Al Gore: Environmental superhero or Chicken Little?

[Sunrazor]

Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is apparently busting the proverbial block, much to the astonishment of entertainment pundits and the chagrin of anti-enviros. Slate's Jacob Weisberg writes: "One cannot leave the theater without understanding that climate change is real, man-made, and an urgent threat to everything we value." The movie probably won't come to my little town, a crimson spot in an already magenta state. Has anybody seen it? Does it do justice to the issue of global warming? Any environmental scientists out there who can weigh in on the movie's veracity?

As a footnote, I'm particularly interested because my corner of the world is enduring what is now nearly eight consecutive years of drought. Folks, it's getting a littly scary out here!

[DxZero]

Originally Posted by jeffrice

Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is apparently busting the proverbial block, much to the astonishment of entertainment pundits and the chagrin of anti-enviros. Slate's Jacob Weisberg writes: "One cannot leave the theater without understanding that climate change is real, man-made, and an urgent threat to everything we value." The movie probably won't come to my little town, a crimson spot in an already magenta state. Has anybody seen it? Does it do justice to the issue of global warming? Any environmental scientists out there who can weigh in on the movie's veracity?

As a footnote, I'm particularly interested because my corner of the world is enduring what is now nearly eight consecutive years of drought. Folks, it's getting a littly scary out here!

Here's a Slate article critical of the movie
Seems like the author in that piece is critical of Gore for stretching statistics and scare-mongering.

[Kimstu]

The board's most recent discussion about global warming seems to be this thread.

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth yet, but there is a review of it at the climate-scientist site realclimate.org:

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. [...] Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. [...]

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.

I haven't seen any convincing criticism of the science in the film, although I've seen some pretty desperate reaching. My favorite is a recent Wall Street Journal editorial quoted here:

In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Oh yeah, now there's a rebuttal! Anthropogenic global warming isn't important because it won't matter in a million years! Well shoot, I guess in that case I can stop worrying about Islamic-extremist terrorism too, right? I doubt that will matter in a million years either.

I think the Gregg Easterbrook article linked to by DxZero is actually not all that critical of the movie, and not all that persuasive where it is critical. As Easterbrook admits up front,

As someone who has come to the view that greenhouse-effect science is now persuasive, I'm glad Gore made a movie that will help average voters understand the subject. An Inconvenient Truth is worthy in content, admirable in intent, and motivated by the sense of civic responsibility. [...] An Inconvenient Truth comes to the right conclusions about the seriousness of global warming [...]

The only real beef he seems to have is with what he calls a "moral flaw" in Gore's being too critical of carbon fuels in general, because they've also done some nice things for us. And he gripes about some global-warming activists using too many fossil fuels themselves:

Gore's movie takes shots at Republicans and the oil industry, but by the most amazing coincidence says nothing about the poor example set by conspicuous consumers among the Hollywood elite. [...]
This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards.

Those criticisms look pretty lightweight to me if what you want to know is just basically whether the movie "does justice to the issue of global warming". Looks like the answer overall is yes.

[tomndebb]

We recently had (and today resurrected) a separate thread on warming, in general, (as opposed to the presentation of warming in the film): Global Warming. Let's do it again..

As a side note: while I generally accept the position that man-made warming is a threat, it should be noted that local variations can occur without the world, itself, actually being at risk. From 1957 through 1966, the Great Lakes suffered a dought--to the point that some states were making rumbling noises about lawsuits based on Illinois "stealing" the water when it reversed the flow in the Illinois Ship and Sanitary canal system. From 1967 through the middle 1970s, water levels were so high that the conspiracy buffs began to come out with all sorts of odd claims that the government was raising the Lakes to that it could condemn all the lakefront properties. Regardless whether we suffer or prevent a global catastrophe, there will be localized climate changes that appear to support both sides of the argument.

[Stranger On A Train]

I haven't seen the film (nor do I plan to) but based upon past statements and publications he's a little bit of both, but I'd have to put him on the balance on the Chicken Little side of the equation. He's certainly the most prominent public figure talking about alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, et cetera, and can be legitimately credited with increasing the public awareness of such. On the other hand, Gore never met an environmentally-related hyperbole he didn't aggressively embrace. His grasp of science isn't perhaps quite as tenuous as, say, Dan Quayle, but he's less than qualified to justify many of the unsupported claims he has espoused in the past. Earth In The Balance was, frankly, an abominable piece of scaremongering which exaggerated even the most extreme scenerios posited by current climatological models.

As for the impact of manmade pollution versus normal climate cycles, while it seems evident that the former has exacerbated climate effects, it's difficult to say in what measure or how much effect limiting emissions would have on long-term conditions. It makes sense to look for less polluting methods of energy production and transportation, and to develop renewable energy sources that, if not sustainable, are at least effective supplements to current fossil fuel-based sources. But it doesn't make sense in either an economic or ethical perspective to drastically alter (to the point of retardation) our transportation and industrial infrastruture at great expense for a questionable result, which is the point I've taken from Gore's previous bombast.

I get the impression that Gore, while serious and passionate about the topic, is also in no small part a media whore who would prognosticate the worst in order to garner attention. This doesn't make his essential message--that we should ultimately move away from polluting and nonreplenishable petrochemical and carbonaceous energy sources--wrong, but one does become weary and leary of dire predictions based upon highly questionable science. OTOH, maybe Gore is a modern day Casandra and will reap the benefits of that Western Sierra beachfront property he's invested in.

Stranger

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

one does become weary and leary of dire predictions based upon highly questionable science.

Can you give specific examples of scientific claims presented by Gore that you consider "highly questionable"?

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

As for the impact of manmade pollution versus normal climate cycles, while it seems evident that the former has exacerbated climate effects, it's difficult to say in what measure or how much effect limiting emissions would have on long-term conditions. It makes sense to look for less polluting methods of energy production and transportation, and to develop renewable energy sources that, if not sustainable, are at least effective supplements to current fossil fuel-based sources. But it doesn't make sense in either an economic or ethical perspective to drastically alter (to the point of retardation) our transportation and industrial infrastruture at great expense for a questionable result

This sounds to me like vague pontificating waffle of the sort that climate-change skeptics have been indulging in a lot of lately. Okay, you think there's probably a problem but you don't know how serious it is, you think we should do something about it but not too much to be prudent, blah blah blah.

Can you put some numbers on any of these opinions, in order to give some kind of idea what sort of specific policies you favor and what sort of specific economic or environmental outcomes you consider desirable or unacceptable? How much atmospheric CO2 do you consider a probably dangerous upper bound? 400 ppm? 600 ppm? More than that? How much economic damage from climate change would you consider a reasonable tradeoff for how much economic damage from emissions reductions? What sort of alterations in infrastructure do you consider "drastic", and how do you feel that they compare to alterations in infrastructure that are likely to result from climate change? When you speak of "less polluting" and "renewable" energy sources, what kind of quantities are you talking here?

Whatever choices we decide to make about the environment, I think we should all agree that we've reached a moment for serious consideration of specific policies, rather than wasting more time with inconclusive, foot-dragging blather. Let's debate the science; let's debate the money; let's look at the options and choose a course of action, but let's stop our feeble procrastinating.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Can you put some numbers on any of these opinions, in order to give some kind of idea what sort of specific policies you favor and what sort of specific economic or environmental outcomes you consider desirable or unacceptable? How much atmospheric CO2 do you consider a probably dangerous upper bound? 400 ppm? 600 ppm? More than that? How much economic damage from climate change would you consider a reasonable tradeoff for how much economic damage from emissions reductions? What sort of alterations in infrastructure do you consider "drastic", and how do you feel that they compare to alterations in infrastructure that are likely to result from climate change? When you speak of "less polluting" and "renewable" energy sources, what kind of quantities are you talking here?

On the other hand, how much economic disruption would you be willing to accept for the sake of emissions control, given that we don't really know how much good drastic emissions reductions will really do? How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice? How many people whose standards of living are already pretty shaky will see a further reduction in the quality of their lives for the sake of reducing emissions?

Who do you think is going to bear the real burden of all that economic disruption? Hint: It probably won't be George Bush Jr. , Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, or any of their friends.

What sort of measures are you proposing, and what impact will those measures have on people like me? 'Cuz ya see, my standard of living is already pretty minimal by American standards, and if controlling emissions means any further reduction in the quality of my life, then I don't give a damn about climate change.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Can you give specific examples of scientific claims presented by Gore that you consider "highly questionable"?

Specifically his oft-reported claim of 20ft+ increases in average ocean levels over the next century from melting Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. The most dire predictions by credible climatologists weigh in at less than 40 inches over the same span. He's also frequently claimed a 3 °C increase in average global temperature over the next 20 years. (IIRC this claim is actually stated in the trailer for the film.) Again, climatologists expect the increase to be something on the order of 0.8-1.5 °C over the 21st Century; significant, but not as immediately catastrophic as Gore would suggest.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

This sounds to me like vague pontificating waffle of the sort that climate-change skeptics have been indulging in a lot of lately. Okay, you think there's probably a problem but you don't know how serious it is, you think we should do something about it but not too much to be prudent, blah blah blah.

Can you put some numbers on any of these opinions, in order to give some kind of idea what sort of specific policies you favor and what sort of specific economic or environmental outcomes you consider desirable or unacceptable? How much atmospheric CO2 do you consider a probably dangerous upper bound? 400 ppm? 600 ppm? More than that?

No I can't, and neither can any credible scientist. Climatological models are extremely sensitive to parameter variation; modest alterations in a minor variables can result in dramatically different predictions. Nor do we have a good handle on how much variation is due to natural cycles versus how much is stimulated by artificial pollution, nor do we have any serious understanding of transitory verses (relatively) permenant effects. Given the level of uncertainty with regard to what we should or even can do to alter climate shifts, it is precipitious to demand radical changes--particularly an advocacy of government policy--in an blind attempt to mitigate speculative hazards.

Gore has made excellent points in the past, specifically regarding the need to develop more efficient transporation systems. This is technologically feasible and has dramatic value even aside from environmental impact. But his grasp of science and apparent (or perhaps willful) lack of scientific knowledge about what he speaks (he often talks about the "density" of CO₂ being key in its greenhouse properties, which is blatantly incorrect) turns him into a broken clock; he's sometimes right, but often by coincidence rather than an accurate assessment.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

How much economic damage from climate change would you consider a reasonable tradeoff for how much economic damage from emissions reductions? What sort of alterations in infrastructure do you consider "drastic", and how do you feel that they compare to alterations in infrastructure that are likely to result from climate change? When you speak of "less polluting" and "renewable" energy sources, what kind of quantities are you talking here?

Those are all good questions, and deserve to be addressed by climate scientists, economists, and policymakers who are willing to sit down and make credible, apolitical, technical assessments of the impact and value of the tradeoffs. The double edged sword of Gore is that, on one hand he brings attention to the need to address these questions, but on the other makes such hyperbolic claims and bombastic statements that he undermines the credibility of actual scientists who have to honestly admit to a large degree of ambiguity in their data. It becomes a binary issue, a politically-motivated false dichotomy; either you're for the environment or against it, with no middle ground in-between. This restricts the ability to have an apolitical, reasonable discussion about costs and effects; like the "nuclear winter" ballyho during the Late Unpleasantness, overstating the effects and the resultant controversy drew attention away from other, quite reasonable argumenrts for reduction of nuclear arsenals.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Whatever choices we decide to make about the environment, I think we should all agree that we've reached a moment for serious consideration of specific policies, rather than wasting more time with inconclusive, foot-dragging blather. Let's debate the science; let's debate the money; let's look at the options and choose a course of action, but let's stop our feeble procrastinating.

I'll thank you to keep your strawmen to yourself, bub. I'm all for talking about numbers, but lets make them credible numbers with a stated uncertainty, not overwrought embroidering and showmanship.

Stranger

[jshore]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Specifically his oft-reported claim of 20ft+ increases in average ocean levels over the next century from melting Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. The most dire predictions by credible climatologists weigh in at less than 40 inches over the same span.

Did he say that would be over the next century? At any rate, while the upper end of the IPCC range for 2100 is around what you quoted, I would not call this the most dire prediction...as some credible climatologists like James Hansen argue that the breakup of ice is a highly nonlinear process that can happen (and has happened in the past) at greater rates than this.

He's also frequently claimed a 3 °C increase in average global temperature over the next 20 years. (IIRC this claim is actually stated in the trailer for the film.) Again, climatologists expect the increase to be something on the order of 0.8-1.5 °C over the 21st Century; significant, but not as immediately catastrophic as Gore would suggest.

Are you sure that he said that the 3 C increase would happen over the next 20 years? I would agree that this is outside the range of credible predictions. However, your own numbers for the 21st century are low. The IPCC numbers are for rises of something like 1.4 to 5 C between 1990 and 2100.

[Magiver]

His earlier works were so nutty I can't bring myself to pay for the movie. The only constant in World climate is change and current weather patterns didn't change overnight because Al didn't get elected. These rants get old quick when you look at what China is doing to the environment. Run the movie over there and let us know how it turns out.

[B. Serum]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

...Gore never met an environmentally-related hyperbole he didn't aggressively embrace...

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by Magiver

These rants get old quick when you look at what China is doing to the environment.

Actually, China's greenhouse gas emissions are lower than the U.S.'s despite having about 4X the population.

Nonetheless, it is worth worrying about what will happen as the standard of living in China continues to rise and the emission of greenhouse gases rises along with it. This is all the more reason to get serious about this problem rather than just trying to rather pathetically point the finger at others.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The only constant in World climate is change and current weather patterns didn't change overnight because Al didn't get elected.

Sorry, but this argument is just dumb. Nobody is seriously claiming that the global climate drastically changed "overnight", or that it hasn't constantly been undergoing comparatively slow changes for thousands of years.

What people are claiming---and by "people" here I mean the vast majority of climate scientists---is that human-caused alterations in the atmosphere are producing climate change that is significantly different in the type and speed of its effects from the changes associated with natural climate cycles.

Saying "so what, climate is always changing, so this isn't really making any difference" is kind of like arguing that because I drink a few glasses of wine or beer over the course of every week with no ill effects, there would be no problem with my consuming a fifth of whiskey in two hours. This is not sound reasoning on which to base policy decisions.

The popular climate-change-denial talking points seem to have followed an evolutionary trajectory that goes something like this:

1. Quit whining, enviros, there's no evidence that the planet is warming.

2. Okay, the planet is warming, but there's no evidence that it's anthropogenic (human-caused).

3. Okay, the warming may be partly anthropogenic, but the scientists are still debating about it and there's no consensus.

3. Okay, scientists are nearly unanimous that the warming is largely anthropogenic, but there's no evidence it will have bad effects on our climate.

4. Okay, the anthropogenic warming is likely to have bad effects on our climate, but the climate is always changing so why worry about this change in particular?

5. Okay, the anthropogenic warming is likely to have some drastic climate effects, but there's nothing we can do about them.

6. Okay, we could do something to mitigate drastic anthropogenic climate change, but it would be too expensive and hurt our way of life.

7. Okay, efforts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change might be cheaper than the actual effects of the climate change, but I just don't like Al Gore.

Hey, I think we've at last reached common ground here! I freely admit that I don't really like Al Gore either! (Even if I do think that the main gist of what he says about climate change is valid.) Now that we're in harmony, can we finally get off our collective ass and do something about emissions reductions?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Specifically his oft-reported claim of 20ft+ increases in average ocean levels over the next century from melting Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. The most dire predictions by credible climatologists weigh in at less than 40 inches over the same span.

This is similar to one of Gregg Easterbrook's criticisms from the review linked to by DxZero, which have been analyzed in this article. Do you have a specific cite for Gore's actually claiming that the possible 20ft sea level rise could occur as soon as 2100? Because AFAICT, he simply described it as a result of a possible "rapid" melting of the ice sheets, which is not unrealistic by current estimates:

In fact, rather than undermine the possibility that severe rises in sea levels might occur in the future, the Science studies that Easterbrook cited as evidence for his point actually reinforce this scenario. Indeed, the primary author of the first study, University of Arizona professor Jonathan Overpeck, has emphasized that temperatures are, during the 21st century, projected to reach the level experienced in the Last InterGlacial (LIG) period (approximately 130,000 years ago). According to his research, severe melting occurred in Greenland and Antarctica during the LIG, resulting in sea level increases of as much as 20 feet.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

He's also frequently claimed a 3 °C increase in average global temperature over the next 20 years. (IIRC this claim is actually stated in the trailer for the film.)

I don't think you RC. I just watched the trailer online, and I didn't find any such statement. Do you have a specific cite for the "next 20 years" part?

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

he often talks about the "density" of CO2 being key in its greenhouse properties, which is blatantly incorrect

Is this what you're talking about?

Specifically, Easterbrook took issue with Gore's assertion that "the atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." Easterbrook wrote, "Thickness is not the issue," and proceeded to explain how the molecular makeup of CO2 traps heat, creating the so-called greenhouse effect. Easterbrook concluded, "It is the chemistry of carbon dioxide, not its density, that matters." But to the contrary, both factors matter. While the chemical properties of CO2 are undoubtedly important, so is the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - the "thicken[ing]" to which Gore refers in both the movie and his book.

If so, I think it's a pretty minor quibble. "Thickening the atmosphere with CO2" sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable non-technical way to express for a lay audience the concept that the atmosphere's increasing CO2 concentration is helping increase its insulating qualities.

If not, then again, do you have a specific cite for Gore's "often talking about the density of CO2 being key to its greenhouse properties"?

Because so far, all the examples you've given of what you call Gore's "highly questionable" or "hyperbolic" or "bombastic" claims seem to be either undocumented, or misinterpretations of what Gore actually said, or both.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Lonesome Polecat

'Cuz ya see, my standard of living is already pretty minimal by American standards, and if controlling emissions means any further reduction in the quality of my life, then I don't give a damn about climate change.

Yikes. I can sympathize with concerns about economic impact of emissions reductions, and preferences for emissions reductions strategies that will have positive rather than negative economic effects. And I'm sorry for your hardships.

But are you seriously saying that you would not be willing to make any economic sacrifices at all? If you're really that close to the edge economically, then I think it makes a good point that we need to try to direct the worst impacts away from people who are struggling with that kind of hardship. But if you can afford some sacrifice, I think this is probably a pretty good cause to sacrifice in. I mean, this is your kids' (or your friends' or relatives' kids', or whatever) environment that we're talking about here.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

But are you seriously saying that you would not be willing to make any economic sacrifices at all?

Well, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. My standard of living is already pretty minimal by American standards, and it's pretty irksome when some rich liberal tells me that I ought to make sacrifices for the sake of controlling climate change--or anything else, for that matter.

Let somebody else take the hit on this one, okay?

For what it's worth, I fully agree we need to make a serious effort to control pollution in general and not just greenhouse gases. Shucks, I'm even something of a radical in that I'd like to see personal ownership of automobiles reduced to a bare minimum or phased out entirely.

I just don't want any of that done at the expense of people like me.