A Skeptical Look at Global Warming: Part II: After the Movie
Well, the movie wasn’t what I expected. I think I was hasher on it initially because of that. What I had expected was a scientific documentary, perhaps something like an episode of Nova, considering the case for global warming.
Walking out the theatre in that mindset, I had a general sense of disappointment. There was wide mix of evidence offered. Some I really liked, including how the movie starts off showing a graph of CO2 levels & temperatures for the last 650,000 years. But it also dips into anecdotal — nobody remembers polar bears drowning before. Remembers? And I’m still not sure how global warning caused ebola?
However, if you dismiss how the movie is marketed, take a step back, and think about what the movie is and the motivations for creating it — i.e., an attempt to rebuild Gore’s political career and rally like minded people to a cause it makes sense & a lot of my criticisms fade away.
In fact, to that end it does a good job. Al Gore certainly comes across better than he did in his prior political runs. We learn about how he was a simple farmboy, we see pictures of him w/ his first cow, the bitter irony of growing tobacco that would later claims his mom’s life, how the loss of the 2000 election hurt him, but from where he decided to give his slide show again. I could see a lot of people on the left walking out of the movie really liking Al Gore.
Still, I have three major complaints: his heavy usage of emotional transference, the vilification of those with dissenting views, and his coverage of solutions.
If you watch, you see a lot of pleasant images & sounds accompanied or followed by positive assertions and negative imagines mixed in or followed by causes of global warming or those who disagree. E.g., see the evil tobacco lobby? Remember how we hate them? Now project those feelings onto those against global warming. The feeling you get of standing on a riverbank & looking at lush green trees? Associate that with Al Gore.
This also fits with the vilification of those unconvinced of global warming. Again, I personally believe it happens, but it’s a far cry from being absolute certain and there’s still the open question of what it means. In general, challenges to an idea are good. If it either strengthens the theory (if it’s true) or it helps us understand where we might have gotten things wrong. It furthers our understanding.
Painting doubt & debate as evil is distasteful. I’m not particularly found of when religions do it, so I’m not going to embrace it here either. It taints the conversation & debate. Put another way, what would you make of someone painting the dissenters in the asteroid/dinosaur debate as evil?
Past the various montages of Al Gore’s life, my interested piqued again at the end of the film, as he starts to discuss solutions. However, much like a Little Jon “What!”, it doesn’t really go anywhere. In just a few seconds, a few solutions are mentioned with a percent, and told that if we add them up, we’ve solved the problem by getting back to 1970s level & that’s about it. No discussion about them or their impacts. How feasible is each? What’s the economic impact? How could they be realistically implemented? None of that’s discussed. The whole bit is probably less than a minute — he spent more time talking about the 2000 election than that!
(And does getting to the 1970s really solve the problem? That seems to be the implication, but if I recall correctly, even by 1970 CO2 levels where way too high?)
So all in all, was it a good film? It depends. If it was to rebuild Al Gore’s image, then yes. If it was to further the cause of global warming, then no. The science in was surprisingly lacking. I remember recently an AP article where several climatologist said the science was accurate, but then it would be like saying the science in Twister or Star Trek was accurate too. There just isn’t much in any.
Given the test “would it change anyone’s mind on global warming after seeing it?”, I’d answer probably not. It didn’t really change mine . Some people clapped at the end and one guy yelled “fuck yeah!”, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t already have a strong belief in global warming.
In a lot of ways, it would be like watching a highlight film of the Chicago Bears — I’d walk out having seen proof that they’re the greatest team on the planet, and think you’re an idiot if you didn’t draw the same conclusion for not having seen the same thing. (Which you are if you’re a Packer’s fan.)
So, at the end of the movie I’m still left where I started, with a lukewarm belief in an idea and not much supporting evidence that I personally know of & have strong faith in. At the very least, I’m motivated to learn more. If attributable to the movie, that’s certainly a positive.
For next steps, I think I’m going to try to find more information about a few things. First, the ice core samples & past cycles of the earth cooling warming. That data seemed interesting & it’s really the only thing that seems to have an adequate data set to make anything logical out of.
Second, falsible hypotheses. That is, theories that can cut either way — showing global warming does & doesn’t occur. E.g., you can’t point the record high temperatures as evidence of global warming if you refuse to go the other way should they not occur. Third, I’m curious about climinatology as a whole. Al Gore mentioned the sample of peer-reviewed articles — I’d be curious the accuracy of forecasts & predictions.
Again, what I find I’ll try to post.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:34 am
I’m interested in what you think he’s rebuilding his political career for? Do you think he’s going to run for pres?
Anyway, about the solutions, he talked about stabilization wedges, which is a plan to reduce emissions using technology we already have.
Is global warming falsifiable? Yes it is, but we are observing unprecedented climate change, as predicted 20 years ago. I’m not sure what you mean by falsifiable other than that - if we didn’t observe temperature increases, then we would have to abandon the theory.
And it’s funny how two people can see two different films. You saw something very different from what I saw.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:40 am
html is disabled. I wanted to include this link about stabilization wedges:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stabilization+wedges&btnG=Google+Search
July 20th, 2006 at 12:06 am
As to Gore, I’m not sure what he’s rebuilding it for, but I don’t think it’s inconceivable that he’ll run for some office again in the future?
I’m interested in how you saw the film. Did it change your opinion any on global warming?
Thanks for the pointer on wedges. I’ll be sure to check it out.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:43 am
I don’t think Al will run for president in 2008, we would probably already have some inkling - fundraising activity would begin, campaign staff getting recruited, etc. I could be wrong.
As for the movie, I went in already convinced about global warming, and so I concentrated on the information about global warming, not Al. Consciously, anyway. I did come out liking him a lot more… It’s interesting to me that our views colored the movie - I never thought once that he was using the movie as a political vehicle.
Your views on the movie are especially interesting to me. In my experience, most conservative bloggers who attacked the movie did so on the basis of a few bits of misinformation, without having seen the movie. Another conservative blogger who saw it came out with lots of new questions about global warming, a good thing. You are the only conservative blogger I’ve seen who actually went to see the movie, tried to keep an open mind, and has maintained the same basic position about global warming.
Anyway, global warming is happening, and there is very little real debate about what is causing it. As Gore pointed out, if you look deep enough, you’ll find that most of the (very few) scientists who cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming are indeed funded by ExxonMobil in one way or another. There is some research going into solar causes, but it is inconclusive, whereas there is a strong correlation btw CO2 and GW. Also there are some paleoclimatologists who point out that the earth has gone through these cycles before - but the temperature 65 million years ago is really not relevant to our ecosystem today. Indeed, most of the serious climate scientists work hard to add all these variables into their models of climate change - that’s why we have a range of predictions instead of a definite number.
Personally, as an amateur ecologist and semiprofessional environmental activist, I think global warming is only one problem of many that threaten the world’s ecosystem (and thus humans).
If it’s not caused by humans, there is plenty more to worry about.
Sorry to ramble on and on, but I am fascinated by your openminded approach… a rarity in the blogosphere. If you think I could point you to some useful information, please don’t hesitate to ask.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
I don’t think you can wave your hand and brush away the relevance of previous cycles by saying all that messy natural cyclical change happened 65 million years ago. Proponents of anthropomorphic global warming don’t like to admit to the mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and the little ice age, that didn’t happen 65 million years ago, but around 1000-1200 AD and 1500-1800 AD respectively.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:13 am
Which proponents of AGW have you been talking to, Scott?
Climate scientists take all of these things into account when they make their predictions - solar energy, natural cycles, etc. The models are getting more and more accurate, and almost all the science says that greenhouse gases are a significant cause, even if there are other factors acting on the climate.
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:00 am
Re: the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period:
From the National Academy of Sciences executive summary of their report, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years:
“The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.”
The executive report is good information. It is a good update of all the science about global warming. You can find it at:
http://newton.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676
If you want, I can also point you to other articles which demonstrate that scientists are studying things like the effects of solar variation on climate. These things are being researched, but the conclusions remain the same - the vast majority of warming seems to be man made.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Hey, Bill…I’ll be out your way in a couple of weeks. Will try to remember to bring your doll.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Awesome, it’ll be good to see you again Barb!