It’s good that they ain’t got nothin’. What is your plan to solve the climate crisis?

Quibbling about a few errors and then implying the whole movie is wrong is like saying because the bridge gussets failed in MN all the US bridges need to be replaced.

But I like it when CA is used as a source. Like I said: they ain’t got nothin’.

Best,

D

Now to the question at hand. There is a recently identified and perhaps troubling falsehood. In AIT, a graphic is presented to prove the validity of the Mann Hockey Stick. The graphic is identified as the Thompson Thermometer. Lonnie Thompson is one of the leading experts on ice core climate reconstructions. Al Gore calls him “my good friend”. He was a scientific adviser to the movie. Well, it turns out the graphic is not the Thompson Thermometer. It is, in fact, merely a slight reworking of Mann’s original graph. Not long ago, Dr. Thompson was asked if he was aware of this error and what he had done to correct it. You can read about it here.

Here’s an interesting quote: “There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change “in just two years”, due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can’t see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I’m skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he’ll correct it in future versions of his slide show. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to global warming.” Surely, I found this quote on some wild-eyed denier site. Nope, it’s from therealclimate review of the movie by Eric Steig
How many more examples of errors in AIT and of scientists acknowledging them do you require? They are available by Googling errors inconvenient truth. Please stop trying to smear me as a denier.

what is your trusted source that lets you (not a scientist) say, with 100% assurance, that AIT is riddled with well-documented errors? i.e., gives us a URL or URLs. Your skepticism of the climate consensus shows up quite often in your posts. ”

I’ve been through this before. I asked once. Won’t bother you again. (virtual) KILLFILE.

I’d have to go back into my archives to verify, but Dano used to run down where these things came from at TCS about that time. These phrases are continually recycled all the time.

Best,

D

Did Andy accidentally grab one now (or the other way around)

go look ar the actual website

A while back I also noted that ‘the hole showed signs of improvement before the ban on CFCs could have had an effect’ and I was called names around here. Be careful when you question folks’ faith. They’ll turn on you.

I cited the quote reacting to Joe’s annoyance about another’s misuse of the term climate change. I am annoyed by the constant “the science is settled” from those would would impose often draconian policies. I know enough about science to know that scientists don’t use the term the way those advocating policies do. I think the quote shows Gavin shares my annoyance.

The comment you referenced from the previous thread thread was in response to Joe’s post on the importance of language in the discussion. It pointed to several reasons I believe there are so many skeptics. I don’t think you can refute any of them. Do you really wish to claim AIT is not full of errors? The scientists, including those that advised on the movie, have acknowledged many of them. It doesn’t matter, they say, because the general tone is correct and, after all, AIT was never intended to be a scientific document. Do you contend IPCC reports are easy to read or that we do have definitive understanding of sensitivities and other uncertainties in climatology? I may not have a scientist’s understanding of these uncertainties, but I comprehend enough to see they are there. I also understand that scientists are working every day to resolve these uncertainties and expect them to do so as time goes on. Am I to understand you do not think people react poorly to perceived scare tactics and exaggeration or that deniers do not spread misinformation and misinterpretation? And finally, the temperature record is the temperature record and people will make what I described as meaningless inferences from it.

As to your attempt to label me a denier (talk about a pejorative), I’ll go with the IPCC assessment that there is a high probability – 85 to 90% – that CO2 is the likely cause of the current warming. I am all for finding the most effective ways to reduce GHGs and all other pollutants and am trying to formulate an approach to that end. Oddly enough, you and I have both encouraged Joe to deemphasize the science posts and concentrate more on what we agree are the more relevant and pressing policy and technology issues.

Now, in the interest of thoroughly replying , let me address the other science issues you listed. Evolution – No argument here. The remarkable similarities in the DNA of all living things is hard to ignore. As a side note, I believe in a creator but not “creationism”. There is nothing in the Bible at odds with anything in science and those, especially the young universe proponents, who attempt to use the Bible to refute science are seriously misreading that good book.
Smoking relationship with disease – Well established, he said with a slight cough.
CFC influence on ozone depletion – Interesting subject. I used to be in complete agreement, but this summer the leading scientists studying this said there may be other possibly greater influences as yet unknown. One thing they noted is that the hole showed signs of improvement before the ban on CFCs could have had an effect. In any case, I would keep the ban in place.
Mercury damage to health – Well proven, which is why I oppose the widespread use of CFL bulbs in favor of LED lighting as the way to reduce energy consumption.

As I said elsewhere on this site, denialists got nothin’.

Best,

D