Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I love the predictions. Go to school, get your Phd. All of a sudden your a frickin expert based on what your taught! After all, the time one spends in school makes you only as smart as yesterday.

There's rather a lot of work involved in getting a PhD. It doesn't exactly involve you sitting in class reading the blackboard. Further ed courses are rather more interactive than a high-school classroom.

Please give me a quote from one that is wise.

From one what?

[HAL 9000 96]

Are you a climate scientist? If not then you would know about peer reviews and how studies are authenticated but your opinion on global warming isn't any more valid than anyone elses. True?

I would tend to value a scientist's review of the literature regardless of discipline or specialization. One of the many skills of a scientist--indeed, any academic--is the ability to synthesize information, present evidence, ask questions, and draw conclusions.

Are you suggesting that the view held by a scientist in a field not directly related to atmospheric or climate science is no closer to reality than the position of someone who repairs shoes?

So you would take a physicists view on global warming as one that has relevance? They are all smart people I grant you but if that isn't their area of expertise then there opinion is the same as anyone else's.

Well, the science of physics deals with the physical phenomena that govern the way the universe works. I don't think I'm that off am I?

[HAL 9000 96]

Are you a climate scientist? If not then you would know about peer reviews and how studies are authenticated but your opinion on global warming isn't any more valid than anyone elses. True?

I would tend to value a scientist's review of the literature regardless of discipline or specialization. One of the many skills of a scientist--indeed, any academic--is the ability to synthesize information, present evidence, ask questions, and draw conclusions.

Are you suggesting that the view held by a scientist in a field not directly related to atmospheric or climate science is no closer to reality than the position of someone who repairs shoes?

So you would take a physicists view on global warming as one that has relevance? They are all smart people I grant you but if that isn't their area of expertise then there opinion is the same as anyone else's.

You must have missed the bolded part. A scientist is most certainly in a better position to review scientific material - even of a different discipline - than a shoe repairman. The shoe repairman would, in fact, be challenged even to distinguish between what is and what isn't scientific material.

Hey remember we all use shoes... Sometimes some of the greatest 'scientists' have had absolutely no formal scientific education... its all a matter of attitude and a spirit of open-mindedness, yes... but also a rudimentary willingness to experiment, think, and interpret findings. And also, the need for careful attention to detail and basic reading comprehension.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I love the predictions. Go to school, get your Phd. All of a sudden your a frickin expert based on what your taught! After all, the time one spends in school makes you only as smart as yesterday.

There's rather a lot of work involved in getting a PhD. It doesn't exactly involve you sitting in class reading the blackboard. Further ed courses are rather more interactive than a high-school classroom.

Please give me a quote from one that is wise.

From one what?

Higher learning comes from what has happened from the past. Right! quote somebody. Please stay on task without a distraction.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Einstein graduated from his teachers' training program at the Zurich Polytechnic in August 1900, along with three other students. Two of these students immediately obtained positions as assistants at the Polytechnic, but Einstein was not so fortunate; Professor Weber, a German, was not particularly fond of the student who had renounced his citizenship and relied on his friend's lecture notes to pass all his classes.

Sir Issac Newton:

Newton was a difficult man, prone to depression and often involved in bitter arguments with other scientists, but by the early 1700s he was the dominant figure in British and European science. He died on 31 March 1727 and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Rebels with a cause.

Edited October 16, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I hope no one thinks I'm dissing the shoe repairman or suggesting that anyone who doesn't have a PhD couldn't possibly have a well-informed view. Yes, there are many highly intelligent people who don't have a lot of formal education or an advanced degree. And not all academics, or indeed scientists, are the impartial brainiacs they're often taken for (believe me, I know--I copyedit their writing for a living!). But I still value the opinion of a published PhD scientist who backs up his claims with substantive evidence over that of someone whose knowledge seems to be based on absurd logic and politically slanted opinion pieces.

Mr. Conservative, I have to say that you're grasping at straws here, at least with the argument that all viewpoints other than those of PhD climatologists or atmospheric scientists are on the same level validity-wise.

[MrConservative 0]

Are you a climate scientist? If not then you would know about peer reviews and how studies are authenticated but your opinion on global warming isn't any more valid than anyone elses. True?

I would tend to value a scientist's review of the literature regardless of discipline or specialization. One of the many skills of a scientist--indeed, any academic--is the ability to synthesize information, present evidence, ask questions, and draw conclusions.

Are you suggesting that the view held by a scientist in a field not directly related to atmospheric or climate science is no closer to reality than the position of someone who repairs shoes?

So you would take a physicists view on global warming as one that has relevance? They are all smart people I grant you but if that isn't their area of expertise then there opinion is the same as anyone else's.

You must have missed the bolded part. A scientist is most certainly in a better position to review scientific material - even of a different discipline - than a shoe repairman. The shoe repairman would, in fact, be challenged even to distinguish between what is and what isn't scientific material.

So then you would give these 60 scientists the respect they deserve because they are scientists? Or do you only give respect for the opinions of scientists that you agree with?

Open Kyoto to debate

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post

Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

[GaryC 7]

So your founding document on whether there is a "consensus" hasn't been peer reviewed. Does this mean our "scientist" will no longer claim there is a consensus? That is what a good scientist would do. There is much more than I have room to post here. I invite you to put your scientific standards to work here and retract your position that there is a consensus.

Once again, our political partisan reveals just how small his understanding is about how modern science works. The tutorial here concerns peer review.

Peer review is a process we use in journals (and that universities use at tenure time) to assess the quality of a specific research contribution or the worthiness of a candidate for tenure. I stopped working at Universities after I finished my postdoctoral fellowship at Texas A&M University (that hotbed of liberalism where I first learned about the science of global warming) so I will confine my remarks to the topic really at hand -- peer review of research contributions.

When a scientist or group of scientists have a manuscript they want to publish, they submit it to a scientific journal for publication. The editor reviews the manuscript and send it out to a few (usually two, sometimes three) scientists whose work is known to the editor to be reliable. These peer reviewiers make comments on the manuscript anonymously for the benefit of the editor. Comments go to the scientific merits and demerits of the manuscript, and, alas, increasingly these days, as to whether the language (typically English, since almost all of the best scientific journals are in English these days, even those published in places like Japan) is sufficiently clear, grammatical, and correct to permit publication. Reviewers are also asked to recommend whether the manuscript be accepted in its current form, after minor revision, after major revision, or be rejected for publication.

This process does improve the quality of the scientific literature. At times, referee comments have helped me substantially improve a manuscript that I've submitted. There were two other occasions where I was a party to work that colleagues wanted very much to publish. I thought the manuscripts were marginal, but went ahead with their request to submit them, since I didn't have time to fix them. In both cases, referees recommended rejection and that is what happened. (I was relieved.) In one of those cases, my coauthors took my suggestions, combined two marginal manuscripts into one very substantially improved manuscript, removed rather strange speculation, and the result was published in quite a nice place.

This is the process that original research goes through in order to be published. Textbooks are rather different and do not go through such laborious review. Authors of textbooks are rather well-known in their fields. And those authors get assigned editors from publication houses that, in many cases, are quite scientifically literature in their own right, and these editors help make sure that the textbook deserves publication.

Now, our favorite partisan complains that the IPCC did not go through peer review. Here we differ. The IPCC consists of a couple thousand leading climate researchers over the world. Their job -- that is, the IPCC part of their job -- isn't to perform new research and get it published. Rather, they review the existing scientific literature and assess its implications concerning climate change. They argue about text internally for a long time. Their work product is often superior to the peer review that we get in the scientific literature for review articles. In a very real sense, this very large group of scientists perform their own internal peer review. They do it very well.

But one of the inherent drawbacks of IPCC is that their work necessarily presents a view of climate science that is two or three years out of date. "IPCC is not at the leading -- or bleeding -- edge of science", Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the (US) National Center for Atmospheric Research, was quoted as saying, commenting on the work that he was a part of. As evidence of that, newer research indicates that sea level rise (assuming that Greenland in fact does not melt) will probably be at the high end of the IPCC projections. It may become very difficult for the Dutch to keep Amsterdam above water, and we'll face some very interesting problems with many of our coastal cities.

Nice condescending post there. Your arrogance is pretty obvious.

So you are telling me that "Their job -- that is, the IPCC part of their job -- isn't to perform new research and get it published. Rather, they review the existing scientific literature and assess its implications concerning climate change. " and "But one of the inherent drawbacks of IPCC is that their work necessarily presents a view of climate science that is two or three years out of date. "IPCC is not at the leading -- or bleeding -- edge of science". " So that is telling me that the group is working with old data. How about the new studies that I posted that contradict the data these people are working with? I have seen several studies that have shown the oceans are not rising, Greenland ice sheets are not melting and in fact the rise in global temperatures has stopped since 1998. These studies were done by scientists like yourself and the data is newer than what the IPCC is using. Doesn't that invalidate or at least call into question the conclusions that the IPCC came to? Or is this data to be ignored because it doesn't fit the dogma?

Or I guess I will just be looked down upon because I am an ignorant layman and I have no business even trying to discuss something that only a scientist like youself can understand? Come on, look down your nose at me some more.

[mendeleev 68]

Are you a climate scientist? If not then you would know about peer reviews and how studies are authenticated but your opinion on global warming isn't any more valid than anyone elses. True?

I would tend to value a scientist's review of the literature regardless of discipline or specialization. One of the many skills of a scientist--indeed, any academic--is the ability to synthesize information, present evidence, ask questions, and draw conclusions.

Are you suggesting that the view held by a scientist in a field not directly related to atmospheric or climate science is no closer to reality than the position of someone who repairs shoes?

So you would take a physicists view on global warming as one that has relevance? They are all smart people I grant you but if that isn't their area of expertise then there opinion is the same as anyone else's.

I am a Ph.D. physical-inorganic chemist. While most of my publications do not concern climate change, some do. I do have more expertise in condensed phases and gas solid reactions.

The peer review process works quite similarly thoroughout the physical sciences.

Edited October 16, 2007 by novotul

[mendeleev 68]

I love the predictions. Go to school, get your Phd. All of a sudden your a frickin expert based on what your taught! After all, the time one spends in school makes you only as smart as yesterday.

In the physical sciences, a Ph.D. degree is one that specifically teaches one how to do scientific research and to evaluate the research of others. If one gets your degree from a good university (and, according to a National Academy of Sciences report issues at the time I graduated with my Ph.D., I am proud to claim that my department was the second best department in chemistry in the USA) you know how to do that --- or you don't graduate. My incoming class had an attrition rate of 70%.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think that we should look at these "recent" studies pulled from Google et al and really read the conclusions drawn, and of course, how they give their particular interpretations. Just a thought.

[Caladan 19]

Nothing wrong with being an autodidact, assuming you've didacted.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I love the predictions. Go to school, get your Phd. All of a sudden your a frickin expert based on what your taught! After all, the time one spends in school makes you only as smart as yesterday.

In the physical sciences, a Ph.D. degree is one that specifically teaches one how to do scientific research and to evaluate the research of others. If one gets your degree from a good university (and, according to a National Academy of Sciences report issues at the time I graduated with my Ph.D., I am proud to claim that my department was the second best department in chemistry in the USA) you know how to do that --- or you don't graduate. My incoming class had an attrition rate of 70%.

I guess the future will be the determining factor of how smart you are. I see your ability to toot your own horn is alive and well also.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh come now, Marc and Gary. You're both mistaking aptitude with arrogance. There's no need to feel intimidated by his obvious expertise in science - just accept that he knows what the hell he's talking about. Getting pissy with him looks like knowledge envy to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moreover if you challenge someone's credentials, there's nothing wrong with clarifying them.