead, they appear in speeches, private newsletters, website and on editorial pages -- all great venues for free speech but not science.

Under oath in a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in 1995, both men admitted that some of their work is paid for by the coal or oil industry. Funding by vested interests does not mean bad climate science. However, prior to the Minnesota proceedings, neither man disclosed his industry funding. After Michaels' and Balling's associations with the fossil fuel industry were exposed under cross-examination by lawyers for the Minnesota Attorney General's office and were detailed in the Gelbspan book, many reporters began adding the adjective "industry-supported" in stories referencing these skeptics. All news people would agree that this fact is important public information. (For key text from the cross-examination, see http://www.ozone.org/page17.html).

 

[aps]

Dr. Balling is funded by the coal and oil industry. I think that says quite a bit about where his loyalties lie, right there.

LOL, Hoot. Thanks for looking into that. I knew there must have been something up with this climatologist.

 

[cascadian]

Just a question here, have you seen the movie? I haven't seen it. I'm going to raise some points and ask for clarification

There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)

Well, 1993 is about 13 years ago now, most people in field feel that a lot of new evidence has come in since then. How does that relate to Revelle's research that Gore refers to?

(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).

I'd have to see precisely what evidence he's referring to here. Does "througout the world" really just mean northern europe?

(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming.

This doesn't really make clear what Gore actually says in the movie, albeit I consider the jury still out on this matter.

Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.

Hmmm... so there is a relationship between GW and human activity?

So do you think his movie will recieve scrutiney in the mainstream media or will it be accepted at face value?

Probably mostly accepted, unless he went out on a limb on a few points.

 

[Hoot]

LOL, Hoot. Thanks for looking into that. I knew there must have been something up with this climatologist.

As the article states...this does not mean they are wrong in their views, but it is curious how they made a point of not revealing this funding, until under oath at the Minn. Attorney Generals Office.

And Aps, my dear...don't hold your breath waiting for Stinger to admit this. LOL

 

[jfuh]

These aren't my arguements they are the arguements of the Professor of climatology I cited. HE makes the arguement that the movie is BS. Can you rebut the specific points he makes?

AS per the forum ideology, when presenting a thread you should provide what your own argument is. I'm simply asking what your argumet is since obviously you didn't provide any take on the information. Thus any response I would've given would be directed at balling and not at you.
However, you should've learnt by now not to present a bias source.

TCS is supported by a small group of sponsors: the American Beverage Association, ExxonMobil, Freddie Mac, General Motors Corporation, Gilead Sciences, McDonalds, Merck and PhRMA. We are proud to have them as sponsors; however, the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily of any corporation or other organization.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/about.aspx
Yes I'm sure they're going to preach something entirely different from that of thier boss.

 

[jfuh]

As the article states...this does not mean they are wrong in their views, but it is curious how they made a point of not revealing this funding, until under oath at the Minn. Attorney Generals Office.

And Aps, my dear...don't hold your breath waiting for Stinger to admit this. LOL

Though it does not say show they are wrong on thier views, as some are valid arguments. However it does show of thier bias on the topic. For matters of science, bias = mis-interpretations = invalid arguments.

 

[Stinger]

Dr. Balling is funded by the coal and oil industry. I think that says quite a bit about where his loyalties lie, right there.

Dr. Balling is a professor of climatology and an expert on greenhouse gases. Your attempts to demagogue do not substitute for rebuttal of the facts presented. If your premise is true, that he recieves some funding from the oil and gas industry therefore what he writes is automatically false, you should have no problem with specific rebuttle of what I posted from his writings.

 

[Stinger]

LOL, Hoot. Thanks for looking into that. I knew there must have been something up with this climatologist.

So you how does anything Hoot posted rebut the facts that were presented. Since when did demogogory substitute for arguement?

 

[Stinger]

Just a question here, have you seen the movie? I haven't seen it. I'm going to raise some points and ask for clarification

If it is free I might watch it, I certainly would not pay to see it which provides funding for such things.

Well, 1993 is about 13 years ago now, most people in field feel that a lot of new evidence has come in since then.

It's not long at all in the scheme of things and if you have specific new evidence which rebuts what he claims then post it.

I'd have to see precisely what evidence he's referring to here. Does "througout the world" really just mean northern europe?

I believe the orgininating cite has the links to what you are looking for.

This doesn't really make clear what Gore actually says in the movie, albeit I consider the jury still out on this matter.

I think he states it pretty well.

 

[Stinger]

AS per the forum ideology, when presenting a thread you should provide what your own argument is.

I did, that Gore's movie will go unchallenged by the media in spite of such specific and factual rebuttle by very authoritative sources.

 

[jfuh]

I did, that Gore's movie will go unchallenged by the media in spite of such specific and factual rebuttle by very authoritative sources.

Movie to go unchallenged by the Media? I don't think so, somethign tells me Fox news is going to go all out on it.
Factual rebuttle by authoritative source? You mean someone on the pay roll of Exxon Mobile? Hmm, I notice you say authoritative and not credible. So I guess that's a solid argument, just not the factual rebuttle portion.

 

[cascadian]

It's not long at all in the scheme of things and if you have specific new evidence which rebuts what he claims then post it.

My point here is whether or not Revelle has changed his mind.

I believe the orgininating cite has the links to what you are looking for.

Um, ok. You let me know when you've figured that part out.

I think he states it pretty well.

Actually he doesn't directly attribute anything to Gore, he says that "linked" them without saying how or to what degree. Did Gore say "So and So scientist thinks that they are linked", which is probably true or did he say "It's obvious to all scientists in the field the direct correlation" which would be false.

 

[jfuh]

My point here is whether or not Revelle has changed his mind.

Actually, that would be difficult as Revelle is no longer able to make such mind changes, if you get my drift.
However Revelle was a proponent of CO2 and climate change. Source
SOmething that was not quite yet mainstream in the late 80's and early 90's. The scientific community back then had just agreed upon that drastic measure needed to be taken on the Ozone hole.
Also few data was conclusive enough that global warming was a big issue back in the day. Unlike 15 years later today when we are absolutely positive that the current CO2 spike is 100% anthropogenic in origin and we need to act responsibly against any further increases. The only dessenting opinion is from that of the big oil companies, and those that are in the back wallet of these companies. Not scientist.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

God dammit I am soooo sick of this bullshit!

jfuh
cascadian
Hoot
aps

Or anyone else that disagrees with Dr. Balling. If you can at least show SOMETHING that disproves his theory I'm all ears. ANYTHING?

 

[cascadian]

God dammit I am soooo sick of this bullshit!

jfuh
cascadian
Hoot
aps

Or anyone else that disagrees with Dr. Balling. If you can at least show SOMETHING that disproves his theory I'm all ears. ANYTHING?

His theory. What's Dr. Balling's theory?

FTR I haven't stated that I disagreed with him yet, although I am suspicious of at least one of the claims, the article presented doesn't directly reference what studies he's drawing from re: the Medieval Warm Period , so it's pretty hard to rebut something that vague. Unfortunately Dr. Balling isn't here to represent himself, and Stinger has been a little reticent explaining the Dr.'s views on the matter so far.

 

[jfuh]

God dammit I am soooo sick of this bullshit!

jfuh
cascadian
Hoot
aps

Or anyone else that disagrees with Dr. Balling. If you can at least show SOMETHING that disproves his theory I'm all ears. ANYTHING?

Actually, you've got it mixed around. It's not We who need to disprove Dr. Balling, it's Dr. Balling, or in this case Stinger that needs to disprove us, us being mainstream science.
However thus far in this thread only issues have been brought up against Gore's movie, some truths, some half truths, some already disproven long ago by research.
I'll give a simple example:
2. The rebuttle is that Gore brings up Kilimanjaro as an example that global warming has "melted" the snow. The fact is that it's dominantly due to decreased levels of precipitation. However those decreased levels of precipitation are a result that has been linked to anthropogenic causes. Added on to the fact that Kilimanjaro is only a few hundred miles south of the Equator, and like all equatorial glaciers, they're highly suseptable to even the slightest change in climate.
Another simple example is #5. Just because you observed no "significant" rise in sea levels in the past century, does not mean it will not rise considerably. Keep in mind that the effects of global warming is a prediction, not a history lesson. It's the same as saying, well those pesky terrorists haven't done anything except a failed attempt on the WTC in '93 and blew a whole in a naval ship, other than that, pretty much a non-issue, let's take lots of vacations. Yet the end result on 9/11 was quite obvious. THe argument itself is a logical fallacy.

So though the rebuttle is partially true, if written by a scientist, deffinetely represents a dishonest ommission of detail that does nothing rule out anthropogenic cause - the main premise of global warming.
You must keep in mind, that global warming is not just simply from the build up of green house gases. It is an important issue because it's a build up of excess greenhouse gases. The take home message here is that excess greehouse gas is not only the result of combustion of fossil fuels, but deforestation, landfills, and fertilizer use flowing into water ways. All of which are anthropogenic and all of which contribute to the buildup of excess greenhouse gases. In particular - CO2.
Here's a non-bias look at the movie "An inconvenient truth"

 

[Stinger]

My point here is whether or not Revelle has changed his mind.

So make your point.

Um, ok. You let me know when you've figured that part out.

You were the one asking not me, following the link to the full article.

 

[Stinger]

His theory. What's Dr. Balling's theory?
Unfortunately Dr. Balling isn't here to represent himself, and Stinger has been a little reticent explaining the Dr.'s views on the matter so far.

His full explaintions of his entire theory I'm sure can be found if you are so interested. I cited the allowable amount from an writing of his and linked back to him. I particularly cited his specific rebuttle to several points in Gore's film and asked, will the mainstream media post such rebuttles or allow him to present his film uncontested and unchallenged on the facts. If you want to discuss those fine. I don't speak for Dr. Balling, if you want more of what he has to say, go find it yourself.

 

[jfuh]

Here're more credible sources that rebuttle stinger's rebuttle.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/060522-7.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/060522-7.html

As well as where the oil tycoons are coming from:
http://streams.cei.org/

 

[vexati0n]

An interesting thread. Oil Scientist Complains About Al Gore. I complain about Al Gore too, but it's good to see him making a documentary instead of a boring speech. Anyway, I'm going to read the thread over again and count how many times I see the word "demagogue" or a variation thereof.