Always check both sides
Added 11/13/2009
I just attended a global warming debate staged by the Spectator in London, England, a professor from Austrailia came over to show the scientific evidence against man mad global warming. The UK "expert" who was supposed to debate him refused to attend to argue his case,low and behold there wasn't a single "expert " in the whole of the UK who was willing to come and argue the case for man amde global warming.
It's all well an good making bogus propaganda videos and pumping the schools and media full of lies, but when it comes down to discusing the real science there seems to be few decievers who are willing to stand up to scruitiny.
3 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Hysteria and anti-science.
Added 11/8/2009
One-time self-proclaimed "Next President of the United States" portrays himself as a scientific expert by spewing statements like, "We all know...", "All scientists agree that...", "It is obvious that...", and "No one can argue that we are doing this to ourselves...". He falls short of claiming to have invented Global Warming in his spare time at Harvard, but other than that, there is no solid science, no scientific rebuttal, and an over-abundance of political bravado and blustering posturing. To start a "documentary" with a statement like, "We are killing ourselves...", is not only ludicrous, but silly. This statement, however, does set the scientific tone for the next hour and 45 minutes; there is no science here. Every statement he utters is either wild speculation or a simple repeat of the popular beliefs the media has shoved down the masses throats.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Wonderful material for illustrating statistical fallacies.
Added 11/3/2009
I have been carefully following the scientific literature on 'Global Warming' since the early 80's, when a prominent speaker at a Chemistry Department colloquium proposed that we needed to burn all the fossil fuels we can to stave off the impending ice age. So I am familiar with the science in this area, and was stunned when I watched this movie to see so many apparently deliberate misrepresentations of the data.
In retrospect, I have concluded that I should not blame Gore for making so many scientific and statistical errors in his movie. After all, he is passionate about this issue, he is not a scientist, and the movie accurately portrays his passion for this topic. Thus, seen as a documentary about him, it is pretty good. Evaluated from a scientific perspective, however, it reeks.
At the AAAS meeting in Chicago last year, Gore confirmed my suspicions. He said, speaking to an overflow crowd of scientists from around the world, "I don't understand most of what the scientists give me, I just repeat it." You could hear audible gasps throughout the audience.
So much of the science in this movie has already been reviewed and/or invalidated by the scientific community that I need not mention it here. However, it is worthy of mention that even when the movie first came out, the 2007 review of it in Science included the comment:
"Gore leaves the viewer with the mistaken impression that CO2 is the driver of climate change in that historic record."
Enough said.
My purpose for writing is to report the success I've had using the movie in my science classes as negative examples of statistical fallacies. Nearly EVERY slide has a GLARING statistical error in it. It is remarkable really, if not pitiful. One almost wonders if it were deliberate. What I think is going on is that Gore is trying to make the message as compelling as he can to the audience that doesn't look too closely.
There are several examples of mixing data sets, cherry-picking data, exaggerated or incomplete scales, correlation vs. causation, anecdotal data, using real dollars instead of inflation adjusted dollars...the list goes on and on. A literal grab-bag of illustrations.
Now that I've had a few years to calm down, and Gore has essentially admitted his ignorance, I'm glad this movie was produced, as it documents the disaster that can happen when politics tries to employ science to its own ends.
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
An Inconvenient Truth that really is, Convenient.
Added 10/23/2009
This movie was great. It really brought the issue of global warming into an alarming perspective...one we shouldn't ignore. Gore worked hard to explain the global impact, not just from a U.S. standpoint. This is a must-see, especially for those who aren't clear on the issues of global warming. Watch the movie!
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Added 10/16/2009
In order to discern the truth within this global debate, all one needs to do is "follow the money."
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Always check both sides
Added 11/13/2009
I just attended a global warming debate staged by the Spectator in London, England, a professor from Austrailia came over to show the scientific evidence against man mad global warming. The UK "expert" who was supposed to debate him refused to attend to argue his case,low and behold there wasn't a single "expert " in the whole of the UK who was willing to come and argue the case for man amde global warming.
It's all well an good making bogus propaganda videos and pumping the schools and media full of lies, but when it comes down to discusing the real science there seems to be few decievers who are willing to stand up to scruitiny.
3 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Hysteria and anti-science.
Added 11/8/2009
One-time self-proclaimed "Next President of the United States" portrays himself as a scientific expert by spewing statements like, "We all know...", "All scientists agree that...", "It is obvious that...", and "No one can argue that we are doing this to ourselves...". He falls short of claiming to have invented Global Warming in his spare time at Harvard, but other than that, there is no solid science, no scientific rebuttal, and an over-abundance of political bravado and blustering posturing. To start a "documentary" with a statement like, "We are killing ourselves...", is not only ludicrous, but silly. This statement, however, does set the scientific tone for the next hour and 45 minutes; there is no science here. Every statement he utters is either wild speculation or a simple repeat of the popular beliefs the media has shoved down the masses throats.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Wonderful material for illustrating statistical fallacies.
Added 11/3/2009
I have been carefully following the scientific literature on 'Global Warming' since the early 80's, when a prominent speaker at a Chemistry Department colloquium proposed that we needed to burn all the fossil fuels we can to stave off the impending ice age. So I am familiar with the science in this area, and was stunned when I watched this movie to see so many apparently deliberate misrepresentations of the data.
In retrospect, I have concluded that I should not blame Gore for making so many scientific and statistical errors in his movie. After all, he is passionate about this issue, he is not a scientist, and the movie accurately portrays his passion for this topic. Thus, seen as a documentary about him, it is pretty good. Evaluated from a scientific perspective, however, it reeks.
At the AAAS meeting in Chicago last year, Gore confirmed my suspicions. He said, speaking to an overflow crowd of scientists from around the world, "I don't understand most of what the scientists give me, I just repeat it." You could hear audible gasps throughout the audience.
So much of the science in this movie has already been reviewed and/or invalidated by the scientific community that I need not mention it here. However, it is worthy of mention that even when the movie first came out, the 2007 review of it in Science included the comment:
"Gore leaves the viewer with the mistaken impression that CO2 is the driver of climate change in that historic record."
Enough said.
My purpose for writing is to report the success I've had using the movie in my science classes as negative examples of statistical fallacies. Nearly EVERY slide has a GLARING statistical error in it. It is remarkable really, if not pitiful. One almost wonders if it were deliberate. What I think is going on is that Gore is trying to make the message as compelling as he can to the audience that doesn't look too closely.
There are several examples of mixing data sets, cherry-picking data, exaggerated or incomplete scales, correlation vs. causation, anecdotal data, using real dollars instead of inflation adjusted dollars...the list goes on and on. A literal grab-bag of illustrations.
Now that I've had a few years to calm down, and Gore has essentially admitted his ignorance, I'm glad this movie was produced, as it documents the disaster that can happen when politics tries to employ science to its own ends.
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
