The gods are laughing:Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change
Tom Harris, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."While the gods must consider An Inconvenient Truth the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. This is not just because the ex-vice-president commits numerous basic science mistakes. They are also concerned that many in the media and public will fail to realize that this film amounts to little more than science fiction.
Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye. read more...
Okay, okay. Everyone hates Al Gore now. Fine. But first of all, he never claimed to be a scientist. The research he presented in An Inconvenient Truth was from scientists, not him.
ReplyDeleteSecond, everyone has to understand that there is always going to be controversy about scientific research. Some guy didn't make his range of data wide enough, some other guy made it too wide. This whole global warming thing is turning into another evolution debate. Each side has it's own stubborn proponents, and most people have picked one side without even looking at all of the research and will never waver as long as they're alive. Truth is, the majority of people NEVER look at all the research on a subject and never will and don't care. They want the jist.
An Inconvenient Truth gives us the jist. It was made for normal people, not scientists who like to pick apart every tiny statistic and method (As they should! I'm not saying that is bad, it's very necessary). Being environmentally friendly is a GOOD THING NO MATTER WHAT!!!! If we use less water, less energy, less gas, less paper, etc., we are saving money and helping the environment a little bit at a time. No scientist can sit there and say that air conditioners and cars and trains and tractor trailers and nuclear reactors are GOOD for the environment. Recycling and using less water/energy IS. It's common sense. Will my using less natural resources have an impact on the climate of the earth? Probably not. What if 6 billion people used less? I'd say yes. It takes a large amount of people to make any sort of difference, and in the end, An Inconvenient Truth reached a large amount of people. It was a necessary movie if only to get one joe schmoe to recycle paper at his office. It was a movie that creeped into our conscience. Every time I leave the water running while I brush my teeth I picture Al Gore and turn it off (seriously). So this movie has personally had a good impact on me.
Will global warming destroy mankind and the earth as we know it if we don't halt its progress? Only if Jesus comes back riding on a cloud of acid rain. But seriously, I think it needs more research. I think we can certainly make earth a miserable place to live with all the pollution we spew into the atmosphere, and I certainly think mankind is stupid enough to destroy the very earth that sustains their culture, but in the end, no one REALLY knows if that will happen.
My point is this:
1. No matter what, we still need to take better care of the enviroment. It doesn't take a genius to see that human beings will go to war over unstable natural resources. (i.e. oil in Iraq, water in Darfur)
The environment is an untamable creature, but we can adapt to it and protect it.
2. Be skeptical of this article for one main reason: it is in a financial newspaper. Ripping on Al Gore's movie because he is a liberal arts graduate is a bit ironic coming from an author at a financial newspaper claiming to have found scientific verity. You can pay/find scientists to say anything if you really need them to. You can find scientists who claim the Lochness Monster absolutely must exist, and find some who say it's scientifically impossible. I bet the tourism industry likes the scientists who claim she does exist. Think about it! Industries/corporations who would be adversely affected by environmentall friendly and safe practices don't like this "global warming" thing, so they cling to the scientists that say it's a myth. There are thousands of scientists on both sides of the issue.
3. Sorry this is so long and please don't attack me for my comments... I come in peace!
i think you're wonderful, julie. thanks for being the first person to comment on my blog ever. about the article, i feel kind of bad for ill-representing the opposition, but it was the first one i came across on google news search.
ReplyDelete