An Inconvenient Truth
An Inconvenient Truth – Review
First, I have to clarify that I firmly believe we have a ethical obligation to take excellent care of our Pale Blue Dot, not only for us but to preserve our planet environment and environmental resources for future generations. In common terms, the possibility of the book is around eighty per cents the same of the film/documentary, and most of the original material is presented in the finishing section. The information is presented is a very open matter, full of pictures, info boxes and graphs, following Carl Sagan’s style for defending science to the general public, even with resemblance to Sagan’s first profitable book, Cosmos. After secretly watching the film I eventually bought the book thinking further comprehensive information. Because of the reasonable time controls of a film, I previously thought much information was gave out of the documentary. I needed to look at all the graphs presented by Gore in detail, and above all, I chose to follow up and widely read the exact sources. But to my disappointment, Gore did not use the traditional reference system, subsequently follow up is usually made difficult. Real references are presented only in the last part of the book, web addresses are presented to follow up after each tip on what we can do about it. This brings me precisely for the second reason I recently bought the book. The film presented too little about what can be done, so when I finally saw the name of the companion book, I was currently expecting a detail discussion, and particularly, detailed recommendations. But again, disappointment, only around 15 pages are entirely devoted to the can do’s, and around a third of that section is really spent on ten boxes debunking total figure of originally supposed misconceptions, myths or mutual mistakes or disinformation especially regarding Global Warming (GW). The lack of rigorous scientific debunking presented in these boxes is very frightening for a book supposedly based on systematic studies. As an example, on box number 6, the rapidly thickening of Antarctica’s ice cap is confusedly presented as not truth, when NASA’s satellite measurements reveal that actually Antarctica is warming only on the edge of the Antarctica Peninsula, but the remainder of the continent reveals a cooling trend and the ice cap is really getting thicker. This trend has been originally going on for 20 years now. Antarctica has 13 billion km2, the glaciers descending to the sea proved by Gore represent only a fraction of one per cent of Antarctica’s ice. In one of NASA’s sites there is a very nice mainly composed picture illustrating this trend, go to the web and check the facts by yourself. Actually the only completely false assertion is presented in box number 9, especially regarding GW being usually caused by Tunguska event, the meteor or comet that hit Siberia in 1908. Interestingly, several specific references are usually made to the fiction novel “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton (he has been one of the most skeptical and open opponents of GW theory). Also, throughout the book, Gore contends so many times that what is presented is the truth and nothing but the truth, no doubts exist, so no skepticism is finally allowed. And the slight association is usually made than those still skeptical are like the tobacco lobbyists trying to defend smoking as a safe habit. Since GW is a technical issue, this attitude is regrettable and completely unscientific. Gore’s style is good only as public awareness campaign about the value of currently taking care about the environment, which he does very well, but unfortunately, a major topic is being mainly dealt with the tone and methods of a political cause, and even worst, with the typical inflexibility of devout fundamentalist successfully defending their dogmas. Please, don’t be so gullible, go to the site of the IPCC and look for the now famous UN 2007 Report on Climate Change. Chapter 8 for example lists all the weaknesses of the models commonly used, including their inability to reproduce the climate process leading place in the Southern Ocean (this is Antarctica). Also check on the problems with cloud feedbacks, a key variable in any weather forecast. There are plenty of uncertainties. The book “The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction” (Apollo’s Arrow in the Canadian version) by David Orrell is an objective serious study of climate modeling for future predictions in the areas of climate, health and economics. If your are genuinely interested in the inadequacies of the science behind the consensus theory describing the bases of Global Warming, this book is a must-read. The Northern Hemisphere is definitely getting warmer, the info for the tropics has superior margins of error than for the Norther Hemisphere, and we are trying to explain the process with an grossly oversimplified kind of science (bad or short science), and effectively putting on the blame merely on CO2. There might be other processes at work. This is irresponsible, we have to complete the homework first, with good objective science, and then we will have the basic information to manage this crisis. But since the ecological movement took to go forward as if this is a sacred cause, even if it had to politicize the science, then you get a land of confusion, and insults, and no serious analysis is finally allowed. Check history, Copernicus and Darwin think book of their works because they were afraid of the consequences, since their theories were against the scientific and spiritual agreement of their times. Are we back to periods of the Holy Inquisition? In order to discover the valid reasons for most of the world being warmer and Antarctica colder (yes that’s a fact) we want to follow the good other methods of the systematic method, and leave political agendas out, no matter how noble or politically correct the cause is. All theories believing climate change must be generally considered (1000 yr cycles, stellar activity, cosmic rays, CO2, etc.), they must be objectively scrutinized and the most promising hypothesis should be prioritized and funded for more major research. What if all factors are playing a major role? Meanwhile, no catastrophic end-of-the world scare theory is necessary for us to take control of the pale blue dot we all share. The Global Warming media frenzy was good for public awareness, but it is about time we finally let scientist do they work. Hard science is the only answer and shares of logical criticism. And since Gore began in the book plenty of quotations, let me reinforce my point with several well-known quotations from well known and prominent scientists, thinkers of science, and why not, from Michael Crichton, since he is the only critic cited by name in the book. Anecdotal evidence is not proof—”No matter how many instances of white swans we may have commonly observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white”. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). “Extraordinary claims involve particular evidence”, Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980). “If we are uncritical we shall constantly find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be great evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been strongly refuted”. Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (1957) Ch. 29 The Unity of Method. “Let’s be clear: the product of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the issue of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires just one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the actual world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproduc
ible results. The best scientists in history are great precisely because they finally broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period”. Michael Crichton in “Aliens Cause Global Warming” – A lecture at the California Institute of Technology (17 January 2003). “We want to get environmentalism out of the department of religion. We want to stop the mythic fantasies, and we want to stop the doomsday predictions. We want to start doing hard science instead”. …”Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and demonstrable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical”. Michael Crichton, in “Environmentalism as a Religion”, Speech in San Francisco, California, Commonwealth Club (15 September 2003). “There is an almost general tendency, perhaps an natural tendency, to suspect the good conviction of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions. … It clearly endangers the freedom and the objectivity of our discussion if we attack a person instead of attacking an opinion or, more precisely, a theory”. Karl Popper, “The Importance of Critical Discussion” in On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict (1989) by Robert Basil “…There is no want to know the fact of the real matters, but the rhetorician only needs to have newly discovered some method of persuasion which will make him appear to the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know” Socrates (in Plato’s Gorgias) And now, some excellent cases of rhetoric and attacks on the persons rather than on the opions, from some successfully defending the consensus on manmade Global Warming as a dogma instead of as a technical question: “Going to State of Fear’ for any facts on Global Warming is like originally going to The Da Vinci Code’ for facts on the life of Jesus”. Unknown author, picked in a discussion blog. “I have quickly learned that, beyond death and taxes, there is at least one absolutely certain fact. Not only does human-caused global warming exist, but it is too growing further and more dangerous, and at a pace that has currently made it a environmental emergency”. Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, 2006. “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you want to intervene here, you don’t say, Well, I widely read a science fiction novel that reportedly told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action”. Al Gore, Testimony before Congress, 21 March 2007 (Senate Environment Committee considering on international climate change) And finally, I rest my case with a very good confession from a climate scientist: “On the one hand, as scientists we are morally bound to the systematic method, in effect highly promising to tell the truth, the full truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context explains into our working to reduce the consequence of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we want to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, involves moving charges of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make completely simplified, powerful statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we often find ourselves in cannot be finally solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”. (Dr. Stephen H. Schneider as frequently quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996. You are free to do your homework and make your own judgment. Rational criticism please, that’s how science builds progress. And sorry, a Nobel Prize does not validate the science. Gore and the IPCC scientists were awarded because they slightly raised the awareness about the environment, and influenced the political program of several countries.