Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Enough Gore!

We all enjoy a big 'ol "I told you so" don't we?

A British High Court Judge just release his preliminary findings from a court trial about the government wanting to show Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to all school children. The Government and the Plaintiffs had experts argue both sides and Al Gore lost.

The preliminary finding cites 11 problems with the film including:

Gore presents Mt Kilimanjaro's melting snows as proof of global warming. In fact, the snows are vanishing thanks to local factors, including deforestation.

Gore suggests Antarctica's ice cover is melting. Most studies says it is increasing or stable.

Gore shows scary graphics of cities drowning in seas that rise 7m, causing millions of refugees. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the seas will rise at worst by 59cm this century.

Gore uses images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests it was caused by global warming. The Government's expert in this case admitted such one-off events can't be blamed on warming.

Gore suggests ice-core evidence shows rising CO2 caused temperature rises, which ended the past seven ice ages. In fact, the CO2 rises followed temperature rises by 800 to 2000 years.

Gore claims global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, causing an ice age in Europe. Recent studies deny it.

Gore blames global warming for species losses and coral reef bleaching. The Government couldn't show evidence to back this claim.

Gore claims a study showed polar bears had drowned because of vanishing ice. The study actually said just four polar bears drowned, and only because of a bad storm.

Gore suggests Greenland's ice could melt, causing a dangerous rise in sea levels. In fact, Greenland's ice won't melt for thousands of years.

Gore shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert agreed this was not the case.

Gore claims rising seas have forced people to flee Pacific islands to New Zealand. There is no record of any such warming-caused evacuation.

I mean come on, we all want to keep making things cleaner, but I'm really sick of the alarmism. My problem with Al's obsession with Co2 is not only does it appear to be wrong, but it diverts attention from other very real concerns like land use.

Interestingly I haven't seen this story appear in any American publications yet, and I'll be surprised if the Dayton Daily ever does. Too much crow for them to eat? Or are they just going to wait until he wins his Nobel prize and then hope nobody notices? It's sad to think of all the school kids who have already been made to watch this, it's kind of like all the kids who years ago had to watch a movie called "Reefer Madness" isn't it?.

-Denny

Link to full story in an Australian paper: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22559777-25717,00.html

3 comments:

John Harris said...

Denny,

You may find some holes in Gore's arguments, but it's the naysayers who have prevented much needed action on global warming - action that should have been taken years ago. An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is a serious problem and Gore or no Gore, to dispute the fact is to ignore the reality of the situation.

But that's not my main point. Must we use a neighborhood forum for the purpose of promoting our political viewpoints? If it's directly related to an issue in our neighborhood I'm all for it. Let's debate, let's discuss and argue. But I, for one, would prefer we keep it to that. You're certainly entitled to your opinion about global warming, but I don't think the St. Anne's Hill blog is the place for it. Just my two cents worth.

Thanks,

John

DGray said...

John, you are against "politicizing" the blog site, but it's OK to do that in our schools? That's one of the biggest problems I have with this whole thing. Al Gore can believe whatever he wants and make any movie he wants, but schools in this country are forcing children to watch this movie and claim it to be fact (in some cases even parents are being required to attend) without showing the other side. Why haven't any of the scientist who believe in man caused global warming been willing to have a good health debate with those who disagree? Debates aren't' won by who shouts the loudest, but by those that have the most facts. My point about "Reefer Madness" is point on. There is some truth in that movie as well, do you think it should be shown? I don't, I think it's propaganda and full of false statements. Kid's grow up and think "why did they show me that crap" once they see it's not real. Stick with facts.

The other problem I have is I do think there are land use problems and that includes water use. Yet this is buried by all the excitement of the more sexy topic of "global warming" because by Al Gore's showing all the violent and impending disasters just like his movie which are media sources love. It's false and disingenuous. Are brown field and land use issues of concern to St. Anne's Hill? I think so but would it make a good movie? No.

Bottom line on warming: The sun has shown warming, we are at the end of an Ice Age, the earth has NOT had ice caps for about 57% of it's existence. Should be be surprised that they may melt over the next few thousand years with or without us?

Post it on the blog and let's have a good health debate.

-Denny

Keith said...

I agree that this is not the place for divisive political discussion of complex global issues.

That said, I have to point out that the article Denny posted was written by a controversial conversative pundit. The author, Andrew Bolt, is the Bill O'Reilly of Australia, if you will. Perhaps not the best source of unbiased information.

Furthermore, his article fails to mention the most relevant part of the court case. Quote:

"In an opinion released Wednesday, High Court Judge Michael Burton said he had no doubt that the points raised in "An Inconvenient Truth" were broadly accurate, but added that they were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." Gore's film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact," Burton said.

Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21259069/

So in other words, the pundit is playing "gotcha" and claiming that a few small errors changed the overall "truth" of the film.

If a doctor miscounted the number of people who died from cancer this year, does that mean cancer is no longer a problem? Does that mean kids shouldn't learn how to prevent cancer? I think not.

However, I do agree that land use, brownfields, and water management are also critical environmental issues that hit much closer to home here on the Hill. I would much prefer to see local issues debated on this page.

- Keith