Monday, March 17, 2008

How does one explain Al Gore’s movie

How does one explain Al Gore’s movie
“An Inconvenient Truth”



Let’s start by defining the word “documentary.” Wikipedia defines it as; Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. The key word here is ATTEMPT. Obviously you haven’t seen the word “truth” referred to at all. This basic fallacy people have for documentaries being truthful or containing facts is the reason it was called just that.



The Movie
Laurie David, one of the movie’s many (nine) producers and co-producers, admits to seeing one of Al Gore’s power point presentations in the late 1990’s. Her awareness of nature causes drove her to turn Al’s presentations into a movie. Laurie along with her husband David (since divorced), decided to spend some of their money acquired from being writers on the popular “Seinfeld” comedy sitcom series. Reported to have amassed a fortune of nearly 500 million dollars from that writing career, Laurie also owns a very profitable agency for actors. She decided that Al’s message was too important to keep to small audiences. In 2005 she embarked on a mission to inform the world, by capturing a tale of alarmism on film. Later Laurie wrote a book called “Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming” aimed at children. She has also come under scrutiny for the very same “hockey stick” chart, from the Science and Public Policy Institute. They stated that: “What really makes their graph “amazing” is that it’s dead wrong. In order to contrive a visual representation for their false central claim that CO2 controls temperature change, David and co-author Cambria Gordon present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that falsely reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature.


It’s interesting to review the credits on the film. The producers and co-producers amount to 9. The editors and final editors amount to the number 9 also. These 18 people are like a who’s who of the Hollywood elite in their fields, ranging from “Kill Bill” to “Dumb and Dumber” they certainly had the background for such a project! The biggest thing that is lacking is a technical editor or the credit of ANY Climatologists or scientists for that matter. One laughable credit was to Carl Sagan, who as we know was an internationally known scientist who had a doctorate in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The fact they thanked him in the credits insinuates that Al Gores ideas and Dr. Sagan’s were somehow tied. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as we know Dr Sagan died in 1996, far before Al Gore started to give lectures on Global Warming. One of Dr Sagan’s famous quotes was; In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that is a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that has happened in politics or religion.” The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect; it’s just the best we have. To abandon it with it’s skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age. Maybe another quote from Sagan? “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”



What happened to Al’s mentor?


Do you see it ironic that a so-called documentary on science has no scientists on its credits? Al Gore throws the name Dr Revelle out there as if his college mentor held the same view as Mr. Gore. Al took a different path after finding that his revered Dr Revelle actually co authored a paper with Dr Singer stating basically that not all the information was in on man’s effect on global warming, and that a wait and see approach was more in order. Unfortunately Dr Revelle died 3 months after writing the paper. Gore then sought to have Dr Revelle’s name removed from the paper. Dr Singer was now under increasing political pressure from the then senator and his scientific strong arm, Dr Lancaster. Dr Singer finally backed into a corner, filed a liable suit against Al Gore, and on 4/29/94 Dr. Lancaster was forced to retract his statements about Dr Singer and Dr Revelle, giving Senator Gore his first black eye for strong-arm tactics on the scientific community.



Let’s burn the heretics at the stake


Nobody bothered to tell the Governors from the states of Virginia, Oregon, and Delaware that Dr Mann’s data was flawed, when they saw fit to censure their respective “State Climatologists” when their opinion didn’t jive with the present state read (Al –o-Gory) position. The fact that all 3 Governors are Democrats is supposed to mean nothing. It’s sad when a political position overrides the scientific community.



Story built on bad data and poor computer models


The lynch pin of Al Gore’s theory was the carbon dioxide’s part on global warming in his “Hockey Stick Chart.” The National Academy of Sciences has since debunked the “Hockey Stick Theory” and thus shown the world that Dr Mann’s data collection is flawed, and thus the entire computer modeling that Dr Mann had submitted to the UPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) was flawed also. His elimination of 800-900 years of temperature data was the primary reason. Notice in the film that CO2 chart and the temperature charts are never shown on top of each other. The reason for that according to Dr Tim Ball is that Mr. Gore has things backwards. “Historically CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature increases, not that CO2 causes temp rise as Mr. Gore claims.” When you have a house built on cards, once you remove the bottom one (data) the rest fall shortly there after.



Kyoto protocol


You ask where does this leave us as Americans, and if this whole movie is flawed, what does Mr. Gore get out of the whole thing? Bill Clinton and Al Gore led us as Americans into this hornet’s nest, when they signed the UN led Kyoto Protocol, which is a global emissions reduction treaty. Because of it’s wording only 35 nations would be held accountable if they could not reduce their emissions 5% under 2001 readings. The exclusion of countries such as China, India, and North Korea (the worst polluting countries in the world) from emissions checks and punishment at the hands of the UN led our senate at the time to strongly warn the Clinton/Gore administration, not to not to send the treaty to the senate for ratification because of monetary punishment from forces outside the well being of our country, and the non uniform treatment of countries. As a result Clinton dropped the idea of ever sending the treaty to the senate for ratification. Gore has now seen fit to take advantage of idea that the general public doesn’t know the inside story on the whole deal, claiming that President Bush “won’t sign it.” This is a major fallacy of logic, if only the people knew. President Bush can’t “sign it”, President Clinton already did, but never submitted it to the senate for ratification, and thus eliminating any part President Bush would have had in it. What does Gore get out of all this? Last year alone he took in over 5 million dollars for lectures and royalties on his film and book. This is only part of the story however, if the democratic party is elected in this next Presidential campaign, their party stands poised to send the Protocol to the democratically run Senate. Unfortunately, they aren’t the only ones; Senator McCain a republican is prepared to do the same if he gets the nomination. If ratified this treaty will give the UN the right to assess monetary punishments on our country based on BTU use. Carbon credits will deal the people of this country a devastating blow. Below you will see an explanation of the new taxes that will be generated.





The Cost



This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metasyntactic variable".

Petroleum, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, #2 fuel oil
Emissions total about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would translate to a tax of about $1.00 per gallon. (To be precise: motor gasoline emits 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon, diesel emits 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon, and jet fuel emits 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon. So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $0.978 per gallon of gasoline, $1.119 per gallon of diesel, and $1.055 per gallon of jet fuel.) At a price of between $2.5 and $5 per gallon, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise gas prices by 40-20%.
For the purpose of looking at electricity generation: emissions total about 155 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of about $7.75 per million BTUs. (To be precise: motor gasoline emits 156.425 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs, diesel emits 161.386 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs, and jet fuel emits 156.258 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs. So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $7.82 per million BTUs of gasoline, $8.07 per million BTUs of diesel, and $7.81 per million BTUs of jet fuel.)




Natural gas


Emissions total 120.6 pounds of CO2 per thousand cubic feet, i.e., 60.3 tons per million cubic feet, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $6.03 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas. At a price of between $4 and $10 per thousand cubic feet, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise natural gas prices by 60-150%.
For the purpose of looking at electricity generation: emissions total 117.08 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $5.854 per million BTUs.



Coal


Emissions per ton of coal range from 1.40 tons of CO2 to 2.84 tons of CO2, depending on the type of coal (1.40 for lignite, 1.86 for subbituminous, 2.47 for bituminous, and 2.84 for anthracite, to be precise), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of between $140 and $284 per ton of coal, depending on the type ($140 for lignite, $186 for subbituminous, $247 for bituminous, and $284 for anthracite). The price of coal delivered to electric utilities nationwide averaged $27.34 per ton in 2004"; for that price, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 means a price increase of 500-1000% depending on the type (512% for lignite, 680% for subbituminous, 903% for bituminous, and 1039% for anthracite).


Because of the differences in the carbon content of different types of coal, it is easier to do the calculations in terms of BTUs rather than tons of coal. So: Emissions per million BTUs range from 205 to 227 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs (215.4 for lignite, 212.7 for subbituminous, 205.3 for bituminous, and 227.4 for anthracite, to be precise), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of about $10 per million BTUs, depending on the type of coal ($10.77 for lignite, $10.635 for subbituminous, $10.265 for bituminous, and $11.37 for anthracite).


Electricity


The impact of a carbon tax on electricity prices depends on the amount of CO2 generated along with the electricity, and that depends on the type of fuel used and the efficiency ("heat rate") of the generator. 3413 BTU = 1 kWh.
In terms of fuel use, note from above that CO2 emissions per million BTUs (293 kWh) range from 117.08 pounds of CO2 for natural gas and about 155 pounds of CO2 for petroleum to between 205 and 227 pounds of CO2 for coal, and that a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 therefore translates into a tax per million BTUs that ranges from $5.854 per million BTUs for natural gas and about $7.75 per million BTUs for petroleum to between $10.27 and $11.37 per million BTUs for coal. For comparison purposes: in 2005, fuel prices to electricity generators per million BTU were $7.70 for oil, $8.18 for natural gas, $1.53 for coal, and $0.48 for nuclear. Current electricity prices are in the neighborhood of $0.08 per KWh.
Old-style generators have a heat rate in the ballpark of 10,000 BTUs per KWh. At that heat rate, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates into a tax of $0.05854 per KWh for natural gas, about $0.0775 per KWh for petroleum, and between $0.1027 and $0.1137 per KWh for coal. As noted above, current electricity prices are in the neighborhood of $0.08 per KWh.
New-style combined-cycle gas turbines currently (2005) use 6,572 BTUs per KWh (51.93% efficient), a number that is expected to decline to 6,333 by 2015. At these heat rates, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates into a tax of $0.0385 per KWh for natural gas using 2005 technology and a tax of $0.0371 per KWh for natural gas using 2015 technology.
New-style combined-cycle coal gasification units currently (2005) use 8,309 BTUs per KWh (41.08% efficient), a number that is expected to decline to 7,200 by 2015. At these heat rates, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates into a tax of between $0.0853 and $0.0945 per KWh for coal using 2005 technology and a tax of between $0.0739 and $0.0819 per KWh for coal using 2015 technology.
These figues assume that the tax cost per ton of BTU’s will be $100, but this was based on 2005 pricing. As of this writing (mid 2007) the new taxes for the years 2008-2010 hadn’t been published.


In conclusion:


It all adds up; Hollywood elite producer, makes movie about a past Vice President with a chip on his shoulder, explaining “Global Warming”, although he has no scientific degree what so ever, and neither does anyone else in his movie, except Dr Mann, who has been refuted by the National Acadamy of Science for his flawed data collection and computer models despite the claims to be a documentary. The movie was a direct result of Mr Gore not getting his protocol sent to the senate for ratification. He won’t debate anyone in the scientific community on man made global warming, even with an offer of $125,000 to anyone who can substantiat Mr Gores claims. A growing group of scientists, including the National Academy of Science, believes that flurohydrocarbons along with methane are FAR more dangerous to mankind then carbon dioxide. Mr Gore chooses to rewrite history of science to convince the people of America, that his way is the ONLY way. If this explanation does nothing more then awakens your logical thought to actually do some research then it was worth it.


I’m sorry if this whole story was lengthy, but it needed to be told in a way that REAL people can understand. The carbon costs are supported by links proving their validity, and other claims can’t be validated upon request. The Democrats never met a tax they didn’t like, and this seems to be a way for them to get into the public’s pocket while blaming it on the United Nations. Tax costs to the USA would total some $540 trillion dollars through 2010, for a failed treaty (as already proven in Europe). I know it appears on the surface to quite the tale woven by the conservation right, but think about it, a movie based on flawed models and data, the alarmist attitude exhibited by Gore. Al Gore knows that the IPCC contains only like thinkers to his cause. He also knows that until that panel is open to scientists with differing views, that narrow minded group is in “concensus”, and therefore Gore claims the issue closed. Further more, the UN has the ability to change, and edit the findings of the scientists, and HAS! Dr. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT researcher who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the third assessment, among others has said that the Summary did not reflect the Chapter he contributed to. Why you ask? He wasn’t part of the “good ol’ boy” network.
Mr. Gore said in an interview with Grist magazine that; “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual representations on how dangerous (man made global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…..” The treaty already signed just waiting for the votes it needs to pass through the senate (2/3 of the attending session), and the new world tax just waiting to take MORE money from out collective pockets, and putting in the control of people like Koffi Anan!


You have my permission to reprint this collection of facts, and send it to as many people as you can. November 2008 will be WAY too late!



Subject: footnotes to Kyoto Protocol A footnote page for claims made in my letter entitled "How does one explainAl Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" In the beginning the term Documentary can easily be searched on Wikipedia First main section entitled "The Movie"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/childrensbookerror.html Section entitled "What happened to Al's Mentor"http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html Section entitled "Story built on bad data and poor computer models"http://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#description http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e page 23
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 Section entitled "Kyoto Protocol"most of this section deals with history and constitutional law, along with theactual wording of the Kyoto Protocol itself.....i'll give some footnotes....senatorial rejection of the protocolSenate Resolution 98 105th Congress (105-54 July 21, 1997)http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.html Section entitled "The cost to individuals”Originally copied from “Wikipedia”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Social_cost_of_carbonthis section includes footnotes directly from the DOEEmmission Coefficent of burnable fuelshttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html http://www.econsci.com/euar9801.html Conclusion:Statement of flurohydrocarbons, and methane
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875#B40
IPCC findings have been changed by the UN
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e page 23

Kyoto failed in Europe
http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2004_7/en/Analysis_of_GHG_trends_and_projections_in_Europe.pdf_

19,000 verified scientists whom disagree with gore’s assessment of the cause of global warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good point, though sometimes it's hard to arrive to definite conclusions