Surprise!
Roger Ebert likes Al Gore's harangue on global warming.
The opening to Ebert's adoring review is remarkable:
Leaving aside the implied- and rather odd- distinction between Ebert's political convictions and what he believes to be true, the above can be paraphrased by saying that Ebert has heard one side of the argument, and has drunk the Kool-Aid.
Gore's assertion that there is no controversy about his thesis among the experts is simply untrue, and Ebert's review would have more credibility if he had done his homework on that matter instead of taking Gore at his word. Cycles of solar activity have led to global warming and cooling throughout the centuries- and the warming period which in fact ended in 1998 (yes, that's what I said; global temperatures have actually dropped marginally since then) was less severe than that which took place between 700 and 1300, as well as considerably shorter in duration. Needless to say, the internal combustion engine didn't exist in the Middle Ages!
But there were, it should be granted, volcanoes, and oceans, and the other natural sources of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In fact, the human contribution- the object of Gore's alarm- accounts for a significant percentage of greenhouse gases only if the most important of them- water vapor- is excluded.
And water vapor accounts for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the 0.28% of greenhouse gases attributable to human activity has no effect. But it does call into question the magnitude of that effect. Here is an enlightening article on the actual state of the "consensus" on the subject of global warming. The last sentence is especially edifying.
And here is the other side of the debate- and the story of how it came to pass that the sum total of the geological evidence was simply ignored, and the dubious history for the temperature of our globe upon which Gore's entire premise rests was implied from tree rings.
That's right. The entire historical argument behind the global warming thesis- including Gore's assertion that the ten warmest years in Earth's history have occured in the last fourteen- depends upon highly questionable temperature values to assigned to periods in the past on the basis of tree rings- while totally excluding the compelling physical evidence for an extended period of greater warming during the Middle Ages, between 700 and 1300 A.D.!
Gore's hysterical argument is very far from being the stuff of established fact he claims it is. And how can it be that a man of Ebert's intelligence missed the careful wording of Gore's claim to a scientific consensus for his position- his assertion that "out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement?"
In other words, Gore succeeded in finding 925 peer-reviewed articles which agreed with his position- and then based his argument that this represents a scientific consensus on the fact that all of these articles which agree with his position- agree with his position!
In fact, Gore's argument is an alarmist one which cherry-picks the evidence and in no way represents any sort of scientific consensus. This does not mean that cheaper and cleaner fuels should not be found. It does not mean that it is not possible (though it is far from obvious) that the comparatively small human contribution to Earth's greenhouse effect might not have materially contributed to the period of global warming which ended in 1998. But it does mean that a great deal of his argument is based on bad science, and worse logic.
And it also means that those who see Gore's film would be well advised to do so with a more critical eye than Roger Ebert's.
HT: Drudge
The opening to Ebert's adoring review is remarkable:
I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.
Global warming is real.
It is caused by human activity.
Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.
Leaving aside the implied- and rather odd- distinction between Ebert's political convictions and what he believes to be true, the above can be paraphrased by saying that Ebert has heard one side of the argument, and has drunk the Kool-Aid.
Gore's assertion that there is no controversy about his thesis among the experts is simply untrue, and Ebert's review would have more credibility if he had done his homework on that matter instead of taking Gore at his word. Cycles of solar activity have led to global warming and cooling throughout the centuries- and the warming period which in fact ended in 1998 (yes, that's what I said; global temperatures have actually dropped marginally since then) was less severe than that which took place between 700 and 1300, as well as considerably shorter in duration. Needless to say, the internal combustion engine didn't exist in the Middle Ages!
But there were, it should be granted, volcanoes, and oceans, and the other natural sources of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In fact, the human contribution- the object of Gore's alarm- accounts for a significant percentage of greenhouse gases only if the most important of them- water vapor- is excluded.
And water vapor accounts for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the 0.28% of greenhouse gases attributable to human activity has no effect. But it does call into question the magnitude of that effect. Here is an enlightening article on the actual state of the "consensus" on the subject of global warming. The last sentence is especially edifying.
And here is the other side of the debate- and the story of how it came to pass that the sum total of the geological evidence was simply ignored, and the dubious history for the temperature of our globe upon which Gore's entire premise rests was implied from tree rings.
That's right. The entire historical argument behind the global warming thesis- including Gore's assertion that the ten warmest years in Earth's history have occured in the last fourteen- depends upon highly questionable temperature values to assigned to periods in the past on the basis of tree rings- while totally excluding the compelling physical evidence for an extended period of greater warming during the Middle Ages, between 700 and 1300 A.D.!
Gore's hysterical argument is very far from being the stuff of established fact he claims it is. And how can it be that a man of Ebert's intelligence missed the careful wording of Gore's claim to a scientific consensus for his position- his assertion that "out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement?"
In other words, Gore succeeded in finding 925 peer-reviewed articles which agreed with his position- and then based his argument that this represents a scientific consensus on the fact that all of these articles which agree with his position- agree with his position!
In fact, Gore's argument is an alarmist one which cherry-picks the evidence and in no way represents any sort of scientific consensus. This does not mean that cheaper and cleaner fuels should not be found. It does not mean that it is not possible (though it is far from obvious) that the comparatively small human contribution to Earth's greenhouse effect might not have materially contributed to the period of global warming which ended in 1998. But it does mean that a great deal of his argument is based on bad science, and worse logic.
And it also means that those who see Gore's film would be well advised to do so with a more critical eye than Roger Ebert's.
HT: Drudge
Comments