Andrew Bolt and Convenient Lies

As an addendum to my previous post about the dangers of simplifying the global warming situation and resorting to sensationalisation, I have here a good example of how some people might view such overdramatised green dogma as an attack on their conservative views and respond in kind, diluting the discussion.

Mr. Andrew Bolt, the flamingly notorious bigot who writes blatant, unsupported falsehoods for the Herald Sun, has the following statements from the English High Court, stating that An Inconvenient Truth has the following 11 serious untruths (spin for "lies") and unsubstantiated claims:

1. Gore presents Mt Kilimanjaro's melting snows as proof of global warming. In fact, the snows are vanishing thanks to local factors, including deforestation.

2. Gore suggests Antarctica's ice cover is melting. Most studies says it is increasing or stable.

3. Gore shows scary graphics of cities drowning in seas that rise 7m, causing millions of refugees. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the seas will rise at worst by 59cm this century.

4. Gore uses images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests it was caused by global warming. The Government's expert in this case admitted such one-off events can't be blamed on warming.

5. Gore suggests ice-core evidence shows rising CO2 caused temperature rises, which ended the past seven ice ages. In fact, the CO2 rises followed temperature rises by 800 to 2000 years.

6. Gore claims global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, causing an ice age in Europe. Recent studies deny it.

7. Gore blames global warming for species losses and coral reef bleaching. The Government couldn't show evidence to back this claim.

8. Gore claims a study showed polar bears had drowned because of vanishing ice. The study actually said just four polar bears drowned, and only because of a bad storm.

9. Gore suggests Greenland's ice could melt, causing a dangerous rise in sea levels. In fact, Greenland's ice won't melt for thousands of years.

10. Gore shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert agreed this was not the case.

11. Gore claims rising seas have forced people to flee Pacific islands to New Zealand. There is no record of any such warming-caused evacuation.

Except of course, that Bolt forgot to support his own points of view, allowing concerned thinkers like myself to point out his own unsubstatianted claims, listed under the number as it appears above:

1. What are these "local factors?" Citation needed.

2. Bolt believes that "Most studies" say that [Antartica's ice level] is increasing or stable. Which ones? Who did them, what where their methods? Citation needed.

4. "The Government's expert in this case admitted such one-off events can't be blamed on warming." That's good, but I don't think you will find a reasonable climate scientist who will claim that weather patterns changing is a direct result of any single event. Of course, it's almost impossible to prove direct links for these things in a field as complex is meteorology. But using that as evidence is just broken thinking. Despite uncertainty, it does not dispel the possibility that climate change will obviously effect the chance of these mega-events occurring - explained in the "Up in Smoke" report by various (admittedly biased) WWF and Greenpeace, and an article in Time magazine scant months back.

5. "CO2 rises followed temperature rises by 800-200 years" Wow. Which studies? Extraordinary claims, either way, need extraordinarily good evidence.

6. "Recent studies deny it." Citation. Severely. Needed!

7. "The Government couldn't show evidence to back this claim." The late Carl Sagan once said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

9. "In fact, Greenland's ice won't melt for thousands of years." See 5.

It seems like a person who is speaking out against unsubstantiated evidence should take a good look at himself first. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Means to an End

On the way home from our 5 our drive from Falls Creek, I had an interesting conversation with Paul Tran about the semi-political global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Indeed, global warming is a truth that has been ignored for far too long. (If anyone disagrees with me that global warming is a real phenomenon, I would really like to hear from you) Disclaimer: I spent my four years at Melbourne High School as the President of the Environmental Action Group. To everyone that doubted me in those years, I hope you are enjoying Melbourne's water shortages. I told you so.

Anyway, Paul contended that this documentary was good viewing for all, as it brings that facts to the people and makes everyone aware of the issue.

A deeply repressed gut feeling made me cry - "Ho! That documentary is sensationalised. Yes, the issue is an important one, but really - don't it seem a tad odd that this now-sidelined American politician has taken up an issue, made it high profile with classic media manipulation, and is now 'dining out' on it in front of the international community?"

The documentary seems highly exaggerated, and at times it fabricates facts without fully stating the context of research.

Trawl wikipedia for its sources (particularly 61 and 7), if you're interested in supporting and refuting evidence to see what I'm talking about.

I do understand that Gore is trying to put forward "the most important and salient points" in order to "communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand." That's all well and good if that's what you intend. However, the problem with non-scientists (and scientists who communicate badly) is that in trying to publicise a scientific issue, they tend to skim over the nuances, the context and the caution with which the scientific method guides us to do.

That's a highly dangerous form of miscommunication.

To tell you a story that illustrates my point: I was told as a child the story of how scientific endeavour under Galileo advanced human knowledge from the simplistic idea of a "geocentric universe" to the "correct story". "The Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around", said my 3rd grade teacher.

"So... what does the Sun go around?" I asked myself. That simplistic "children's version" replaces a geocentric universe with a heliocentric universe - which of course, is still incorrect!

The Sun, my friends, goes around the galactic core, and the galaxy moves around the common gravitational field of the Local Group of galaxies; the Local Group itself moves around (mostly toward the Virgo Cluster of supergalaxies) amidst a totally gravitationally isotropic universe! That is, in all directions, everything moves relative to everything else - there is no "center" of the universe, and there is no fixed measure of distance.

If you told children that, they would understand the beauty, scale and vast immensity of the universe more accurately, and perhaps (like I did, after later research) automatically realise a basic principle of relativity - that there are no preferred frames of reference.

I digress, but the point is hopefully illustrated: half a truth is not truth - simplified concepts are the resort of those with weak teaching skills; good teachers will explain the truth clearly, correctly, succinctly and understandably.

So Gore should not defend any twisting, embellishment or exaggeration of facts in the documentary as a product of simplification - if you're going to present the issue, present it correctly. This is of tantamount importance to any debate, and for anyone really on the side of educating the global populace about global warming, it should be high priority that all facts remain straight. Only in this way can we expect to be taken seriously, and only in this way can our opinions be respected.

I was very worried, because Paul insisted, insisted, insisted (yes, you did Paul) that since global warming was a worthy end, necessary evils such as oversimplification of the issues and sensationalism was okay.

If you want to win the debate and hold the moral high ground, the ends do not justify the means.

No, it's not okay.

P.S. Please comment if I've misrepresented you, Paul!