By Michael Dobbs
Friday, October 12, 2007
AL GORE:
The melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland would result in a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet "in the near future."
--Oscar-winning movie, "The Inconvenient Truth."
BRITISH HIGH COURT JUDGE MICHAEL BURTON:
"This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call.'"While it is generally accepted that the melting of Greenland's ice will eventually lead to rises in sea-levels of this magnitude, this will only happen "after, and over, millenia."
--Legal ruling, October 9, 2007.
Al Gore received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the effects of climate change. Today's topic: Just how accurate are his assertions?
The Facts
The former vice-president has won plaudits around the world for his work on global warming, publicized in a best-selling book, an Oscar-winning movie, Power Point lectures, and now the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel prize announcement coincided with the conclusion of a months-long court case in Britain examining whether An Inconvenient Truth can be shown to British school children. The judge ruled this week that the movie can be shown in classrooms, but only if accompanied by teacher guidance notes balancing Gore's "one-sided views."
After listening to government witnesses, environmental campaigners, and skeptics on global warming argue their case, the judge described Gore's film as "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change. At the same time he also listed nine significant errors in the movie which, he said, reflected a general context of "alarmism and exaggeration" surrounding climate change.
Obviously, it is impossible to adjudicate this argument with a quick post. But it is worth while at least taking a look at the judge's nine objections to the Gore movie, which are as follows:
1. Burton found that Gore's assertion of a rise in sea-levels caused by the melting of icebergs in Antarctica was overly "alarmist."
2. Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow from the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa was expressly attributable to global warming. The court was not convinced. According to Burton, the scientific "consensus" is that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot be established.
3. Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." See early news story on bear drownings here.
4. Gore attributed the Hurricane Katrina devastation to global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient evidence to show that."
5. The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad as a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert testimony in front of the British court suggested that "far more likely causes" were "population increase, over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
6. Gore suggested an "exact fit" between the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally agree that there is "a connection," between the two phenomena, but claims of an "exact fit" cannot be established.
7. An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already being "inundated because of anthropogenic global warming." The judge said that he found no evidence of any evacuation of population from the islands because of global warming.
8. The movie suggested that global warming could shut down "the Ocean Conveyer," a process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge cited a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although it might slow down.
9. Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said that it was very difficult to separate out the impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change and factors, such as over-fishing and pollution.
Both sides claimed a victory of sorts after the verdict was delivered. The man who brought the case, Stewart Dimmock, said he was "elated" with the result, but disappointed that the film could still be shown in schools. He said that the judge's order for balancing material to be included with the movie would keep British school children from being "indoctrinated with this political spin."
A Gore spokeswoman said that the former vice-president was "gratified" that the court had agreed with "the central thesis of the film--that global warming is real and caused by human activities." She noted that the judge had only disagreed with a handful of the "thousands" of facts in the movie.
The Pinocchio Test
It is way too early for a Pinocchio ruling on this one. The question is not whether global warming is a fact, or whether Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but whether he has exaggerated the case in order to draw attention to the threat facing humanity. There are good arguments on either side.
In the meantime, here are some useful links to the debate:
The official web site of An Inconvenient Truth.
The official website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore.
Studies from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
A British movie that claims that Gore is at the forefront of a Great Global Warming Swindle.
A March 2007 New York Times article asking whether Gore has been over-alarmist.
A web site supporting Stewart Dimmock, the man who brought the lawsuit against the Gore movie.
Note: This is a "Fact Checker" piece from today's Washington Post, not necessarily an opinion piece, but it is interesting enough to be included here.
No comments:
Post a Comment