An Inconvenient Smokescreen
Posted: Sat 04 Apr, 2009 10:39 pm
Desperate urge to have a short rant.
RTÉ screened Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tonight. I watched it largely out of interest to see what picture it painted, especially as it's a film that has been associated with a great deal of hype, and because it concerns me that people who are new to the climate change controversy might take it as "truth" without questioning its validity, or further investigating the claims made during the course of the film.
I found it to be an egregiously emotive piece, and potentially quite damaging, since in my considered opinion (based on my own research of related issues to date) it actually clouds many of the problems that our species will be presented with as a consequence of climate change.
What annoyed me most about the film was that it claimed to present itself as having a solid scientific grounding. If Mr. Gore wants to play the science card, then he needs to play by the rules of science and include all factors, conditions, and observations in order to posit a theory. There are many instances that I could quote where good ol' Al failed to do so, but the simplest illustration is this.
Mr. Gore claimed in the film that we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. By the very fact that we are not plants, we derive the energy we need to live by consuming food. One of the food groups from which we need to derive energy is sugars. Energy is released to us through oxidation of those sugars, and one of the products of that reaction is CO2. Ergo, we produce CO2 as a consequence of the biological processes that keep us alive.
Argument needs work, Al. Wanna play the science card? Use rigorous scientific method!
RTÉ screened Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tonight. I watched it largely out of interest to see what picture it painted, especially as it's a film that has been associated with a great deal of hype, and because it concerns me that people who are new to the climate change controversy might take it as "truth" without questioning its validity, or further investigating the claims made during the course of the film.
I found it to be an egregiously emotive piece, and potentially quite damaging, since in my considered opinion (based on my own research of related issues to date) it actually clouds many of the problems that our species will be presented with as a consequence of climate change.
What annoyed me most about the film was that it claimed to present itself as having a solid scientific grounding. If Mr. Gore wants to play the science card, then he needs to play by the rules of science and include all factors, conditions, and observations in order to posit a theory. There are many instances that I could quote where good ol' Al failed to do so, but the simplest illustration is this.
Mr. Gore claimed in the film that we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. By the very fact that we are not plants, we derive the energy we need to live by consuming food. One of the food groups from which we need to derive energy is sugars. Energy is released to us through oxidation of those sugars, and one of the products of that reaction is CO2. Ergo, we produce CO2 as a consequence of the biological processes that keep us alive.
Argument needs work, Al. Wanna play the science card? Use rigorous scientific method!