Was 'An Inconvenient Truth' based on science?

[Meh Gerbil]

Honest Question
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an...#ixzz47h2jBizY

[Juvenal]

Honest Question
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an...#ixzz47h2jBizY

Here's an idea. Follow Bastasch's links and count how many times they contradict his story, amusingly enough, even when he's citing himself. Then tell us how that adds up to an honest question.

[Meh Gerbil]

Here's an idea. Follow Bastasch's links and count how many times they contradict his story, amusingly enough, even when he's citing himself. Then tell us how that adds up to an honest question.

[Trout]

A great many people I know were deeply troubled by that film. I never found it to be that convincing. I didn't take the time to proof text it though.

I imagine a great many in the scientific community profit largely from global warming science. I don't trust what I'm reading.

[Juvenal]

It was about glaciers, not snow, as you could tell from the link.

That's the first contradiction.

Keep going. Bastasch did.

[Kbertsche]

Not necessarily. He was just wrong.

Was the science bad?

Not necessarily. The prediction was wrong, but this doesn't mean that the science was "bad".

What happened?

Al Gore took a speculative scientific prediction, presented it as absolute fact, and used it to push his own public policy agenda. He abused science for political reasons.

[Meh Gerbil]

It was about glaciers, not snow, as you could tell from the link.

That's the first contradiction.

Keep going. Bastasch did.

The glacier is still there and snow is still there.
Are you claiming Lonnie Thompson wasn't wrong?

[Cow Poke]

[Juvenal]

The glacier is still there and snow is still there.
Are you claiming Lonnie Thompson wasn't wrong?

Lonnie Thompson was wrong in this instance. In particular, while the dynamics of glacier loss in equatorial regions is still heavily debated, it's now thought that deforestation is the principal cause for ice loss in these regions.

But he's not 90 percent wrong, as you are, in suggesting the glacier is still there.

And it's still a self-contradiction, the first of many for this source. Keep going.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm not arguing whether or not AGW is a real thing.
If it helps calm people down a little bit let's all pretend, for the sake of this thread, that AGW is true.

Again: At no point in this thread should anyone challenge the gospel of AGW - for the duration it is assumed to be true.

What this thread illustrates, and what bothers me most about the AGW crowd, is the inability to simply admit when science is wrong.
Repeat after me: Lonnie Thompson, renowned climatologist, speaking as a scientist, made a prediction about the future that is demonstrably false.

[Meh Gerbil]

Lonnie Thompson was wrong in this instance. In particular, while the dynamics of glacier loss in equatorial regions is still heavily debated, it's now thought that deforestation is the principal cause for ice loss in these regions.

But he's not 90 percent wrong, as you are, in suggesting the glacier is still there.

And it's still a self-contradiction, the first of many for this source. Keep going.

With all due respect you've lost me.

You're trying to put a percentage on how wrong he was but I don't see how you've improved his credibility (on this single point) by adding deforestation to the mix.
That means he was not only wrong about the glacier being gone (100% wrong, btw) but also wrong as to the cause (deforestation vs. global warming).

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I don't see the contradiction.
Show me where I go off the rails here:
1: Al Gore cites a leading climate scientist's prediction that the ice/glacier/snow on a mountain will be gone in 10 years.
2: Ten years later the ice/glacier/snow is not gone, and in fact, appears to be holding steady.
3: Lonnie Thompson and Al Gore were wrong.

BTW, if the 90% wrong is a reference to the fact the glacier has lost 80% of its mass since 1900 then you're the one being obtuse.
Nobody in this thread is talking about the loss on the glacier that occurred before he made his prediction.
It is the prediction that is the topic, not the history of the glacier pre 2000.

[Juvenal]

It is the prediction that is the topic, not the history of the glacier pre 2000.

On the contrary, the topic is a Daily Caller hit piece on Al Gore.

Rodent, even the mainstream press, with the actual intention of getting it right, fails miserably at presenting science accurately. Anyone who's been around these debates searching for real information knows to track back to the original papers. When looking at an article from the fringe press, and more, from a writer with a reputation for recklessness on climate science, it's absurd to suggest one is posing honest questions, or looking for honest answers.

If you'd like to know if Al's documentary was based on science, ask the scientists. They say it was. From my own perspective, it was more successful at presenting the science than the typical mainstream account. Not because a mainstream reporter couldn't have managed it, but because they have deadlines, they lack the freedom to devote years of attention to a single issue.

While his overall accuracy was good, he muffed a couple of predictions and brought a few more distant predictions into an immediate context without making that distinction clear. An Inconvenient Truth was based on science, but intended to spur political action.

let's all pretend, for the sake of this thread, that AGW is true.

Don't bother on my account.

If it helps calm rodents down a little bit let's all pretend, for the sake of this thread, that you're actually interested in honesty.

[Juvenal]

Again: At no point in this thread should anyone challenge the gospel of AGW - for the duration it is assumed to be true.

A little note about vBulletin: Deleting the OP removes the thread.

[Meh Gerbil]

On the contrary, the topic is a Daily Caller hit piece on Al Gore.

Rodent, even the mainstream press, with the actual intention of getting it right, fails miserably at presenting science accurately. Anyone who's been around these debates searching for real information knows to track back to the original papers. When looking at an article from the fringe press, and more, from a writer with a reputation for recklessness on climate science, it's absurd to suggest one is posing honest questions, or looking for honest answers.

If you'd like to know if Al's documentary was based on science, ask the scientists. They say it was. From my own perspective, it was more successful at presenting the science than the typical mainstream account. Not because a mainstream reporter couldn't have managed it, but because they have deadlines, they lack the freedom to devote years of attention to a single issue.

While his overall accuracy was good, he muffed a couple of predictions and brought a few more distant predictions into an immediate context without making that distinction clear. An Inconvenient Truth was based on science, but intended to spur political action.



Don't bother on my account.

If it helps calm rodents down a little bit let's all pretend, for the sake of this thread, that you're actually interested in honesty.

So when an authority (in this case a climate scientist) gets it wrong the fall back tactic is to question the authenticity of everyone in the room who happens to notice it.
This is the sort of nonsense that caused me to turn my back on fundamentalism.

[Sparko]

So when an authority (in this case a climate scientist) gets it wrong the fall back tactic is to question the authenticity of everyone in the room who happens to notice it.
This is the sort of nonsense that caused me to turn my back on fundamentalism.

lao tzu is in rare form this morning. The Snarkiness is great in this one.