|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 07:41:18
|
I should probably be bringing this up on JREF, but I'm more familiar with the folks around SFN. There are posters here whose opinions I respect. I don't know the JREF posters as well.
Is it just me, or is Randi losing it? In his latest Swift, he backtracks on his previous week's strong endorsement of Al Gore's film “An Inconvenient Truth” after some readers wrote in claiming that the case for Global Warming was not so strong after all.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html (see Mea Somewhat Culpa)
He goes on to compare Gore to political spin doctors, and claims that as an amateur to the field he is overstating the case. I'll quote this from the article:
“Reader Clive van der Spuy, of Johannesburg, South Africa, observes that in his opinion – and I concur –
…the science involved [is] very slippery – apparently multi-disciplinary, largely probability-driven with multi-factorial functions of who knows what resulting in prognostications with wild variations in significance and import. I have concluded that this is a scientific area fraught with inherent epistemological difficulties. I have also concluded that it is situated right in the middle of an arena of social policy where various factions pull in very many different directions and where they exploit the foggy aspects of the science to maximum effect.” (bolding mine)
And this bit a little further on:
“My present opinion – as always, subject to correction and/or adjustment – is that the CO2 effect on our environment is a reality, but has been over-emphasized as a dangerous factor. Al Gore, in his documentary, is perhaps guilty of some data-searching and data-selecting – both common errors of amateur scientists, and sometimes purposeful tools used to prove a point or mislead consumers.” (bolding mine)
Yet, in the same article, he reveals (in a letter from the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) that Gore's conclusions are in fact supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In another letter it is revealed that realclimate.org, “a climate science web site run by genuine climate scientists” in which “they call out sloppy science on both sides of the debate”, finds only a few problems with Gore's movie.
It seems clear to me that Gore is presenting not his own research as an amateur scientist, but the research and conclusions of numerous actual (non-amateur) scientists, research that includes decades of work from scientists around the world. So it seems foolish to attack the film's case for global warming as the work of amateurs and therefore subject to the errors of amateurs.
And what's with this “slippery science” nonsense? Multi-disciplinary? A problem this complex is bound to be multidisciplinary. Probability-driven? Anything that deals with the future is going to be just that. Multi-factorial functions? Well, duh. That's why it's taken some 20 years for the scientific community to go from “we don't know, the models are inadequate” to “There's little doubt that people are responsible”.
I almost can't believe Randi wrote this stuff. His disregard for the consensus of the scientific community seems most un-Randi-ish. I don't understand his dwelling on Gore's amateur status, because it's pretty irrelevant. Also, agreeing with someone that the case for global warming is weak because it is multi-disciplinary and probability-driven, and really complex, is ludicrous. And to top it off, he seems to insinuate that Gore is deliberately misleading people.
Now, have I just totally misunderstood Randi's point in some way? Or am I the one who is blinded by the Gore/liberal/climate-scientists-out-to-make-a-quick-buck-by-getting-lots-of-grant-money spin machine?
That's what I want to know, because it sure sounds to me like maybe Randi died during his recent
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 08:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems clear to me that Gore is presenting not his own research as an amateur scientist, but the research and conclusions of numerous actual (non-amateur) scientists, research that includes decades of work from scientists around the world. So it seems foolish to attack the film's case for global warming as the work of amateurs and therefore subject to the errors of amateurs.
And what's with this “slippery science” nonsense? Multi-disciplinary? A problem this complex is bound to be multidisciplinary. Probability-driven? Anything that deals with the future is going to be just that. Multi-factorial functions? Well, duh. That's why it's taken some 20 years for the scientific community to go from “we don't know, the models are inadequate” to “There's little doubt that people are responsible”.
I almost can't believe Randi wrote this stuff. His disregard for the consensus of the scientific community seems most un-Randi-ish. I don't understand his dwelling on Gore's amateur status, because it's pretty irrelevant. Also, agreeing with someone that the case for global warming is weak because it is multi-disciplinary and probability-driven, and really complex, is ludicrous. And to top it off, he seems to insinuate that Gore is deliberately misleading people.
I would agree with all your statements here, leoofno. That is, it is clear that Gore isn't presenting his own research, but rather making accessible some very difficult (as was noted in Randi's letter-- multi-disciplinary) material to ordinary citizens whose grasp of such things may not be up to snuff.
While some of our understanding of global warming is unclear (almost by definition, making projections about the future is not going to be exact), I'd say that the evidence for the things Gore talks about is fairly compelling. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Randi is a fine general skeptic, but he himself is "an amateur scientist."
I'm not knocking him for that, especially since I'm one myself. But we amateurs need to look at the preponderance of scienctific opinion and scientific evidence, as Gore did, and make our guessimates about who's right in that way. My guess is that someone will set Randi straight pretty soon. Even we amateurs make mistakes.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/30/2007 15:09:07 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 13:15:47 [Permalink]
|
| The ability to adapt to new information is the reason to be of a skeptic. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 15:01:46 [Permalink]
|
| I have not seen the movie. I did hear some of what he said in congress. In general scientists agree with what he has presented. The problem is that he is somewhat misleading in the timelines. He implies that the oceans are going to rise more quickly than the what the consensus of the climatologist think. He implies that Katrina was due to global warming and that is something no right thinking climatologist would try to do. The way I hear it he never says anything that is blatantly wrong but he implies alot of things that make it seem like global warming is creating a crisis that on us now. I admire that he has brought this issue to the fore front, I just don't think you need to cancel your vacation to Florida because it is going to be underwater. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 15:28:20 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. I finally got around to reading Randi's commentary, and he says that "The Great Global Warming Swindle," with its known and embarrassing errors and apparently obvious political spin, is "worth the investment of time." Perhaps as an exercise in what not to believe, but Randi doesn't appear to be using it as such an example.
It looks to me like Randi himself has fallen victim to those who would "flatten" the truth, by bending over backwards to accomodate those who would call themselves "Global Warming skeptics" but who are more dogmatic than anything else. Randi even falls for a standard science-denier's trick, the strawman that the current warming is being caused by human activities alone (this has its analogy, of course, in Intelligent Design, where it is claimed that "evolution" is caused by "random mutation and natural selection only").
That said, I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth either. If Gore actually blamed our current warming on humans alone, then bad on him. But Randi has still massively and bizarrely over-corrected his position to be more in line with folks who certainly aren't skeptics or critical thinkers, and much less scientists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 07:55:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I have not seen the movie. I did hear some of what he said in congress. In general scientists agree with what he has presented. The problem is that he is somewhat misleading in the timelines. He implies that the oceans are going to rise more quickly than the what the consensus of the climatologist think. He implies that Katrina was due to global warming and that is something no right thinking climatologist would try to do. The way I hear it he never says anything that is blatantly wrong but he implies alot of things that make it seem like global warming is creating a crisis that on us now. I admire that he has brought this issue to the fore front, I just don't think you need to cancel your vacation to Florida because it is going to be underwater.
I havn't seen the movie either, but what got me concerned was Randi's conclusion that global warming was "over-emphasized as a dangerous factor". He made it sound like GW was probably nothing to worry about. I KNOW thats not the scientific consensus. Maybe Gore used an aggressive timeline, I don't know, but to dismiss GW as a dangerous problem, for the reasons stated by Randi, is foolish and ignorant. I found it interesting that many scientists criticized the recent IPCC report for being too conservative, saying that more recent studies indicate that the situation will be even worse.
Randi needs to study up on the subject, or stay out of it. An ignorant skeptic is useless.
Gotta make time to see the movie. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 14:07:03 [Permalink]
|
I have seen the movie. Though Al Gore's film is not perfect, and I'm sure there are open and unanswered questions in it, I recall he does go out of his way in the lecture to emphasize both a natural rise and fall in global temperatures over history with the more recent rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution. He also includes a reference to a very sharp rise in contributing pollution and industrial gasses in very recent times. He uses slides and graphs. Despite my description here, it isn't a dull presentation, especially if one is interested in the subject. The disaster parts, such as melting polar caps and flooding of major coastal cities, though presented as a worst case scenario, were also implied to be inevitable if we don't do anything to prevent it.
Some might criticize him for emphasizing research which supports his claims while ignoring any studies that might refute it. However, research that supports the conclusions that global warming is the primary problem apparently greatly outnumbers the minority view, and Gore emphasized that also. That was my impression at least.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 15:36:34 [Permalink]
|
I have seen the movie, and in some instances Gore draws implications that maybe he shouldn't if he were presenting a science paper to an audience of peers. He does not, that I recall, make any blatant factual errors or draw any false conclusions.
For example, he mentions that one consequence of warming is an increase in the number of intense storms. He then shows some pics of New Orleans.
The obvious reason for doing it is to show the results of intense storms.
Never once does he say anything like "Katrina was caused by global warming."
As for Randi, he is a fine skeptic. But he has some friends (and may be himself) that are heavily libertarian. I have noticed that some libertarians are strongly opposed to the concept of humans being responsible for any of the current warming trend. Many of them bought into the same oil company sponsored propaganda that the GOP did, and are unwilling to modify their positions based on the evidence produced in the last decade or so. Randi's new position reminds me of John Stossel's arguments against global warming. Weak.
The full UN report will be out later this year (May, I think). If Randi wants to dispute the conclusions of that report, he is more than welcome to try.
I think the problem may be that the evidence (as with most complex problems) is, as previously stated, multidisciplinary and very complex. It is more than most people are willing to put in the effort to deal with.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 19:37:33 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the responses. I'm glad to see its not just me. I guess heros are human after all.
(Well, maybe hero is too strong a word, but I really respected the guy. Still do, with this one exception, and maybe that Korean thing as well. That's two exceptions. Global warming and that Korean thing, and his almost fanatical dwelling on Sylvia Brown. OK that three... let me start again. Amongst my disillusionments are such diverse elements as: Global Warming, that Korean thing, and an almost fanatical dwelling on Sylvia Brown...)
Sorry. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 09:36:30 [Permalink]
|
| The documentary The Great Global Swindle is a swindle.Can anyone here commnet on it! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 05:48:56 [Permalink]
|
I noticed this a bit late, but Randi has come to his senses on this issue:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html (see That Persistent Film)
He discusses the "Swindle" film, and gives a link for more info.
I feel better.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 17:17:54 [Permalink]
|
Well, good for Randi! Anyone can make an error, but it takes a mensch, and/or a real critical thinker, to own up to an error and correct it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 17:40:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
I feel better.
Thanks for posting that, leo. After reading it, I do too.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/26/2007 17:40:39 |
|
|
|
madisland
New Member
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 06:39:09 [Permalink]
|
| Wow you don't think Mr. Amazing could only be doing this for PUBLICITY??????? Naw, not your god who walks on water crushing the heads of evil psychics everywhere?? No of course not... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Randi and Global Warming
