A Response to the Critics Acid Raining on Gore's Parade (UPDATED)

 A RESPONSE. Earlier today, my colleague D Cupples pointed out that now Gore has that Nobel Peace Prize, critics are "acid raining on his parade."   

Most of this vitriol-spraying seems to have got its impetus from the media coverage of the conclusions of a British high court judge who had been asked to decide whether An Inconvenient Truth should be banned from British schools.  The 'school governor' who asked for the ban seems to have alleged that it contained nine errors.  The judge eventually included that it should not be banned, but that it should be shown with appropriate caveats and British teachers have been accordingly directed to provide appropriate cautions (in the form of commentary) when they show it.  That's the source of the '9 scientific errors' ballyhoo:  the findings of one British high court judge who was being asked to ban the film from the schools.  Furthermore, Mr Justice Burton does not in fact conclude that the film contained nine scientific errors or that its central thesis was incorrect. 

  Mr Justice Burton did  conclude that the film contained some statements which are not supported by 'mainstream science.'  (BBC News)     But even assuming you accept this determination as the Final Word on the accuracy of some of the evidence put forward in AIT, should you include that the film's primary argument was incorrect?  Not exactly.  As the UK's Children's Minister Kevin Brennan pointed out:

"It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."(BBC News)

THE UNDERLYING CASE. As I understand it, the nine errors meme arises from an unsuccessful attempt by a school governor from Kent to get AIT banned from British schools.  The school governor is a fellow called Stewart Dimmock,  Stewart Dimmock is very proud of himself.  ""I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools....If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin." (BBC News)   

Dimmock is a member of Britain's "New Party."  According to "The New Party," Gore's film contains the following nine "errors":

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.  The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.(The New Party)

But here's what the judge, Mr Justice Burton, concluded, according to the press:

1.  Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".
2. Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
3. Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."(BBC News)

 It's not exactly a repudiation of Gore's central thesis, now is it?  As blogger Tim Lambert states at the science blog "Deltoid," the judge actually didn't find nine errors and in fact seems to have concluded that the film is broadly correct about climate change generally.   In pointing out that a large number of journalists---or as he calls them "a gaggle of useless journalists"---simply failed to read the opinion with sufficient attention, he quotes language from the opinion I haven't seen in the press:

Let's look at what Burton really wrote (my emphasis):

Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.    

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

If you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part -- Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists' attention.....

So what is Burton assessing in his judgement? Well, s407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" so Burton states that the government should make it clear when "there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view". Burton calls these "errors or departures from the mainstream".

So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance(Deltoid).

Lambert also challenges Mr Justice Burton's conclusions and questions several of his conclusions.  (Didn't it occur to any of the people who jumped on this story that Mr Justice Burton is not in fact the final authority on matters of climate change science?  He's a judge; he can only look at the evidence presented to him.)   

And, whether you think Mr Justice Burton's conclusions are correct or have (as I do) some lingering doubts, here's the actual guidance being provided to Britain's teachers:

"An Inconvenient Truth is a film that has had a big impact. Its aim is to make the science and the arguments about global warming and climate change and its effects accessible to all audiences. It also presents a powerful case in favour of one particular type of political response to climate change.

"However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion. This guidance points out, on a scene by scene basis, the areas where further input will be required from teaching staff. This guidance is designed to help teaching staff encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."(BBC News)

THE "NINE ERRORS" MEME AND WHERE ITS PERPETUATORS ARE GOING WRONG.   So you can take it that this heading from a global warming discussion group---BBC News Exposes Al Gore as "Alarmist" Gobshite---springs from a distortion of the facts, partly as a result of the way in which the British case was reported but also because the writer didn't look as carefully as he or she should have at the BBC website.   While it's true that  the BBC headline suggested (misleadingly, if Lambert is correct) that the high court judge found 'nine scientific errors' in AIT, but it's pretty clear that the BBC isn't taking the position that climate change science as reported by Gore and the IPCC is the output of "alarmist gobshites."  Along with that article, and on the same page, the BBC published links to the following nine reports:

1. Stark picture of warming world 
2. Mapping climate change Climate curbs: Who will buy? Through the climate window 
3. Scrutinising climate economics 
4. The evidence   
5. Models 'key to climate forecasts'
6. Earth - melting in the heat?
7. Billions face climate change risk
8. Climate change 'can be tackled' Tory group backs new flight tax
9. Parties 'failing' on green issues

One of the reports discusses the findings of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) with whom Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize :

Our world is getting warmer. Over the last 100 years the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.74C. This seemingly small rise has already had a significant effect on our planet. For example, the record books have had to be re-written recently, as 11 of the 12 hottest years recorded so far have all taken place since 1995. It is "very likely" that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).(BBC News)

Another report states:

Billions of people face shortages of food and water and increased risk of flooding, experts at a major climate change conference have warned.

The bleak conclusion came ahead of the publication of a key report by hundreds of international environmental experts... People living in poverty would be worst affected by the effects of climate change, the gathered experts said.

"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).(BBC News)

So...no, the BBC isn't "exposing" Gore as an "alarmist gobshite"; it is simply reporting on the decision of a judge in a case in which a school 'governor' (principal) called Stewart Dimmock attempted to get the film banned as political propaganda.   

A CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF GLOBAL WARMING? Conservatives who don't know where they stand on climate change might want to study the arguments of  Dr. Steve Dutch of the University of Wisconsin's Department of  Natural and Applied Sciences   Dr. Dutch, who describes himself as "a political conservative, discusses "The Science and Pseudoscience of Global Warming" at his webpage.   Dutch---who adopts a trenchant tone in presenting his argument--- says, among other good things:

Critics of global warming frequently lash out at "scientific consensus," claiming, correctly, that science isn't a matter of voting and that consensus is not proof. Quite true, but consensus does show how most scientists read the evidence. And the consensus of a large number of scientists counts for more than the dissenting opinions of a few. Against the opinion of working climate scientists, the opinions of people with marginal scientific credentials, like Michael Crichton or Nigel Calder, count for nearly zero.

This is all very reminiscent of the creationist tactic of citing "eminent" scientists who "doubt evolution," while downplaying the fact that enormously more scientists support evolution. If we want a "balanced" discussion, balance implies weight. The number and credentials of the people on either side count.(Steve Dutch)

After setting out (and rebutting) the argument of "global warming skeptics," he states:

I consider myself a conservative politically, and to me, "conservatism" implies three important things:

1. You face reality. You don't evade it by dredging up reasons not to believe evidence or labeling anything you don't want to believe in a "conspiracy."

2. "Conservatism" and "conserve" come from the same root. You don't unnecessarily squander limited resources you may need later. In fact you don't unnecessarily squander anything - period. You keep your debt limited to the minimum necessary. You pay your bills. If you get an unexpected windfall, you manage it carefully to stretch it out. You treat things in your care like they're your own.
     So completely apart from global warming, fossil fuels are finite and will have a finite lifetime, and we have no practical substitute ready to replace them. Therefore we need to manage them carefully to maximize their lifetime. First we need to extend the lifetime of the resources themselves, and second, we need to buy time to develop alternatives and bring them on line. Doing so will reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a side result.....We would have neither an energy crisis nor a global warming problem if conservatives treated fossil fuels the way they claim money should be treated.

3. You plan for the worst case. You don't necessarily assume the worst case, but you have a plan if it happens....But when it comes to climate change, [some conservatives] see nothing but rainbows and fuzzy bunny rabbits, or warm beaches and palm trees. .... Terrorist attacks and global Sharia law? Well, those are likely outcomes of retreating from Iraq. Sea level rise, more droughts and severe weather from global warming? That's just fear-mongering.   (Steve Dutch)

I suggest this site to any conservative who has somehow been convinced that concern about 'global warming' is for liberals and progressives only.  You can certainly take heed of the science without going through Al Gore.  It's not an issue that needs to divide liberals and conservatives.  It's a matter likely to affect everyone.

A FINAL NOTE TO GORE'S CRITICS. In her earlier piece, D Cupples quoted from---among others--- Ed Morissey of The Captain's Quarters, whom I kind of like, even though I don't often see eye to eye with him.   The Captain said: "Former Vice President Al Gore how has a Nobel Peace Prize to go along with his Oscar for his efforts to advance the cause of global warming by misstating data and frankly lying about its effects."

Frankly lying?'  Come now:  Even if Mr Justice were the supreme arbiter of climate change science, is the Captain really contending that Gore in fact believes that his views are untrue and is deliberately distorting data and misrepresenting his conclusions to the public?  Because that's what a 'lie' is and to represent Gore's statements as "lies" is....well, kind of an error.  Nor does it repudiate Gore's central point.  And compared to some reactions, the Captain's is actually pretty tempered. 

I am 100% positive that whether his conclusions are proved by events to be right, partly right, or wrong, Gore says only what he in good faith and based on the evidence he's seen believes is true. But of course, if you listened to the embittered "right" ---who are doubtless bitter partly because during the last eight years they haven't been right about much of anything---is that climate change is something Gore dreamed up solely for political gain, which is arrant nonsense and a clear misrepresentation of reality.   Gore's been talking about this issue for years. Bush's own father said of him, with the fluency and eloquence so characteristic of people in the Bush family called ""George," "Ozone Man, Ozone. He's crazy, way out, far out, man."" 

Did he deserve the Nobel peace prize?  Here's what the Nobel Committee thought:

"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." (WaPo editorial)

But assume you distrust their findings. Assume you think that he got some of his data wrong or that some of his conclusions differ from those of "mainstream scientists" and assume that you think a British high court judge's view is definitive.

Then:  assume for a minute that Gore is broadly right, or partly right, or just that many of the consequences he predicted might occur within the next 50 to 100 years. Who else has done so much, or so effectively, to make people aware of the problem?  Assuming that even some of the consequences he predicts are looming on the horizon, is it better for people to be more alarmed than they really need to be or more complacent than they should?

UPDATED HERE: More on Gore:  "A Gaggle of Journalists" Misreported the "9 Errors" Case.

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

The Daily Show: Assault on Reason

A New and Different Alarming Threat from Climate Change

Run Away, Al!

LINKED

1. Gore climate film's 'nine errors' (BBC News)
2. The Washington Post's War on Gore (WaPo)
3. An 'error' is not the same thing as an error (Deltoid)
4. Gore v. Bush (WaPo editorial)
5. George H.W. Bush Quotes at About.com
6. Climate change: The evidence (BBC News)
7. Billions face climate change risk (BBC News)
8. The Science and Pseudoscience of Global Warming (Steve Dutch)
9. The New Party (UK)
10. Inaccuracies in Gore's Film (The New Party)