“Movie Review – An Inconvenient Truth” Don Bosch

Comments

8 responses to ““Movie Review – An Inconvenient Truth” Don Bosch”

1. 

   dlw

   December 30, 2006

   Honestly, Bosch is overplaying here. The issue is not one’s moral depravity but rather whether we are too influenced by our economic interests in how we process the data.
   I am sorry that Bosch didn’t select certain key facts and elaborate on his point. It would have helped. One of them that I recall is the research on peer-reviewed scientific journals that were found to be in strong agreement on the existence of global warming and that human activities had a strong causality for recent changes.
   dlw

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Michael W. Kruse

   December 30, 2006

   Hi dlw
   Earlier today I wrote a comment in response to my post in my social indicators series about the environment. Gore’s “consensus” claim is one of the best examples I have seen in recent memory on how to lie big while technically telling the truth. Here is what I wrote:
   …….
   First, we have to be clear about one thing. Has the temperature been warming over the past century? Yes. The issue is not the warming but what is causing it. More specifically, is it anthropogenic (human caused)?
   Second, I have gone back and examined the article Gore referenced in the movie. What Gore does not tell you is that in about 25% of the articles examined (and I am working from memory here), no mention of anthropogenic warming is made. In other words, if I wrote an article showing the correlation between sun spots and temperature change and made no mention of anthropogenic warming, then my article would fall into Gore’s list of articles that don’t “contradict” anthropogenic warming because I didn’t show it was not the case.
   Furthermore, I have read articles in some scientific journals that focus on some aspect of global warming and say things like “…while there is likely some anthropogenic contribution…,” meaning that the report believes the contribution may be marginal or negligible. Again, this article fits into Gore’s “no contradiction list.” Is the contribution 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
   Third, you can’t prove a negative. How can anyone conclusively prove that anthropogenic warming is not happening? Yet as long as someone leaves that door open they are in Gore’s “non-contradiction” list.
   Fourth, science is not done by consensus. Climatologist George H. Taylor, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists also observes:
   “But even if there actually were a consensus on this issue, it may very well be wrong. I often think about the lives of three scientists who found themselves by themselves, on the “wrong side of consensus.” There have been many in the history of science, but I singled out Alfred Wegener (Continental Drift), Gilbert Walker (El Niño), and J. Harlan Bretz (Missoula Floods). None is well-known now among members of the public, and all of them were ridiculed, rejected, and marginalized by the “consensus” scientists — and each of the three was later proven to be correct, and the consensus wrong. As a well-known writer once said, “if it’s consensus, it isn’t science — and if it’s science, it isn’t consensus.””
   Science is done by establishing a model that can explain a vast array of variables and can predict future events. With climatology we are dealing with five subsystems:
   a) atmosphere
   b) oceans
   c) ice – covered regions (cryosphere)
   d) land masses (lithosphere)
   e) plant and animal life (biosphere).
   There is no agreed upon model that integrates these five subsystems. In fact, among the those insistent about anthropogenic warming, are models that make assumptions that contradict each other at critical points. Therefore, to the degree there is a consensus, it is a consensus of opinions not a scientifically established model. Opinion is not science.
   Finally, science is a human enterprise that despite even the best efforts of scientists, is not objective. It is often tainted by the vested interests of the scientists. This affects what is studied and what is not studied. Climate change study began in earnest in the 1970s (predicting an ensuing ice age from greenhouse gasses until about 1990) and has become big business over the past two decades. Some scientists now have their entire careers invested in this science. Meanwhile the web of funders, government and scientists are enmeshed in an interdependent set of relationships that demands the care, feeding, and protection of the paradigm they have created.
   Gore’s movie is very well done piece of propaganda. It cleverly uses facts and partial truths to demagogue and trivialize all dissenters into silence. Because there is already considerable animus toward the people Gore lays the blame on (Republicans, people who believe in economic freedom) Gore knows that he will be given a pass on his numerous misrepresentations. All dissenters are either quirky or evil. It is the classic tactic of demagogues throughout the ages.
   ……
   The reality is that dumping excessive CO2 into the atmosphere probably does have some bad effects and some may be serious. Let us have open debate and challenge about the specifics of the science and be prudent about how we put things in the atmosphere.
   But Gore goes beyond this. It is type of eco-fundamentalism that establishes opinion of global warming scientist as a cardinal doctrine of fundamental truth and cast all dissenters as vile infidels worthy of nothing but animus and derision. Gore is quickly becoming the John Grisham Machen of eco-fundamentalism.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   dlw

   December 31, 2006

   First, we have to be clear about one thing. Has the temperature been warming over the past century? Yes. The issue is not the warming but what is causing it. More specifically, is it anthropogenic (human caused)?
   dlw: You realize this argument is quite similar to the one used by cigarrette companies? Causality is always open to speculative counter-factual arguments. We don’t live in test-tubes or ideal experimental conditions.
   Second, I have gone back an examined the article Gore referenced in the movie. What Gore does not tell you is that in about 25% of the articles examined (and I am working from memory here), no mention of anthropogenic warming is made. In other words, if I wrote an article showing the correlation between sun spots and temperature change and made no mention of anthropogenic warming, then my article would fall into Gore’s list of articles that don’t “contradict” anthropogenic warming because I didn’t show it was not the case.
   dlw: 25% is still a relatively low percentage and it is a matter of fact that it is easier “scientifically” to do measurement than to infer causality. So all you’re saying here is that 25% of the articles don’t really try to connect the dots. Then, I guess it must really be up in the air…
   Furthermore, I have read articles in some scientific journals that focus on some aspect of global warming and say things like “…while there is likely some anthropogenic contribution…,” meaning that the report believes the contribution may be marginal or negligible.
   dlw:If it is not peer-reviewed then who cares. I don’t see anything about some “aspect” associated global warming also having other factors at work. I sincerely doubt they would use the words marginal or neglible. You’re pushing it.
   Third, you can’t prove a negative. How can anyone conclusively prove that anthropogenic warming is not happening? Yet as long as someone leaves that door open they are in Gore’s “non-contradiction” list.
   dlw: Okay, it’s been a little while since I saw the film once, so I forgot what the “non-contradiction” list was. I fail to see how this arg differs significantly from the first. It seems to come down to “we can’t be sure!” I am a fallibilist and so I think such args are often abused. One also has to consider the proper risk functions in judging these sorts of uncertainties. It’s like Pascal’s wagers. If Gore is wrong and we listen, we lose out economically some. If Gore is right and we are cautious, we lose out ecologically quite a bit.
   Fourth, science is not done by consensus.
   dlw:Science is not above politics either in practice. It does rely on the community of investigators to validate studies and conclusions and that seems to favor heavily the view of Gore that anthropogenic plays a significant role in recent climate changes.
   Climatologist George H. Taylor, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists also observes:
   “But even if there actually were a consensus on this issue, it may very well be wrong. I often think about the lives of three scientists who found themselves by themselves, on the “wrong side of consensus.” There have been many in the history of science, but I singled out Alfred Wegener (Continental Drift), Gilbert Walker (El Niño), and J. Harlan Bretz (Missoula Floods). None is well-known now among members of the public, and all of them were ridiculed, rejected, and marginalized by the “consensus” scientists — and each of the three was later proven to be correct, and the consensus wrong. As a well-known writer once said, “if it’s consensus, it isn’t science — and if it’s science, it isn’t consensus.””
   dlw: This is simply heuristical. For all practical matters what is taken as truth is what is favored overall by the scientific community. It’s not a matter of conformity, but rather that they tend to present their findings in terms that generate the greatest level of agreement among the professional investigators possible.
   MK:Science is done by establishing a model that can explain a vast array of variables and can predict future events. With climatology we are dealing with five subsystems:
   a) atmosphere
   b) oceans
   c) ice – covered regions (cryosphere)
   d) land masses (lithosphere)
   e) plant and animal life (biosphere).
   There is no agreed upon model that integrates these five subsystems. In fact, among the those insistent about nthropogenic warming, are models that make assumptions that contradict each other at critical points.
   dlw: I fail to see relevance.
   Therefore, to the degree there is a consensus, it is a consensus of opinions not a scientifically established model. Opinion is not science.
   dlw: :liptwipping: They haven’t worked out a truly general model of climatology yet and so their work using models that are somewhat contradictory is all opinion, not science.
   I’m sorry but that is varnished crap. And I mean to say that as a Christian brother, and not in the spirit of attacking you as a person. Both you and I are not climatologists, the diff is that I’m not trying to argue against the findings of many bonified climatologists or spin their findings as opinion.
   Finally, science is a human enterprise that despite even the best efforts of scientists, is not objective. It is often tainted by the vested interests of the scientists. This affects what is studied and what is not studied. Climate change study began in earnest in the 1970s (predicting an ensuing ice age from greenhouse gasses until about 1990) and has become big business over the past two decades. Some scientists now have their entire careers invested in this science. Meanwhile the web of funders, government and scientists are enmeshed in an interdependent set of relationships that demands the care, feeding, and protection of the paradigm they have created.
   dlw:The same might be argued, perhaps more persuasively, for the people whose writings you consulted before writing this. Honestly, I don’t think Gore is doing this for the money and I don’t think the vast majority of climatologists are scamming the world. Doesn’t seem more likely that those who would likely bear more of the cost of the changes would sponsor their own “research”, just like the research that was sponsored by tobacco companies?
   MK:Gore’s movie is very well done piece of propaganda. It cleverly uses facts and partial truths to demagogue and trivialize all dissenters into silence. Because there is already considerable animus toward the people Gore lays the blame on (Republicans, people who believe in economic freedom) Gore knows that he will be given a pass on his numerous misrepresentations. All dissenters are either quirky or evil. It is the classic tactic of demagogues throughout the ages.
   dlw: Honestly, I don’t see him as targeting individuals as evil, just compromised and he does admit that his family was also compromised in their tobacco production for many years. It’s hard to change. It’s hard to admit that our “economic freedoms” recently have had some unintended consequences that now may require some painful adjustments to deal with.
   But Gore goes beyond this. It is type of eco-fundamentalism that estalishes opinion of global warming scientist as a cardinal doctrine of fundamental truth and cast all dissenters as vile infidels worth of nothing but animus and derision. Gore is quickly become the John Grisham Machen of eco-fundamentalism.
   dlw: I think fundamentalism tends to take something that is subject to a wide array of interpretations and insist that their interp is the one and only right one.
   I think Gore is on better footing than that. I don’t think we ever meant to tear into our natural resources like we have recently. We got away with that by manipulating third world politics in ways that kept the prices unnaturally low. This was very much political and by no means natural and so it doesn’t surprise me it likely opened a Pandora’s box.
   I am sure there is debate on this issue, but honestly I think the terms of your args are too far off the field. Debate/dialogue requires a certain level of agreement that your “args” do not seem to have.
   I’m sorry man. I hope there are no hard feelings, but yeah I’m a bit disappointed in you.
   dlw

   Loading…

   Reply
4. 

   Michael W. Kruse

   January 1, 2007

   I have been around science since the day I was born and I continue to be. My dad is a retired Ph.D. research chemist who has both been the head of university science department and worked in the private sector. The head of local university science department, (Ph.D, MIT) attends my church and I we have many conversations about scientific issues. I have several friends who are professionally scientists. While one of my graduate degrees is in social science it included significant study of the nature of science and the scientific method. While not a scientist, I have a deep interest in science and its appropriate use for public policy.
   I will cut right to the chase. Your comments strongly suggest to me that you think my comments are based on an ideological commitment to some type of libertarian/conservative agenda. They are not. It is grounded in my concern for how I see the interaction of science and politics playing out our day.
   My personal suspicion is that probably as much as 3/4 of climate change can be explained by solar radiation. I suspect that there is a human element to what we are witnessing. Yet the amount of temperature change caused by human action is well within the norms of fluctuation over human history and does not pose a catastrophic threat. When we feed the data at the beginning of the 20th Century into more than 30 GW models that are being used now to project change over the next hundred years they consistently project temp changes double or more of what actually happened in the 20th Century. There are issues to be dealt with but they are not the apocalyptic catastrophe of Gore’s movie.
   Gore’s “hockey stick effect” is a categorical lie. The data he used his from a UN IPCC report in the late 1990s that was resoundingly refuted and swiftly dropped from later presentations. The best data suggests we are emerging from a mini-ice age and the current global temperatures are just now reaching the mean global temperature for the last 2,000-3,000 years.
   His claims about a rise of 20 feet in sea levels is preposterous. The absolute worst case scenarios suggest a rise of less than 3 feet.
   His claims about rates of species extinction are based on a study of rates of extinction from one study of an island and extrapolated to world events. It is a complete misuse of the data.
   The willingness of the public to by into the “consensus” claims as a basis for public policy when there is no coherent agreed upon model of how this is happens says more about the deplorable level of education about science in our society than it does about global warming.
   You wrote:
   “dlw: You realize this argument is quite similar to the one used by cigarrette companies? Causality is always open to speculative counter-factual arguments. We don’t live in test-tubes or ideal experimental conditions.”
   This is ad hominem. The cancer research pointed quite conclusively to the effects of the chemicals in cigarettes and the scientific models that explained how the effects worked. The research could be directly challenged and convincingly upheld because there was a model that could be tested and empirically challenged.
   “dlw: :liptwipping: They haven’t worked out a truly general model of climatology yet and so their work using models that are somewhat contradictory is all opinion, not science.”
   “I’m sorry but that is varnished crap. And I mean to say that as a Christian brother, and not in the spirit of attacking you as a person. Both you and I are not climatologists, the diff is that I’m not trying to argue against the findings of many bonified climatologists or spin their findings as opinion.”
   There is nothing of crap in it. Nor is this spin. Science is not established by scientists getting together and taking a vote on what think most likely is the case and then that becomes the scientific knowledge until another group of scientists musters up a majority vote for another opinion. Science is established by consensus on a specific model that explains a significant number of variables and has predictive value. It is a paradigm that consists of an array of theories and axioms that coherently link together. The theories of the paradigm are then put to empirical tests to establish there veracity. Challengers then have the task of establishing a paradigm that better explains the data and accounts for anomalies of the old paradigm.
   Therefore, there is a paradigm that is “king of the hill,” which all challengers are then invited to take on and try to take the hill with their paradigm. The problem with global warming is that there is no coherent scientific paradigm to attack! The scientific paradigm cannot be challenged because there isn’t one. Most of what is on top of the hill is opinion and it can only be challenged by mustering up enough people with another opinion. Meanwhile, those in the majority on the hill view all challenges to their views as a threat to the ongoing funding and care of the views they have committed their lives to. The scientific community is a small deeply incestuous group and challenges to the global warming model threaten people’s livelihood. That places a big chill on scientists who might be inclined to directly challenge claims because they need funding … to have their articles peer reviewed by the very people who can directly affect their funding and decide whether or not publish their articles. Check out this from the Wall street Journal:
   http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
   As to your statement about us not being climatologist I would invite you to go back and read who authored the quote about consensus I used:
   “Climatologist George H. Taylor, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists also observes.”
   There is no groundswell of support for Gore’s positions from climatologists and indeed it is climatologists who have exposed some of his outrageous exaggerations. As to not questioning scientists because they know more, I am glad we didn’t ultimately take the approach toward the science of eugenics in the early part of the last century.
   “Doesn’t seem more likely that those who would likely bear more of the cost of the changes would sponsor their own “research”, just like the research that was sponsored by tobacco companies?”
   You make the assumption that the research supporting global warming is not being financed and perpetuated by vested interests. It is deeply influenced by vested interests. I wrote about this in 2005 (krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2005/09/science_global_.html) long before Gore’s movie was around. Who funds science has minimal impact on the outcomes of specific studies but considerable impact on what gets studied in the first place. The science, regardless of funding, still has to bear up under the scrutiny of peer review and replication. I might add that the battle between cigarette companies and other agencies was ultimately successful in establishing the truth and the scientific challenges by cigarette companies pushed science to refine there findings to sufficiently conclusive results.
   You wrote:
   “I am sure there is debate on this issue, but honestly I think the terms of your args are too far off the field. Debate/dialogue requires a certain level of agreement that your “args” do not seem to have.”
   I don’t understand what you are saying here.
   “I’m sorry man. I hope there are no hard feelings, but yeah I’m a bit disappointed in you.”
   Well, as Wesley says in the Princess Bride, “Get used to disappointment.” Sorry you are disappointed, but I got a news flash for ya, … I am not writing for your approval. The insinuation that my divergence from the global warming hysteria somehow implies that I am disingenuous in my analysis is a shinning example of the chilling climate Gore is trying to foster about debate on this issue.

   Loading…

   Reply
5. 

   Don

   January 1, 2007

   DLW: “The issue is not one’s moral depravity but rather whether we are too influenced by our economic interests in how we process the data.”
   You’re right – it’s impossible to deny the economic driver behind the GW arguments out there today. Scientists from petrochemical industries and those representing green non-profit industries are going to leverage and spin whatever data they can lay their hands on to gain support, financial and otherwise, for their cause.
   DLW: “I am sorry that Bosch didn’t select certain key facts and elaborate on his point. It would have helped. One of them that I recall is the research on peer-reviewed scientific journals that were found to be in strong agreement on the existence of global warming and that human activities had a strong causality for recent changes.”
   The frustration you share with me is perhaps matched only by my personal frustration with not being able to approach the movie scientifically. I’d hoped the links I provided gave folks a chance to do that if that interested them. I really wanted to do that, but found little specifics from Gore to which I could respond. That section you mention about “strong agreement” is a great example. From the transcript of the film, it went like this:
   “Isn’t there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.”
   Who wrote the “massive study?” Who are “They?” What 928 articles? I haven’t been able to find them listed anywhere. That was my problem, again, as I admitted up front.
   As you (DLW) commented on the original post (“Honestly, I stopped reading not too long into the theological section. It didn’t follow the text of the movie carefully enough for me. “), with all respect I think by doing that you missed the point of my post. I elected to highlight key points in the film where he used his life experiences to create moral authority for his scientific arguements, which was really most interesting to me. I was very specific about those – the death of his sister from cancer, his political life, etc). My summary was this:
   “Ultimately his journey, like the Apostle’s, is one of relentless pursuit of truth and communicating that truth to mankind. But here’s what strikes me: While John’s goal is laying before all of us the moral truth of someone else – Christ given for the salvation of the world – Gore ultimately is laboring to establish his moral credentials by laying out his own life before the world. I think that whole notion should give Christians pause, even folks like me who agree in part with Gore’s environmental concerns.”
   Finally, wrt “one’s moral depravity” you might have jumped to the conclusion that I though Gore morally depraved. Quite the opposite. I’m calling Gore on the mat here (respectfully, I hope) that he is the one making the moral value judgement here on what should be dealt with as a scientific issue (though one with macro-economic and social concerns).
   “Overplaying” perhaps, but as much as Gore himself? He’s certainly much better at it, anyway. 🙂
   Best to you both,
   db

   Loading…

   Reply
6. 

   Don

   January 2, 2007

   And Mike, thanks for linking (and the kind comments).

   Loading…

   Reply
7. 

   Michael Kruse

   January 2, 2007

   You are welcome Don. You provide some very challenging thoughts. You have inspired me to consider some posts on the connections of politics, theology and science as it realtes to the envrionment.

   Loading…

   Reply
8. 

   will spotts

   January 3, 2007

   “Your comments strongly suggest to me that you think my comments are based on an ideological commitment to some type of libertarian/conservative agenda.”
   With all due respect, Mike, your purpose is kind of irrelevant to the observation. The point is that where public policy and science intersect there is a tendency for the cultic to replace the rational. And a certain amount of Gore’s language illustrates this cultic, Manichean mindset. You (and the article you cite) make that point well, and it is valid regardless of your motives.
   The running excuse, ‘I’m not an expert’ doesn’t fly – because in a democratic system, public policy is not determined by the experts – it is the responsibility of everyone to check the research. We have the tools to do this, though many of us don’t have the time. On climate issues that is clearly not being done. In my opinion, you do very well at presenting the issues.

   Loading…

   Reply