Ronald Bailey has a good piece over at Reason which points out that which Al Gore tries his best to convey his concern for global warming in his most recent movie An Inconvenient Truth but comes off as someone who blows the dangers posed by global warming way out of proportion. So while Gore makes the eyes of Hollywood liberals, idealistic college students, and the MSM glaze over his talk about the "greatest moral danger," they're individuals like Bailey who point out that the apocalypse in nigh talk is a tad too much. Here's a look at how Gore's rhetoric on global warming is way over the top:
Gore also argues that global warming will increase storminess. As suggestive evidence, Gore cited several examples of recent severe weather events across the globe. For example, he pointed the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 that killed some 35,000 people with temperatures hitting 104 degrees Fahrenheit. But historically such temperatures are not unknown to Europe. In July 1921, a heat wave hit much of Western Europe with the temperature reaching 104 degrees Fahrenheit in Strasbourg, France. Gore also pointed to the monsoon storm in 2005 that dumped 37 inches of rain in 24 hours on Mumbai India. But storms like that have happened before—even in the United States. In 1921, Thrall, Texas experienced a 24-hour downpour of 38 inches and Alvin, Texas was soaked with 43 inches over a 24-hour period in 1979.We'll it looks like Gore caught the Hollywood bug which is to produce a remake of a film but with more bells and whistles. And I thought the Day After Tomorrow was over the top. Maybe a run in 2008 could round off his "Over the Top" tour.
Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists. For example, a recent study in Geophysical Research Letters finds "based on data over the last twenty years, no significant increasing trend is evident in global ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] or in Category 4–5 hurricanes."
At a climatic moment (pun intended) in the film, Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998. But doing that would not have had the quite the same dramatic effect in the film.
5 comments:
I agree...Gore doing a film about Global warming is hokey. It seems its another example of a politician pandering to the base - in this case the list of people the article mentioned.
BUT, you can't disprove his arguments by pointing out specific events. You can't say global warming isn't happening because we had this much rain decades ago....or 2005 wasn't the hottest because 1998 was just as hot. I tend to look at the 'frequency' of events - We of course DID have huge storms and heat waves over the last few hundred years, but how often? Is it more now? Has the frequency of them increased? (I would venture to say yes). If so, WHY?
Al Gore does not make me believe any more or less about Global Warming. I tend to put more belief in studies that have been coming out over the last decade. No...you can't 'prove' any other them conclusively...and yes, some of them have agendas. It just seems more and more point out that global warming is happening.
Scientists (not Gore) need to keep researching to see the effects (long and short term) of Global Warming. Is it man-made? Is it a natural cycle the earth is going through? Is there anything we can do about it?
All these questions need to be answered and aren't helped by politicians with agendas - on BOTH sides.
During the 1960's we had dire predictions of "over-population", in the 70's scientists warned of a new "Ice Age", and in the 1980's you heard scientists warning us about "Acid Rain," all of which never happened or didn't warrant the alarming headlines. I'd say that the whole global warming hype is a good way to make headlines in our short-attention span culture but in reality it will pan out much like the above mentioned calamities did. No matter how many models scientists draw up, they have no way of knowing what our daily weather was like in 1405, 105, 1088, 790, 980, 1600 or any other year prior to when they started tracking the weather in the 1800's. Even if there was global warming(Which the scientific jury is still out on(no matter how much Gore says otherwise.) I'd say that the solutions being offered by Gore and his "Green Crusaders" are far from ending the threat. As a principled conservative, I take the view that spending tons and of our money, time, and production of 1/4 of the world's goods is not worth it to just to reduce the the temp by some tenth of a degree. (Just ask the Germans and Brits on their efforts to abide by Kyoto protocals - 98 senator didn't reject it for nothing).
You can tell what the weather was like hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Much like the rings of trees tell the history of it, soil samples, sediment deposits, and fossils can tell what type of weather occurred (drought, heat wave, floud, etc)
Whether this says anything about global warming or just tell about past droughts, you can find clues about the earth's past weather.
It still doesn't provide concrete evidence that this isn't just a natural occurance in nature that comes and goes.
It still doesn't provide concrete evidence that this isn't just a natural occurance in nature that comes and goes.
Exactly. But what it can do is let us know the frequency of such events (storms, floods, droughts, heat wave, polar ice caps melting) and if they're increasing. If they are (as global alarmist insist), then we must figure out WHY these things are happening.
Right now, there's not much arguing the polar ice caps are the lowest ever recorded. WHY then? Is it just a natural cycle the earth is going through OR is it something man-made? If it is a cycle, then why has the changing suddenly become more rapid in the last 100 years?
There may not ever be a smoking gun to this question. Hopefully scientists can figure out one way or the other and if something can be done because from all accounts, the earth is changing fast.
Post a Comment