CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film (Rob Marciano)

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, “Finally,” in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to “American Morning,” “it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies.”

"There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano added. “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

did you see this?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous” and the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”.

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

“We’re brainwashing our children,” said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”

-snip-

I owe you a reply, but I've been distracted. Sorry. First of all, this today:

Update on the nine alleged errors in An Inconvenient Truth

Given what I’ve learned of the carbon cycle and the vapor and cloud feedbacks, and the errors in the science (eg Mann’s hockey stick that is as much an artifact of statistical bias as it is a real record of temps), I have to conclude that ‘skeptics’ who think the effects are smaller than IPCC avg estimates are right.

How does the record, much-faster-than-expected sea ice decline in the Arctic fit into your evaluation? I could ask a similar question about Greenland.

Antarctica, in whole and fortunately, seems somewhat resistant, but I have to ask if you have considered this:

Melting Ice in Antarctica

C’mon that is classic propaganda technique. Humans think in terms of associations.

No doubt. I quote from elsewhere: "Can’t you concede that AIT is a tool to convince people to follow an action plan and thus is not subject to typical conventions such as complete and total truth. Mr. Gore made some very good points in the film and he screwed a few up. He did this to get people motivated. Telling straight facts is rarely enough to motivate people to act so all leaders push the edge of the envelope."

and regarding Katrina: "Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be."

And I agree with both statements. AIT was never meant to be a scientific treatise subject to rigorous peer-review.

Should have linked to this:

Polar Bear -- Conservation Issues

"The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependent upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.