3
   

INCONVIENENT TRUTH - GORE'S EXAGERATION

 
 
woiyo
 
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 10:58 am
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

""Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts. "

"Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun. "
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,295 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:06 am
Re: INCONVIENENT TRUTH - GORE'S EXAGERATION
woiyo wrote:
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.


From Professor Robert B. Carter's official profile:
Quote:
Expertise and Research Interests
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).


Other Expertise
Bob Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues, which are related to his areas of knowledge. He also offers lecture or workshop presentations by arrangement. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:06 am
So wioyo, did you enjoy the film?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:32 am
dyslexia wrote:
So wioyo, did you enjoy the film?


Yes, saw it last week. Good Sci-Fi IMO.

How about you? Did you see it?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:35 am
woiyo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
So wioyo, did you enjoy the film?


Yes, saw it last week. Good Sci-Fi IMO.

How about you? Did you see it?

Nope, not on my list of films to see.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:42 am
Re: INCONVIENENT TRUTH - GORE'S EXAGERATION
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.


From Professor Robert B. Carter's official profile:
Quote:
Expertise and Research Interests
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).


Other Expertise
Bob Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues, which are related to his areas of knowledge. He also offers lecture or workshop presentations by arrangement. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.


Don't forget Dr. Tim Patterson's Profile!!

"Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Web Site: http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/index_flash.html
Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 4425
e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Tim Patterson is Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. He uses microfossils and geochemistry to study evidence of climate change in lake and oceanic sediments.

Dr. Patterson is Canadian leader of the International Geological Correlation Program Project 437 "Coastal Environmental Changes during Sea-Level Highstands in the late Quaternary" and is Principal Investigator of a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Strategic Project studying the effect of past climate change (on scales varying from seasonal to millennia) on fish populations that are important to the west coast fishing industry.

He received both a B.Sc. in Biology (1980) and a B.A. in Geology (1983) from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1986 with Dr. Helen Tappan Loeblich and late Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich. After brief stints at the University of Southern California and University of California at Berkeley he joined Carleton University in 1988.

Other areas of research interest include the use of foraminifera to identify neotectonic and paleoceanographic phenomena on the west coast of Canada, the further development of arcellacea as a new class of paleolimnological indicators, and to determine whether the methods of non-linear dynamics are applicable in the study of evolutionary phenomena. "
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 12:22 pm
I think Walter was pointing out that Carter is not part of a non governmental group at all since he holds or has held several positions on governmental groups.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 12:26 pm
Right, and his various fields of work - which make him as an expert as all the others, he critises in that article above.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 12:31 pm
Quote:
Science 16 January 2004:
Vol. 303. no. 5656, p. 307
DOI: 10.1126/science.303.5656.307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

News Focus
AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION MEETING:
Vicissitudes of Ancient Climate
Richard A. Kerr
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA--A record 10,000 earth, ocean, atmospheric, and planetary scientists gathered here last month for the union's fall meeting. Researchers reported that contrary to an analysis published last year, past CO2 levels are indeed closely correlated with long-term climate variations.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5656/307?ct

unfortunately, you can't read the rest of the article at that link unless you're a member. fortunately, i can provide the relevant part, even though i'm not a member.

Quote:
Earth has often swung between chills and fever. Paleoclimatologists generally seek an explanation in swings in the abundance of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (see p. 306), because C[O.sub.2] levels have seemed to rise as the world warmed and to fall as it cooled into the great ice ages. But conventional thinking invites challenges, and last year it took a hit when a pair of researchers published an analysis indicating that past C[O.sub.2] levels are not closely correlated with long-term climate variations. Now comes the response. At the meeting, paleoclimatologist Dana Royer of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, and geochemical modeler Robert Berner of Yale University reported that an updated record of C[O.sub.2] variations during the past 500 million years does indeed produce a good fit between C[O.sub.2] levels and both model predictions and one record of major climate swings. "It's a restatement of the importance of C[O.sub.2]," says Royer. Many, but not all, researchers find it persuasive.

Carbon dioxide was in need of a boost after geochemists Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa, Canada, published a paper in last July's GSA Today in which they found a poor correlation between C[O.sub.2] and Veizer's temperature record derived from the oxygen isotope composition of carbonates deposited on the ocean floor. But his isotopic climate record did fit well with the expected variations in the flux of cosmic rays during the past 500 million years. Cosmic rays, they suggested, might have modulated climate by affecting cloud brightness.

Royer and Berner weren't convinced. First they updated the record of atmospheric C[O.sub.2] levels. This 450-million-year record is based on measurements of atmospheric C[O.sub.2] preserved in the geologic record, including the carbon isotopic composition of fossil soil carbonates and the abundance of gas-exchange pores on fossil leaves. The merged record of four such measures shows a double-hump curve of C[O.sub.2] concentrations. High values more than 400 million years ago fall through 2000 parts per million to a few hundred ppm by about 300 million years ago, peak again about 200 million years ago, and fall once more toward the present's several hundred ppm. "I was surprised with how a consistent pattern has emerged," says Royer.

Not only are different C[O.sub.2] measurements consistent with each other, says Royer, but the composite curve bears a strong resemblance to what many researchers expected. Computer models that simulate the processes controlling the abundance of C[O.sub.2], such as rock weathering and the burial of organic matter on the sea floor, produce much the same double-hump pattern as the proxies do. And the great ages of glacial ice--the past 30 million years or so and the 60 million years around 300 million years ago--fell in the deep dips in C[O.sub.2], whereas only a few, brief glacial intervals came during periods of higher C[O.sub.2] levels, Royer and Berner noted.

Royer and Berner also adjusted Veizer's isotopic curve for the effects of changing sea-water pH, a factor only recently recognized as important. That brought some periods more in line with other temperature indicators, says Royer, and much reduced the prominence of coolings that Shaviv and Veizer attribute to the cosmic ray effect.

Veizer and Shaviv, in turn, are not convinced that the two-hump pattern of C[O.sub.2] and climate is better than their plot of cosmic rays and climate, which has four peaks rather than two. They find the pH correction "an interesting modification," but they believe Royer overdoes it, making the oceans at times unrealistically acidic.

A more reasonable correction, they say, leaves the four-peak climate pattern intact. And that pattern of isotopic temperature is reasonably consistent with other climate indicators and the inferred flux of cosmic rays, they say.

Many researchers are sticking with conventional thinking. "You can't say C[O.sub.2] explains everything," says paleoclimatologist Thomas Crowley of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, but "it does explain a heck of a lot," at least in the broadbrush picture of climate. No doubt, more details need to be painted in before everyone sees the same picture.


even if the cosmic ray theory is correct, that does not rule out CO2 effect on climate. also, the claim that "hundreds of climate cause change experts" dispute the corrlelation between climate change and CO2 pales when considering that the "conventional thinking" of 10,000 scientists in the field acknowledges a correlation.

as to the coldness of the climate 450MYA, it's irrelevant how much CO2 the atmosphere contained, if there were some other factor in play at the time, such as a huge drop in solar radiation--i'm making that up, just for an example. only if everything else was the same, would the high level of CO2 contradict the greenhouse effect theory. also, Patterson's last observation, that intensity of sunlight affects climate, is a strawman; neither Gore, nor anyone else, ever claimed otherwise.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » INCONVIENENT TRUTH - GORE'S EXAGERATION
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 06:34:42