• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Exaggeration in An Inconvenient Truth? No...

    Watching the trailer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, one would think that this planet is near Armageddon. According to the Nobel Laureate, our planet will soon be done in by ravaging hurricanes, scorching heat waves and twenty-foot sea level increases. Unless we do something about it.

    Well, one thing we can do is more research. Without question global warming is an extremely complex issue, but there’s a lot of evidence out there suggesting that the catastrophic events in Gore’s Academy Award winning movie may not be as prevalent as the film proposes.

    Take the dramatic sea level projections for instance. A new study by Prof Tad Pfeffer at University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Joel Harper at University of Montana and Dr Shad O’Neel at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, found that the rise in sea level is more likely to be between 0.8 and 2 meters over the next century, which is well below An Inconvenient Truth’s figures and also below other typical projections. But even the experts admit it’s a complex issue. Dr. Harper remarked,

    We simply don’t understand the physics of ice dynamics well enough to make accurate model predictions. There are just too many uncertainties.”

    Pointing out the egregiousness of Gore’s projections is nothing new. The Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman writes that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report predicts sea level increases of only 7 to 23 inches over the next century, which is between .18 and .58 meters. (Lieberman also notes that Gore considers the IPCC report the gold standard for climate change analysis.)

    There’s more. For the first time in nearly 100 years, the sun went a full month without having any blemishes. That’s right, no sunspots.  But what does that even mean?

    The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots — is an influencing factor for climate on earth.”

    So….what does that even mean? The takeaway here is that numerous factors come into play when discussing climate change. Although 2008 has been a cooler year, the coolest since the year 2000, it doesn’t mean we’re headed toward a period of global cooling either. It simply means that despite all the expert attempts to understand climate change, the complexity of the issue leads to new discoveries, which usually results in more complication.

    So, what do we know? We do know that there’s a cost to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill sought to reduce carbon dioxide 70% below 2005 emission levels by 2050. Although the bill died on the Senate floor in June, if implemented it could have cost the U.S. economy $4.8 trillion and millions of jobs. The benefit? Given that Lieberman-Warner was not a multilateral approach, it wouldn’t have done much to affect the earth’s temperature. Even a plan involving many countries would do little. Ben Lieberman asserts,

    Kyoto’s provisions, if fully implemented, would have cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars annually from higher energy prices, but would, according to proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050.”

    Although the climate change battle has been won temporarily in Congress, a new challenger is stepping up to the plate: The Environmental Protection Agency. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA hopes to achieve what Congress could not by regulating carbon dioxide emissions through a number of unthinkable rules. Under its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the EPA plans to regulate everything from lawnmowers and boats to hotels, restaurants and apartment buildings. If you thought the trailer to An Inconvenient Truth was scary (or just absurd), you will won’t believe what you read in the ANPR.

    You can do your part by sending the EPA your thoughts and comments.

    Proponents of a global warming reduction policy will say that there’s also a cost to doing nothing and we need to act now. But now that the alarmism has died down a bit and new evidence that analyzes different reasons for climate change is emerging, should we be so hasty when it costs so much?

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Exaggeration in An Inconvenient Truth? No...

    1. Terry Abair, Tempe, says:

      It seems to me that all the focus on "global warming" misses the target. A battle over who is right is just nonsense. Why don't we take a more responsible view, like we have one planet to live on and it requires clean air, clean water and land that is uncontaminated for our species to survive. It seems to me that a more responsible approach would be to focus our energy on how we can be better stewards of this planet that we inhabit. Nature has a way of maintaining balance including destruction and renewal. If we want to assist with the destruction cycle, then we should continue our present course of pumping out greenhouse gasses, poluting our lands and waters, and just generally continuing our irresponsible approach to stewardship. On the other hand we could focus our energy on survival of mankind and do something responsible. By the time science has the answer what we know intuitively will already be a forgone conclusion. I prefer to trust my own knowingness, experience and observations.

    2. Thomas Gray, South C says:

      Mr Abair,,

      I have been an environmental supporter for forty years plus it seems that you were not around when we put lead in gasoline,

      but what really cleaned up the air in NYC was the catilitic converter the people today have never seen the smoke that I used to walk in there,,,

      But when the environmental movement decided to stop the use of ff as an energy source we parted company,, ff is what puts the food I eat on my table and until we build a different transportation system with a different energy source,

      to stop useing ff is to kill millions of people like you that really need to think about what you are trying to do as a steward of the earth,,,,,, for I am a steward of man and my lord does not want you to kill my sheep.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×