Actually, I haven’t seen the trailer, just the online ad.

So, for instance, selling the Iraq War with imagery of, say, nuclear explosions, would that be OK if it was just an invitation to hear the broader argument?

When I was in college I reacall a local band that named themselves “Free Beer” — very effective at getting me to look closer at the flyer advertising their next gig, clever even. This morning I noticed that my cereal box had a photo of the cereal with blueberries in it. No blueberries are in the box. I felt taken to the cleaners. What setback? I won’t be buying that cereal again.

Thanks!

While I buy a lot of your arguments about the role of science in policy, I don’t agree with your dig on Gore’s movie trailer. You say:

“If the imagery is indicative of the role of science in its presentations of policy options, then the case for action on climate change is going to suffer a setback.”

This is a huge leap to go from imagery in an advertisement to climate policy outcomes. The ad is about promotion, both of a movie and of an issue on a very coarse scale. I think it’s premature to draw any conclusions about science getting misused in the presentation of policy options from this one add without having seen the film. The same sort of promotion even happens in academia when scientists use pithy and creative titles for their journal articles… such titles are meant to invite people in to read the article at which point the science (and potential policy alternatives) are presented. Should we go after such pithy-titled articles too?

And what action for climate change will be “setback”? That’s a pretty big assumption too. And what if the opposite were true, in that Gore’s movie manages to bring the issue of climate change to every home in America, thus opening policy ‘windows of opportunity’? If this were true, then shouldn’t we applaud the movie ad if it gets more people to see the film?

Your suggestion and mine are both just assumptions at this point and who knows what impact this ad will have on public policy, if any. Shouldn’t we cut Gore and his movie a little slack until we see it?

BTW, I did see part of the movie last night… he didn’t really offer too many policy options… unfortunately I didn’t see enough of the movie to comment on

You do????

I suggest that you read my post again.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/healthscience/homepage/article_1123175.php

Pardon me for not including a disclaimer in my comment about fearmongering in your ‘backdoor’ approach. …I thought it was clear that I was pointing out an apparent inconsistency in YOUR argument, and that this was not being used as a justification for the statements in the Gore trailer. As I stated very clearly in my first and third posts on this thread, I think (in general) the AGW-hurricane damages are being oversold, and am not impressed by Gore or whomever using this argument.

As a scientist (which I am, btw), when people ask me about the AGW-hurricane connection, I tow YOUR line and say that the coastal development will likely dwarf AGW-related increases in intensity for our country, but that there is a growing, albeit highly contentious, body of scientific papers in support of a connection.

“So you are suggesting that “hype and fearmongering” are OK if it is for the “right” goals?

Hell no. And I take offense at the accusation

“Seems to me that people on different ends of this debate have far more in common then they might care to admit!”

BUT… Cynically speaking, I think we can agree that advocacy on almost any issue employs these tactics to some extent or another. I’m surprised that you seem to be so surprised about this blatant fact in relation to the AGW-hurricane issue.

Furthermore, as to your question,

“What practical effect will greenhouse gases have on disaster mitigation? I’ve provided my analysis, lets see yours.why should it be included anywhere onthe list of justifications for GHG reductions? I’m not looking for speculation, but real analysis.”

Give me a break. You know full and well I am not a policy scientist and have no peer-reviewed analysis to offer. Also, this is a loaded question on which I’ve already addressed my opinion in my 3rd and 4th posts. I’m tired and can’t write any more now, but I think I’ve written enough in previous posts to get my opinion across on this topic. I’ve got to not get sucked in to the blogosphere so much so I can get some *real* science done

I also remember Jack Gibbons, Clinton science advisor, struggling with one of VP Gore’s props, a posterboard that unfolded up (about 7 feet high) showing projected CO2 increases into the future. A pre-hockey stick hockey stick.

Jim- Amen.

Thanks!

I agree with your assesment of the movie ad. When I first saw the Mark Twain quote, I thought some skeptic (like myself) put it there to lampoon the movie!

The Twain quote simply doesn’t apply to those of us who are skeptical of an AGW crisis, because we readily admit that we do not know what future climate will bring. That knowledge seems to be the sole possesion of people like Al Gore, who claim to ‘know’ that it will be terrible and that we must do something about it. The quote applies only to Gore’s side of the debate and makes him look more foolish than even I think he is!

Roger,

There is a great deal of wisdom in what you are saying. It is often the case that those who are most strident for a cause are often the ones who destroy it, particularly when they use obfuscation, restriction and fear-mongering to get what they want. (The despots of the 20th century all come to mind.) I firmly believe that if aggressive environmentalism had its way, the environment would be in much worse shape in a few decades, but that is a topic for another venue.

Reducing GHGs to reduce the threat of hurricanes is not a realistic choice (regardless of the AGW debate), but neither is restriction of coastal development. Hurricanes will always happen and people will always want to live on or near the beach.

The solution is in promoting safer living near the coast. The first step is to build better buildings! Above all else, this step has the highest cost/benefit ratio. We know how to do it and we know it works.

The second step is to restructure coastal insurance policies. Most policies were developed during the coastal boom years of the 70s and 80s, when there were very few hurricanes. Based on what we know now, those premiums where way too low.

New thinking in the insurance industry must target the most vulnerable with the highest premiums, not only taking elevation and proximity into effect, but the construction of individual buildings. A hurricane resistant home should have a lower premium than one that isn’t, even if they are side-by-side and of equal value.

Flooding is the most challenging problem, but even here progress is being made in building design and mitigation.

The point is that there are much more cost effective solutions to the hurricane problem than trying to reduce their frequency and intensity through GHG reductions (which would likely have no measurable effect at all)!

The points you have made with this essay and thread seem obvious to me. I am truly surprised that you have garnered so much flack for your efforts!

“It ain’t what you don’t know [to what extent hurricanes are impacted by CO2 emissions] that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure [“that the overall effect of CO2 emissions on global climate is small or nonexistent and action to limit such emissions is therefore NOT warranted] that just ain’t so.”

Actually, in htis context, I don’t see how you can logically interpret the Twain quote as some seem to have done:

Namely, if you interpret the hurricane/smokestack picture to mean that “Gore knows for sure that hurricanes are impacted (in intensity or frequency) by CO2 emissions”, then Twain’s statement would imply that this — “what Gore knows for sure” (and presumably, “that just ain’t so”) — will get Gore (and the rest of us) into trouble.

While I will not deny that the latter COULD (at least in principle) be a true statement, I somehow doubt that this is what Gore actually intended for us to take away from the advertisement for his movie — the equivalent of “Think this ad’s stupid? Come see my movie in which I make a COMPLETE fool of myself”.

Then again, when it comes to the effect of his ad (and movie) on science policy, I readily admit that it may not be what Gore INTENDED that counts, but how those in the positions of influence actually interpret (or mis-interpret) it.

I think the old saw about “not judging a book by its cover” is perfectly applicable here, at any rate.

I very much agree. The question is, What actions?

This post, and the general theme of such arguments is focused on answering this question.

Thanks.