Environmental Science

The Frontline documentary “Heat” shows how industry and government have responded to energy issues and climate change. The episode begins by looking at some of the evidence that the world is warming and that there is a correlation between the changing climate and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. From this evidence and more, an overwhelming number of climate scientists have concluded that human activity is responsible for the changes. “Heat” looks at some of the possible solutions to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions and how government and industry are approaching those solutions.

After watching the episode, pick one of the following four issues and respond to the questions on your own blog. For extra credit, you can also respond to any one (or two or three) of the other issues. Take note of the due date given in class.

Service technicians fill a truck with liquid CO2 in the power plant Schwarze Pumpe in Spremberg, 100 miles south of Berlin, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008. The operating company Vattenfall Europe inaugurates a pilot project for a carbon dioxide capture and storage, CCS, the first coal fired plant in the world ready to capture and store its own CO2 emissions. (AP Photo/Matthias Rietschel)

Issue #1: Carbon Capture and Sequestration

For fossil fuel burning power companies, this would seem to be the most promising future. Yet, there have been difficulties implementing this technology and there are more problems forecast for the future.

a) What happens during carbon capture and sequestration?

b) Why has there been a delay in implementing this technology and what are some of the problems foreseen in developing this solution to carbon dioxide emissions?

c) Power companies have stated that fossil fuel plants provide base-load energy and for this reason, they will be necessary far into the future. What does base load mean? (Optional: This issue was discussed at Notre Dame’s Energy Forum. Discuss how problems with base load could be overcome as alternatives are put into the grid.)

d) The mentioned China’s and India’s rapid development and huge reliance on coal. Will anything the U.S. does to reduce emissions from coal burning power plants be outweighed by China’s and India’s huge increases in coal use? What do you believe would be an international solution?

An illustration released by the U.S. Department of Transportation following press conference in Atlanta , Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005 shows the estimated light truck fuel savings of the plan. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta unveiled a plan requiring better gas mileage from sport utility vehicles, pickups and mini-vans. According to Mineta, the proposed new plan for light trucks will save motorists money on fill-ups while improving safety and protecting the economy. (AP Photo/Ric Feld)

Issue #2

Cars are the 2nd largest source of CO2 emissions. A significant change in CAFE standards could significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, these changes have been strongly opposed by car manufacturers and labor unions.

a) Why has there been resistance?

b) What role has California played in setting fuel efficiency standards?

c) How did Congress undercut California’s attempts to raise these standards?

d) What is the outlook on the future of electric vehicles? What are the benefits and problems? Have car manufacturers already invented marketable vehicles? What happened to them?

Construction crews put the finishing touches on the massive base section of the $4.2-billion Hibernia offshore oil platform in Bull Arm, Newfoundland in April, 1996. Next June, a nine-tugboat armada is scheduled to tow the oil platform 195 miles into the North Atlantic to pump oil amid the mammoth icebergs and rich fishing grounds of the Grand Banks. (AP Photo/Hibernia Management Co.)

Issue #3

Fossil fuels are NOT renewable resources. We will eventually run out of these energy resources. In the future, alternative sources of energy will be used to produce electricity, run industry, heat homes, and power transportation.

a) Based on what you saw in “Heat”, will companies such as Exxon, BP, etc., support and develop alternatives? Why or why not? From one interview in the documentary comes this statement: “No one is beyond petroleum”. What did this mean?

b) When BP and Exxon promote themselves as environmentally conscious and diligent at developing alternatives, many informed scientists remain cynical. Past association and support for organizations such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute puts companies such as Exxon in an awkward position now. Why? Why does big oil even try to advertise the industry as environmentally conscious? What caused a shift in the companies thinking? Do you believe that the oil companies will eventually throw a significant part of their profits behind alternatives? Explain.

c) There is a lot of cheap energy in shale and sand tars in Canada. Developing this energy source would significantly reduce the dependance on foreign oil. What are the problems with this energy resource?

The train with the 12 Castor containers, loaded with nuclear waste from the nuclear recycling plant in La Hague, France, passes the French-German border near Lauterbourg, France, on Monday Nov. 10, 2003. The Castor containers are on the way to the interim storage for nuclear waste in Gorleben, northern Germany. (AP Photo/Thomas Kienzle)

Issue #4

There ARE alternatives to fossil fuels, and each of the alternatives provide for a real reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

a) Ethanol is an organic compound and DOES produce carbon dioxide when burned, but IDEALLY, the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should not change when ethanol is used as a fuel. Why is this?

b) Although burning ethanol is ideally “carbon neutral”, using ethanol in place of gasoline has been found to be a greater source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the gasoline it replaces. Explain.

c) Ethanol subsidies and promotion was stated as being everything that could possibly be wrong with energy policy–it was putting parochial needs ahead of national interests. Explain.

d) T. Boone Pickens sees a very profitable future in developing wind and solar. Explain his enthusiasm for these alternatives and his concerns.

e) What are the problems and benefits of nuclear power? Why hasn’t nuclear been developed as it has been in other countries?

Escalating demand for ethanol will push corn prices higher this year, the Agriculture Department said. The amount of corn used to make ethanol should increase by 34 percent over last year. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)

These are strange days on planet earth indeed. You’ve seen what were confounding changes:

1) Highly turbid (murky) streams in pristine Yellowstone National Park.

AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac

2) The loss of plant biodiversity on the islands of Lake Guri in Venezuela.

Leaf-cutting ants, Wikipedia

3) The explosion of algae populations on the reefs near Discovery Bay in Jamaica.

Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory, University of the West Indies

You’ve seen top-down mediated systems as well as bottom-up processes at work. You’ve seen prey populations crash and explode and you’ve seen the cascading effects (”ripple effects”) throughout the ecosystem.

Now it’s time to blog:
A) Pick ONE of the issues and describe the effect and what scientists discovered was the cause. Explain how the changes in predator populations affected the farthest reaches of the ecosystem.
B) State why we should care about ecosystem changes such as this. Is it the ecosystem services that we’ll have to replace? Is it a problem that will affect your backyard? Is it an issue of public safety? Is it a matter of protecting our most precious resources or our fragile remaining wilderness?

Due date: October 31 (boo!)

Dom’s post on hybrids (Hybrids: are they worth it?) led me to think that I’ve heard this before. I did some searching and found that it was a topic on NPR. Take a listen here: Do Hybrid Cars Save Money?

Hybrid automobiles are more expensive than traditional cars because of the technology required to produce them. So, you’d have to drive them for a while, getting great mileage, before the money you’d save on gas would make up for the extra money you paid for your ride.

Dom and NPR left us to actually CONFIRM that hybrids might be more financial trouble than they’re worth. So let’s get to it. How long would you have to drive a hybrid before the savings in gas money kicked in?

I’m not going to pick a obvious gas saver, like a Smart Car. That’s not fair because a Prius is a large and roomy mid-size car, while a Smart Car is…well…Dom said it best in class: not comfy.

Journalists test drive the Smart car on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 in Detroit. The car visited the city built on massive motoring muscle as part of a 50-city roadshow designed to demonstrate why backers say the tiny two-seater is “the right car at the right time” for the U.S. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Problem is: there isn’t a real fuel efficient mid-size vehicle made in the U.S. We have to take it down a notch and sacrifice a tiny bit of interior space for increased fuel efficiency. Luckily, we don’t have to sacrifice too much room.

The two cars I picked for comparison: The Toyota Prius, the largest selling hybrid automobile in the U.S. and the Chevy Aveo, which is a car that gets 34 mpg highway, a fuel efficiency on the top of the list for compact and mid-sized cars with features comparable to the Prius. And the Chevy Aveo is “one of the cheapest new cars you can buy”.(http://www.automobilemag.com/)

The Chevrolet Aveo is shown on floor during media previews at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

The engine of Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius… By switching to gasoline only after it picks up speed, the Prius runs far more efficiently than a conventional engine. Tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions are cut by half, other toxic gases by 90 percent. (AP Photo/Atsushi Tsukada)

Here are the statistics on fuel efficiency, according to the government’s Fuel Economy Guide:
the average highway mileage of the Prius is 45 mpg
the average highway mileage of the Chevy Aveo (1.6L, 4 cyllinder engine, manual) is 34 mpg

From automobile magazine (http://www.automobilemag.com/):
MSRP for the Prius: $21500 (96 cu ft interior space)
MSRP for the Chevrolet Aveo: $11460 (90.8 cu ft interior space)

Assume that gas costs $4 per gallon and that the average driver puts in 12 000 miles each year.

Blog about this and include other information, such as battery costs and a list of benefits (services that could be measured in dollars, even if you can’t find cost comparisons) that might make the hybrid economically worthy.

Let’s say you have a better idea for energy independence. Your argument: Burning more fossil fuels is so 19th century.
What will it be?
Tapping the “conservation reserve”? (What’s that?)
Eating food grown closer to home? (How the beans is that going to help?)
Eating less meat? (Huh?)

Make a long list and post it for us!

Our investigation of lawns and their impacts led to the discussion of making a conclusion using scientific data. We found that there is often the possibility that two opposing arguments are more or less supported by the data. A decision on an environmental issue often requires weighing pros and cons. And also, we found that decisions must consider location and circumstances–one course of action may not be appropriate for all.

Environmental scientists must be problem solvers and must be flexible.

So be prepared to look at both sides of the argument when we consider the classic environmental debates: “Paper or plastic?”, “Recycle or not?”, “Conserve or preserve?”, and more.

A lawn is mowed Friday, Aug. 1, 2008, in New Paltz, N.Y. August is the month to test anyone’s love for their lawn. Even if the weeks are regularly punctuated with cloudbursts, hot weather still causes the grass to flag in midday. Most often, August weather both too hot and too dry to keep any lawn lush. (AP Photo/Lee Reich)

Recently, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has returned as a hot topic.

A herd of musk ox graze in an area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, known as Area 1002. A House committee in 2005 approved a measure that would clear the way for oil and gas drilling in currently off-limits coastal waters and in the ANWR. Supporters of the legislation argued that with natural gas and crude prices soaring and domestic supplies tight, it is time to end the 24-year federal ban that has blocked energy development in these areas. (AP Photo/Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, File)

The consensus at the Republican National Convention last week was that the U.S. should open up this protected area along Alaska’s Northern coast to petroleum exploration and drilling.

Marilyn Shannon, of Brooks , Or., wears a t-shirt in support of oil drilling during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

The consensus of many scientists is that the area holds too little in the way of energy resources to justify the environmental devastation.

What do you think?

Here’s your assignment.
1. Research the topic. Here are just two beginning resources. (Don’t forget that the library has access to many scientific journal articles online, so don’t just limit yourself to a Google search.)

The ANWR Drilling Debate–a PBS NewsHour report

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Website on ANWR

2. Weigh the pros and cons of drilling.

3. Blog about the topic. Mention BOTH sides of the argument, but take a stand and make a strong argument. Before you argue, put yourself in the shoes of the other side–consider the positives of your opposition and don’t demonize anyone.

4. Cite any facts or quotes. This is a very important part of your blog post–no citation, no credit.

5. Include a picture or two in your post. Use images that are in the public domain or use images from the AP archives (see our class resource page for the link).

6. Have fun and be prepared to bust some chops (figuratively only) when you meet someone from the opposition in class–they’ll try to tear your argument apart.

From the New York Times, December 9, 2007: “Hydrogen Car is Here, a Bit Ahead of Its Time”, comes news that Honda’s hydrogen-fuel-cell car, the FCX Clarity, is production ready. Problem: the hydrogen station to refuel is a rarity in the U.S. So, we’ll have to wait, until, maybe, we run out of oil? Or, until Florida is under water from rising sea-levels.

There was an interesting line in the article that makes the alternative fuel expert, such as yourself, take pause:

Moreover, in Honda’s full-cycle calculation, a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle.

NY Times

What’s that all about? Why doesn’t a fuel-cell vehicle reduce carbon dioxide output to ZERO? We know that the following reaction, 2H2 + O2 –> 2H2O, is the energy source for the electricity that runs the drive train. Notice: no source of carbon. Plus, the car doesn’t even have a tail-pipe. So, it’s not a hybrid.

So why would there be carbon dioxide at all?

Tell me about it. In fact, make a nice list of all reasons that a hydrogen vehicle will still result in greenhouse gas emissions (I dare you to find more than 5!)

http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/images/winds_over_ocean2.gif

You’re probably well-versed in the basics of an El-Nino event:

1. the general air mass movement toward higher altitudes at the equator,
2. the cooler and increase in density of said air mass,
3. the spreading out of that air mass and it’s eventual fall back to the earth at latitudes north and south of the equator,
4. the surface winds created by the rising and falling air masses,
5. the Easterlies created over the equatorial Pacific because of the Coriolis effect,
6. the movement of warm surface water in the Pacific to the West, creating a warmer and more elevated Western Pacific (compared to the Eastern Pacific),
7. the atmospheric pressure changes that occur about every 7 years that reduce the intensity of the Easterlies,
8. the build up of warm ocean water in the Eastern Pacific resulting from the reduced Easterlies,
9. the increase in evaporation of water in the central and Eastern Pacific,
10. the intense weather events resulting from the high energy humid air.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images_topic.php3?topic=oceans&img_id=17419
The Jason satellite has measured the elevation of the Pacific in 2006. Shown above are the differences from the norm in water elevation. Notice that the Eastern Pacific is at a greater elevation than usual. This is because the water is warmer and more buoyant–corresponding to an El Nino.

So you understand the science…but why are we talking about this event–essentially a cycling of the weather?

El Nino’s have been unusually strong in recent years and the culprit seems to be global warming.

Still, so what?

Is there any environmental havoc resulting from more intense El Nino’s? (Of course, the answer is yes, and your job will be to research and write on this topic. Is there any “ripple effect”, like an increase in disease? Go beyond the obvious–increased intensity of storms–and look for the side effects.)

Here are some places to go if:
1. I was sleeping during Mr. M’s titillating lecture on El Nino and La Nina events.
2. I can’t find a darn thing from a reputable source on the effects of El Nino.
3. I need even more reputable work.

If you don’t exit my class with a skeptical eye and ear finely tuned to everything you read and hear, then I haven’t met my goals. Don’t get me wrong: I’ll be so happy if you know how to collect and interpret data and explain the science you see. Still, I’d be much happier if you’d patiently consider someone’s environmental science argument and then be ready to say: “Now wait just one darn minute here!…”

Case in point: Skimming the editorial pages of our major local papers this morning, I came across a paragraph in the “What Others Are Saying” section of the Chicago Tribune (January 11, 2008). This quote comes from The Wall Street Journal as a comment on the recently passed energy bill that will phase out the energy-inefficient incandescent light bulb in place of CFLs and LEDs:

Now, I’m sure that Phillips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products….well…did they mention that they’re making the world a better place? The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you’re a light-bulb maker, that’s a pretty good trade. (Brian M. Carney)

The implication is that the consumer is getting ripped off and that the light bulb makers are enjoying a windfall. And since the argument stops there, I sense a hidden argument that the cfls and leds are somewhat of a scam.

or

Now wait just one darn minute here!

It’s time for you to respond, and mention the following benefits of the energy-efficient light bulbs:

1) energy cost savings
2) cost of manufacturing each bulb
3) reduced landfill use
4) buffer to climate change
5) reduced mercury emissions, acid rain, mine drainage, particulate emissions
6) less habitat alteration
7) reduced threat to endangered species
8) less thermal pollution
9) less nuclear waste
10) less emission of radioactive particles into the air
11) improved public health
12) lowered energy costs to businesses in the U.S. and boon to economy

etc.

What was the “pretty good trade”?

David’s recent post, “Not such a bright idea”, points to an interesting issue: Will the mercury contained in a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) prove to be so great an environmental problem that it outweighs any environmental benefits from energy savings?

David reported that the lifespan of a CFL is 3 years, when many sources report an average of 5 years.  But no matter, the bulbs do contain mercury. (NPR Report:CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch…)

It’s not much mercury, on average about 5 milligrams, and the government considers that a very low level, and easily taken care of should the CFL break in your home. (Information on CFLs and Mercury–an EnergyStar Factsheet)

But if you counted up ALL of the CFLs that we hope to be using in American homes in the near future, that’s a lot of mercury.

And that mercury may get into the environment, even endangering solid waste workers, as David points out.  So, is the CFL environmentally worth it?

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs use less energy and last longer than standard lightbulbs. (AP Photo/Donald King)

David also correctly points out that coal, the fuel that produces 49% of our electricity here in Illinois (Illinois Coal Fact Sheet), contains significant amounts of mercury.

A conveyor belt moves underground mined coal to the surface at Peabody Energy’s Gateway Mine Thursday, March 9, 2006, near Coulterville, Ill. The raw coal brought to the surface of an underground mine by conveyor belt is piled, ready for its eventual transport to a nearby facility where it will be washed, sized and separated from any unwanted rock or debris. Illinois’ coal production, which peaked in 1918 with a work force of more than 100,000, took a beating in the 1990s after the Clean Air Act required coal-fired power plants to either burn low-sulfur coal or install costly scrubbers to curb the emission of sulfur dioxide, a cause of acid rain. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Can you support the following hypothesis? Burning coal to power an incandescent light bulb releases more mercury into the environment than a CFL would release if it were eventually broken (and that includes the release of mercury from the coal to power the CFL for the same amount of time).

To support or disprove the above hypothesis, here is the information and strategy you should use:

1. Find out how much energy is required to run a 60.0 W lightbulb for its lifespan.

60.W = 60. Joules of energy used per second
The lifetime of a 60.W lightbulb = 1000 hours
60 minutes = 1 hour
60 seconds = 1 minute

2. To produce the same amount of light, you will have to use a 15 W CFL.  How much energy is required to run a 15 W CFL for 1000 hours?

3. Determine 50.0% of the energy calculated in #1 and #2.  You have now calculated how much energy will come from coal.

4. Because of the loss of energy during transfers, you will need 2.5 times more energy to be produced at the plant than you use at home.  Calculate:
a) how much energy you’ll have to produce at the coal burning plant for an incandescent bulb, and,
b) how much energy you’ll have to produce at the coal burning plant for a CFL.

Source: (Wikipedia)

5. Calculate the amount of coal you’ll have to burn to produce the energy for
a) an incandescent bulb burning for 1000 hours
b) a CFL burning for 1000 hours

30.6kJ energy can be extracted, on average, from 1.00 grams of coal.
1000 J = 1 kJ

Coal is burned at the TXU Corp. Big Brown plant Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006 near Fairfield, Texas. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

6. Calculate an average amount of mercury released per each gram of coal burned.

1.03 x 10^6 short tons of coal burned in 2006 (Source: DOE)
1 short ton = 9.07 x 10^5 grams

50. tons of mercury are released every year from coal burning (Source: EPA)
1 ton = 9.09 x 10^5 g

7. Calculate the average amount of mercury released, in grams,

a) when an incandescent light bulb is powered for 1000 hours
b) when a CFL is powered for 1000 hours

8. Calculate the total amount of mercury released when a CFL is powered for 1000 hours and then broken.

5 milligrams = mercury in one CFL
1 milligrams = 0.001 gram

9. Compare the amounts of mercury released by incandescents versus CFLs.

Have you supported or disproved the hypothesis?

And finally, can you make a strong argument for CFLs?  What other environmental benefits (or risks are involved)?

An aerial view of Georgia Power’s Plant Bowen in Euharlee, Ga., located about 40 miles northwest of Atlanta, is shown in this June 20, 2002 file photo. For the folks in the shadow of the coal-burning power plant, the haze that hangs over the north Georgia countryside is as much a part of the scenery as the rustic farmhouses and winding roads. The ominous sight around Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Bowen _ and what it could mean for the community’s health _ is brushed off by most nearby residents as just an unavoidable fact of life. (AP Photo/The Daily Tribune News, Dayton P. Strickland, File)

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize this week.  The former vice president was lauded for his work publicizing the very real phenomenon of global warming and for introducing the possible consequences of a warmer earth IF we continue to ignore the warning signs.

AP Photo/Paramount Classics, Eric Lee
The news was generally positive in major media outlets.

The Chicago Tribune (Saturday, October 13, 2007) decided to take a weak-kneed editorial position, even within the news articles, of presenting “both sides” of the global warming debate.

There is no debate among climate scientists about the following: global warming is occurring and continued emissions of greenhouse gases will have serious consequences.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 2,500 climate scientists from around the world, shared the prize with Gore.  From the Trib’s own findings, “these scientists have concluded that there is a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity and that it could cause catastrophic results in the 21st Century.” (page 6)

Still, if you fall for the Trib’s rhetoric, you’d believe that there is a reputable research organization that believes that Gore is “an environmental alarmist whose views have been repeatedly contradicted by scientists, economists and policy experts”, that the IPCC is a “small cabal of ideologically driven government scientists” (page 6), that there are numerous scientific errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”–Gore’s film on global warming–and that “scientific opinion has been sharply divided” on global warming.

This “other side” of the argument is all hogwash, of course.  The “scientists” who purportedly contradict Gore’s views over and over are not experts in the field, the research organization is a biased big-industry mouthpiece, and the “scientific errors” are not scientific errors at all.

The climate-contrarian organization cited by the Trib is the Heartland Institute, an organization of industry executives and pro-business operatives.  The head of this organization is a former executive of Phillip-Morris, the tobacco giant.  Recent activity by Heartland includes editorializing and lobbying to stop anti-smoking laws.  How could the Trib put forth a group as reputable when that group is trying to convince people that the jury is still out on the health issues of smoking?

And what about the scientists who disagree with the climatologists?  (And what’s behind the “small cabal” jibe?  Are  2,500 climate scientists a small cabal?)  Has the paper ever interviewed or even dealt with these scientists?  I remember a large advertisement in the Trib a couple of years ago, signed by Chicago-land “scientists” (maybe 100 signatures, if I remember correctly), challenging the reality of global warming.  The only scientific credentials I saw in that ad were “D.D.S”.  Are these the scientists?  Is the Trib really trying to convince us that global-warming skepticism by a few local dentists justifies the words “scientific opinion has been sharply divided”?  (page 20)

How can this major newspaper put this editorializing next to their own report of local climatologists, who are members of the IPCC, who work at prestigious institutions such as Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago, and who shared this year’s Nobel prize?  “The Nobel spotlights the work environmental scientists have done for decades…’actually the opinion of some of the world’s best experts…that [carries] a lot of weight.’” (Woodward, page 7)  “There’s a lot of science in there that people have a hard time refuting.” (Manier, page 7)

The “errors” in the film aren’t errors: they are possible consequences of global warming.  Some of these consequences have not been realized yet.  And as in all projections, there is no certainty.  With lack of certainty, there is always a debatable point.

Debate can be good.  However, considering the potential for disaster on an unprecedented level, can we use the lack of scientific certainty to delay action and allow debate to rage on and on, as the Trib suggests we should? (page 20)  Gore says NO!  To delay action is immoral in this situation.

So what has Gore done to elicit such a response to accolades he has received from scientists, governments, the U.N., and now, the Nobel committee, for his work?  Gore presents the science to a popular audience and he does this very well.  Climate experts agree that Gore did an excellent job of compiling and translating years of highly technical research for the general public.  As for the drama in “An Inconvenient Truth” let’s remember that Gore is on a mission to convince people that something must be done now.  He repeatedly and sincerely talks about our moral obligation to address this problem.  His appeal to our humanity should not be called “scientific errors”.

A list of the 9 points in the film that have been called “errors” and a good analysis of each of them may be found at:
The Guardian (for a short list) and
Deltoid–a science blog (for the analysis)

Throughout the Trib’s articles, there is the mention of Gore running for the presidency in 2008 (even though he has said that he will not run, and he has said this many times).  Is the paper trying to diminish the serious issue of global warming by emphasizing some alleged political angle? Is the editorial staff very worried that Gore MAY run and ruin the chances for a Republican victory? (The Tribune is unabashedly Republican, having endorsed Republican presidential candidates, without exception.)

AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian

This type of reporting diminishes the accomplishments of scientific work.  The paper had the chance to emphasize the consensus, present the science, educate the public, and not least of all, celebrate an American’s accomplishment on the world stage.  But the Trib dropped the ball.  It’s an issue of cowardly journalism–here, the paper is worried about angering their many readers who hate Al Gore, so they must present “the other side”, however unscholarly and misleading that other side is.  It’s also an issue of ignorance.  Editorial writers and many lay people don’t understand the difference between real science and junk science.  Additionally, that junk scientists so frequently call real science “junk science” confuses the casual reader.

Do you know the meaning of junk science?

Have you come into contact with junk science?  Have you seen junk science that is so eloquent and influential that not only does it pass for real science, but also influences public decision making?

No?  Take a look around–you won’t have to go far to find it.