An Inconvenient Truth and the Hadley Centre

[rynnor]

The High court recently found a number of inconsistencies in 'An Inconvenient Truth' and it will now only be played in schools with advice 'to provide balance' from the Met Office.

Heres the problem - some of the dodgy graphs in the film were produced by the Hadley Centre - an arm of the Met Office that deals with climate change!

So now the Met Office is going to provide guidance to offset its own bias - classic!

It would be difficult to say that the Hadley Centre doesnt have a vested interest in man made calamitous climate change...

It gets them more attention = more funding.

 

[Scouse]

If you watch an Inconvenient Truth and have read the IPCC report then you'll realise that the documentary wasn't "incorrect". It deliberately chose to present certain pieces of sound scientific work that weren't included in the (some say conservative) IPCC report.

I'm pretty sure that Gore was explicit about this in the documentary (was a while ago now when I watched it) - so for a judge to haul him over on this because he wasn't reporting the IPCC report but rather his personal and scientifically defensible view was a little harsh IMHO.

The judge ruled that schools could show the film as long as the scientific consensus vs Gore's specific argument debate was had immediately prior to the screening.

In the specific example you're talking about (evidence produced by the Hadley centre commented upon by themselves) - who better to do this?!


The example Gore used wasn't "bad science". It was produced by the Met Office but because the scientific review panel of the IPCC decided not to include it in it's 4th Edition report it couldn't be said to be integral to the "scientific consensus" on climate change.

The Hadley centre will understand the particular piece of science in question better than anyone else in the world so their scientists will write something to explain to schoolkids why this piece of science, whilst good work, isn't currently representative of the changeable opinions of most scientists, but may be in the future...


...if you're looking for a conspiracy theory tho look how much media coverage this tiny legal technicality got just days prior to Al Gore and the IPCC being given the Nobel Peace prize for their collective work

 

[Tom]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

 

[bob269]

When Gore shows the slide of the ice core graph at the beginning of the movie (about 20 minutes in), the numbers on the y-axis are wrong -- the average is at 0.5, and the negative numbers are flipped. This graph is correct in the book; the slide is wrong and therefore misleading*.


* According to IMDB

 

[DaGaffer]

...if you're looking for a conspiracy theory tho look how much media coverage this tiny legal technicality got just days prior to Al Gore and the IPCC being given the Nobel Peace prize for their collective work

Hardly a conspiracy. More an understandable, "why the fuck did a slideshow win the Nobel Peace Prize?"-type of coverage. The Polar bear bit pissed me off as it was blatantly bollocks, but what really annoyed me was the hurricane Katrina bit. Yes it was a "man-made" disaster, but man didn't make the hurricane, politicial ineptitude made the disaster; Katrina-level hurricanes are ten-a-penny and New Orleans has shrugged off far worse in the past.

Fact is, Gore didn't need to massage the presentation, but like all politicians he couldn't resist a bit of spin.

 

[Opt1]

I tried to argue about this in the past, before being made to realise I actually knew decidedly little on this particular topic..

I think the film makes some very good points, but as with anything to do with politicians, you have watch what they're saying. It's a shame he didn't iron out these problems and present a wholly accurate film - which would have been far more effective. And Live Earth made no sense at all.

*takes hat off to Tom* - ta for the link.

*goes to kiss some more backside*

 

[Scouse]

The Polar bear bit pissed me off as it was blatantly bollocks

What's wrong with dying polar bears then?

 

[Scouse]

Oh, and Tom. If you're providing the Christopher Monckton linkies to support (or actually provide all of) your argument then maybe I should quote from thikipedia on him:

Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

Not bad for a fundamentalist christian politician (with inadequate scientific training) who used to advise Margaret Thatcher eh? Considering he's for a long time been Al Gore's "nemesis" too...


Either way - Monckton's report doesn't rebuff any of the IPCC work and even he admits that Global Warming is a reality. The article you posted provides an (obviously biased) counterpoint to Al Gores argument, based on the assumption (that may well prove to be incorrect - and additional science looks to be confirming this) that the science Al Gore has been reporting is all "bad".


But I agree with him on the AIDS thing

 

[DaGaffer]

What's wrong with dying polar bears then?

Because it was blatant heartstring tugging (that 'spin' thing again) when the reality is a polar bear is far, far more likely to be killed by some numpty with a gun than by melting icecaps; in fact there's absolutely no evidence one way or another about the effect of melting icecaps on arctic life; there's even an argument that it would help population numbers for some species.

 

[Tom]

Well I believe Al Gore. After all, hes completely serial.


Excelsior!!!!

 

[Herbal]

Fk global warming the thing we should all be worried about is manbearpig.

 

[rynnor]

The Hadley centre will understand the particular piece of science in question better than anyone else in the world so their scientists will write something to explain to schoolkids why this piece of science, whilst good work, isn't currently representative of the changeable opinions of most scientists, but may be in the future...

The most charitable thing you could say about an Inconvenient Truth was that it was severely overblown but frankly a fair bit was invention - its fine if it had been presented as a film like 'day after tomorrow' but it was presented as a factual documentary.

The Hadley centre provided some of the invented facts - its clear where their bias is because its in their self interest to hype it - its a travesty that they will now be providing the supposed balanced counterpoint.

The IPCC reports have also presented dodgy data which was later removed - the 2003 report featured the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global temperatures where all previous increases in temperature such as in the 1930's were conveniently removed so you had a flat line until the 80's then a sharp rise - it was complete fabrication.

They also had to revise the hottest year of the last century - it had been hyped as 1998 but is now held to be 1935.

Man Made global warming is more of a political creed than a scientific theory - its just too convenient as a way to pass new taxes for governments not to jump on board.

 

[Opt1]

Fk global warming the thing we should all be worried about is manbearpig.

Not Manbearpig!

More Spinach for Popeye!

P.s. If those are Monckton's views on AIDS, then my faith in anything else he says is massively reduced. Fs, why can't people just be normal, honest, unbiased and not run around with batshit-fucking-loco ideas?

 

[Scouse]

Because it was blatant heartstring tugging (that 'spin' thing again) when the reality is a polar bear is far, far more likely to be killed by some numpty with a gun than by melting icecaps; in fact there's absolutely no evidence one way or another about the effect of melting icecaps on arctic life; there's even an argument that it would help population numbers for some species.

Yep. It's blatant "heartstring tugging". That's the whole point of a documentary designed to hopefully sway public opinion isn't it? I'd also say it was effective - enough for the Nobel committee to bestow our greatest honour, jointly, on the IPCC and Gore for the job they're doing attempting to convince a sceptical public who've a million (selfish) reasons to not want them to be right...

However, it is true and is accompanied by bags of scientific evidence to back it up (enough for polar bear loss to form an integral part of the World Wildlife Fund's global warming campaign strategy).

What do you think the polar bears are going to do if the very ground they stand on, walk across, use as a platform for finding their food, to breed, to sleep on, just disappears? Learn to breathe water whilst they shag?!

The polar bears have been naturally selected to survive on pack ice but that delicate balance is being upset, by man, at such a pace that polar bears simply aren't going to be able to adapt.

So, "heart tugging", yes. "Scare mongering", no. Just stating a fact in a way that women and children are going to be emotionally affected. Loss of cute furry animals.

And why shouldn't we be affected like that when our actions, as man, are causing a multitude of global extinction events? It's not only through global warming that we're dramatically attacking the biodiversity of the planet - but global warming is a fantastically efficient nature killer...

How about the loss of huge swathes of all world's coral (I think it's something stupid like 16% worldwide) due to the warming of the oceans?

The implications for life are staggering.



Anyway, a tiny amount of googling should provide commentary and a bit more the actual science.

 

[Tom]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

 

[rynnor]

However, it is true and is accompanied by bags of scientific evidence to back it up (enough for polar bear loss to form an integral part of the World Wildlife Fund's global warming campaign strategy).

There is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion that polar bears are declining due to global warming or that they are drowning due to lack of ice - thats not my opinion thats what the High Court said.

The Polar bear bit is one of the bits made up in the documentary and when challenged it could provide no supporting evidence at all - thats not science.

 

[xane]

And why shouldn't we be affected like that when our actions, as man, are causing a multitude of global extinction events?

This is the kind of logical fallacy that causes the central argument; you may well have evidence that humans cause some global warming, but you don't have evidence that all global warming is caused by humans, and you don't have evidence that the global warming that is caused by humans is having the effects you describe, whether is is extinction events or hurricanes.

You can always transfer the polar bears to the Antarctic, seeing as the ice there has been growing for the last few decades.

 

[DaGaffer]

You can always transfer the polar bears to the Antarctic, seeing as the ice there has been growing for the last few decades.

Then they'd eat all the penguins.

 

[xane]

Then they'd eat all the penguins.

Who'd unwrap for them, eh ?

 

[Scouse]

You lot are why they gave Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize

 

[Scouse]

Lol Tom! You should read the whole article you're providing before you post it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

That'll learn ya to read beyond the headlines...

 

[Bodhi]

Lol Tom! You should read the whole article you're providing before you post it.





That'll learn ya to read beyond the headlines...

I know reading isn't a lentilist forté but please, if youre going to mock someone for "not reading something" at least make sure you've read it properly yourself. All that bit you posted is what critics of the reasearch have said, not the research itself.

Anyway Gore/IPCC winning the Nobel Peace Prize was an absolute joke. What the fuck has a Powerpoint presentation full of holes got to do with World Peace? Enviro - mentalism is becming a joke, and just an excuse for more taxes. A sorry state of affairs.

 

[Raven]

The global climate changes all the time, throughout the history of the earth it has changed. Indeed it was actually warmer in the UK in Roman times, at one time there was no ice in the antarctic. There is little to no real proof that there is a direct link between what we as humans spew out and the effect on the planet. Quite a lot of it comes from the planet itself, volcanic activity, rain forests etc. I will agree that localised pollution has a massive effect on the local environment but i am not convinced that globally there is much of an effect from humans.

Regardless it would be much nicer if cities were cleaned up just for the fresh air and zero pollution should be going into rivers.

 

[xane]

Regardless it would be much nicer if cities were cleaned up just for the fresh air and zero pollution should be going into rivers.

I think you'll find that the Western world has a remarkably good record on this, with air and water quality better year on year ever since the establishment of pollution control laws in most countries.

Pollution is an abstract term, CO2 is not polluting to humans and animals, they breath the stuff out all the time, nor is it polluting to plants, they use it to make oxygen, but it is polluting to the "earth", in terms of greenhouse gas, however, you could consider water vapour in this category too, or methane, the stuff that comes out the rear end of cows or by growing rice, and has increased by 150% during the industrial age (as opposed to CO2's 30%), both are far more damaging as greenhouse gases.

 

[Tom]

Lol Tom! You should read the whole article you're providing before you post it.

That'll learn ya to read beyond the headlines...

I did, and I didn't cherry pick things either.

Nobel Peace Prize my arse. Excelsior!!!!

 

[Scouse]

I know reading isn't a lentilist forté but please, if youre going to mock someone for "not reading something" at least make sure you've read it properly yourself. All that bit you posted is what critics of the reasearch have said, not the research itself.

Yep. Read the whole thing twice just to be absolutely sure. The interpretation of the science in question is, at best, flawed, at worst, deliberate misrepresentation.

Apart from the headline and a small bit about the research the rest of the column is about how the research is dodgy, by people with vested interests and counterpoint from other scientists rubbishing the idea that global warming is beneficial to Polar Bears.

If I'm going to be anal (and I am) about it the "rubbishers" views outweigh the misleading science in this particular article by about 400 words to 130...

...pretty supportive of me, not Tom and his Stan Lee fetish, methinks...

and

There is little to no real proof that there is a direct link between what we as humans spew out and the effect on the planet.

Really?! The IPCC's 4th report - produced by thousands of scientists and comprising a review of over 40,000 pieces of scientific work, by teams and individuals, which show (with 90%+ certainty) that mankind is the cause of all this - and happens to be the "official" stance of "science" is, according to you, little or no proof??

Well, I guess there's no arguing with people who say the sky is green...

...hence the reason for the Nobel Prize...

 

[rynnor]

Really?! The IPCC's 4th report - produced by thousands of scientists and comprising a review of over 40,000 pieces of scientific work, by teams and individuals, which show (with 90%+ certainty) that mankind is the cause of all this - and happens to be the "official" stance of "science" is, according to you, little or no proof??

Well, I guess there's no arguing with people who say the sky is green...

...hence the reason for the Nobel Prize...

The Nobel prize was just a political thing - this whole thing is going to look pretty silly over the coming decade.

The IPCC has had plenty of made up or completely wrong science in its other reports no reason why this one should be any different.

When you start from one standpoint and then look for anything that could vaguely be construed as supporting it then sure you'll find a lot but it isnt good science...

My biggest problem is not with what their saying but the methodology they use and how its become practically heretical to say anything that doesnt support orthodox global warming theory.

At no time in human history has a 'un-questionable' position turned out to be true - flat earth anyone?

 

[Scouse]

The Nobel prize was just a political thing - this whole thing is going to look pretty silly over the coming decade.

Yes, the Nobel prize was a political thing. The committee wanted to show support for both an excellent piece of work in science (the ongoing generation of IPCC reports) and for a film that is attempting to convince a sceptical western world that global warming is real and man-made.

In the eyes of the Nobel commission there's no bigger threat to world peace than global warming.

Food shortages, famine, water shortages, more extreme weather, habitat loss, huge biodiversity loss and much more. Real consequences that, in general, are going to affect the poorest people on the planet much more than the richest.

If it was all a scam to raise taxes then why would power companies be spending (small) fortunes installing emissions reduction equipment? Why would the government be enacting environmental legislation (albeit far too slowly) and be spending money on flood management, coastal barriers to protect against sea rise and energy efficiency initiatives.

Aside from all that: Why would the world's biggest ever scientific paper review, which included over 40,000 scientific papers, each of which could potentially be the result of years of painstaking research by teams of scientists, people who don't have a vested interest in anything other than discovery of cold-hard facts tell us that Global Warming is real, and it is the fault of enormous man-made greenhouse-gas emissions?

Just for a giggle?

Do you even know how science works?

 

[Tom]

Why would I give a toss about the poorer people on the planet?

After all, its not as if anybody gives a toss right now? All the things you've mentioned are happening right now.

 

[Bodhi]

I just don't get it. I studied Astrophysics long enough at uni to know that the big ball of light in the sky that gives us all heat and light has got hotter recently, and lo and behold the temperature on Earth has been going up as well. This would seem logical, turn the heat source up anything it effects gets hotter, much in the same way I just turned the fire up cos it was a bit chilly, now my room is warm. This would explain why Mars was also heating up and why the warming on Earth is occuring on the surface rather in the upper atmosphere. To me that would pretty much explain Global Warming, Ice Ages, mini-Ice Ages, etc and we could move onto more important questions, like famine in Africa, crime, nuclear fusion, cure for cancer, etc etc. What's more we could even adapt for what's to come, and can rest safe in the knowledge that as the Sun moves in cycles, things will start cooling down soon enough.

But no, Al "I was nearly president, me" Gore has decided that it's not the Sun at all, it's the fact that we're releasing an insignificant amount of a weak greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Riiiight. So you're saying my room actually got warmer cos I had beans for dinner?
I'll also assume the temperature increases on Mars are due to that big V8 Mars Rover bombing around too shall I? I mean have you lentilists actually listened to yourselves? MAN IST THE BESTEST WE CAN CHANGE THE WEAVUR AND EVERYFINK. WE AER BETTAR THAN GOD"""!"!

Please, give it a fucking rest. You're making me believe the loonies have finally taken over the asylum.