An inconvenient study

| | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

As I perused Al Gore's new book while waiting in line to meet him, one thought that kept coming up was the following:

"This guy is so full of sh-t his eyes are brown."

But I said this to myself with a feeling of admiration. I was not planning to see his movie until someone paid me to do so, just on general principles, but now I'm thinking the entertainment value might just make it worth my while. I grew up entranced by overwrought doomsday melodramas, from the extinction/ loss-of-habitat/ disappearing-way-of-life specials from National Geographic and PBS to prime time beauties like The Day After (shortly after which I suddenly grew up). I read The Population Bomb and all the news stories about the imminent global freeze.

After I learned how a large amount of this stuff was all hokum designed to appeal to certain human emotions like pity and fear, I developed a degree of admiration for the genre.

The dramatic themes are almost archtypal and a skilled director with an appropriate score could make you weep like a baby over the plight of garden worms during planting season.

I will bet money that An Inconvenient Truth utilizes many of the same themes and techniques that had me spellbound back when I was a liberal much younger.

Most inconvenient for Al Gore and those intrepid revolutionaries determined to read his book with a straight face, is this new study undermining the claim of a link between global warming and hurricane ferocity:

The paper, co-written by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in West Miami-Dade, challenges earlier findings that hurricanes have grown more powerful in the last 30 years.

It says those studies failed to account for technological improvements that now produce more accurate -- and often higher -- estimates of a storm's power than were available in the past.

'If you say, 'Hey, the number of Category 4 and 5 storms has doubled since 1970,' you have to ask where is that coming from and can we accept that as true,'' said Landsea, one of the nation's leading hurricane researchers, who now serves as science and operations officer at the hurricane center.

His answer: Probably not, because the databases used for historical studies are so skewed.

But this is only one study, and An Inconvenient Truth makes a lot of claims. We're going to need a lot more studies.

My prediction: A comet will hit the Earth before the negative impact of global warming can be proved or disproved.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: An inconvenient study.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Roger said:

This movie is based upon a singular climatic change analysis done in the 1990's that manipulated the hard science of cyclical climate change to support an unverified assumption. The report was not subjected to verification or analysis by a cross section of experts like other scientific disciplines. It was shuttled amongst the small insular world of climatic scientist who want to believe in their assumption to the degree that they employed unethical methodology. The middle ages warming cycle was removed from the data so that what you see is a "hockey stick" effect of global temp. change. Everything is fine and then the 20th century hits and it spikes out of control. If you take the time to look at the non manipulated data you would see that we are experiencing normal global climate change and not the end of the earth. Al Gore has simply realized that he can get back in the spotlight and make good money off of the sky is falling mentality of the gullible many. Try and educate yourself and not believe everything you read. If we make policy changes based upon manipulated data we are serving only the few and not the many. Do we need to care about the earth? Yes. Do we need to control pollution? Yes. Do we need to get hysterical, point fingers and potentially change the fundamentals of of our life as we know it? I don't think so

charles said:

I saw today that one recommendation to relieve global warming is to fill the air with Sulfer, which will reflect heat.

No, not on the ground, but in the upper layers of the atmosphere.

See, all those things we tried to get rid of in our car exhaust, like ozone and sulfer, turns out we need them.

The problem wasn't the substances, it was where we were releasing them. We just need to drive our cars 10 miles up.

Roger: Good information, thanks.

Charles: Sounds like a justification for more private jet travel. The Gore people should be all over this.

zimzo said:

Dagnabbit, these scientifical people and all their crazy notions 'bout things like eee-volution and global warming and all their stem-cell researchin'. I don't care how much eveeedence they come up with, we folks in the Surreality-Based Community ain't listenin'. If God wanted us to go pokin' around in his affairs he wouldna given us the Good Book which has all the eveeedence we need. Why it says right here that all the problems in the world is caused by Eve eatin' that apple from the Tree of Knowledge so it seems pretty darn clear to me, the less of this knowledge we have the better. That's why I'm not even goin' to read this here Al Gore book or even the article I linked to which says waaaay down in the eighth paragraph, "On the other side are Landsea and other scientists who say, yes, global warming is real, but its effect on hurricanes is not at all clear."

Zimzo: I thought the fact he IS a global warming believer lends credence to his argument the "increased hurricanes" part of Gore's slide show is phony. As opposed to a scientist writing in WorldNetDaily, for instance. Didn't realize I needed to spell that out.

It's interesting how so many of your responses evoke the fundamentalist Christian caricature circa 1927. Next I suppose you'll be quoting from the "cross of gold" speech. Back in the hill country we call that mode of discussion "changing the subject." But what do we know, we're just hicks.

zimzo said:

Now if you can only get all the other global warming believers to each criticize one piece of evidence for global warming, even as they support all the other evidence, then by selectively quoting each of their criticisms the whole theory will go down in flames! Good plan.

If you're going to act like the stereotype of the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-reality hick, which even many conservatives are embarrassed by, then you should be prepared to be called on it.

And isn't this anti-civil union amendment of yours was supposed to save us from the dangers of bimetalism?

Zimzo: This is good, I think our respective assumptions are coming more clearly into view.

From here on out, therefore, I'll use the signature tag line below and I suggest you end your posts with this signature line:

"If Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel and 100 scientists say it, I believe it."



Proudly standing arm-in-arm with Pat Robertson, William Jennings Bryan, and Cousin Cletis who owns seven different socks.

Manbearpig will get us before the comet hits.

Speaking irreverently about the Manbearpig is bigotry. BIGOTRY!

Proudly standing arm-in-arm with Pat Robertson, William Jennings Bryan, and Cousin Cletis who owns seven different socks.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here