By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Tue Jun 27, 4:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers.
President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the
Environmental Protection Agency and
NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."
What is really amazing to me is that several republican friends of mine that have seen the movie have given it glowing reviews! I feel like I'm on another planet. I wonder why this movie is converting even die hard righties to the 'Inconvenient Truth' of man made global warming! I guess I've got to go watch it myself to find out. :approve:
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
I have seen satelite images from the 70's and this year of the arctic circle and I don't think you have to do much measurement to know that the ice is retreating in a pretty big way.
LMAO. Radimus, did you look at the source for that 'rebutal'? Everyone, go to the page that Radimus linked to, and you'll see who doesn't want you to believe in global warming.
Republican politicians, oil lobbyists, and the oil companies that pay them. What a shame.
Follow the money. The people screaming its not true are those whose campaign funds come from major CO2 polluters. The few naysayer 'scientists' are often bought off by the same groups, just like big tobacco did years ago.
The few naysayer 'scientists' are often bought off by the same groups, just like big tobacco did years ago.
It's not in the spirit of science to claim someone is wrong because of their position on something. Science is about continual learning and refining the truth. If some oil companies are hiring scientists to do research on why GW may be wrong, that's ultimately a good thing - even if they're wrong, they will probably stumble on something nobody else did because of their different perspective, or at the very least strengthen the theory of GW because they found holes in the theory that were corrected. If there weren't any people researching against GW, we'd probably believe that it was because of CO2 levels alone (to make a long story short it isn't). Criticism and improvement on theories is how science works, not scientists voting on what they believe is right.
LMAO. Radimus, did you look at the source for that 'rebutal'? Everyone, go to the page that Radimus linked to, and you'll see who doesn't want you to believe in global warming.
Republican politicians, oil lobbyists, and the oil companies that pay them. What a shame.
Follow the money. The people screaming its not true are those whose campaign funds come from major CO2 polluters. The few naysayer 'scientists' are often bought off by the same groups, just like big tobacco did years ago.
The article is pointing out holes in the AP story... It isn't saying anything directly about the Global Warming issue, just Specifically that their opinion is that the article is lacking accuracy and detail.
So you believe the articles you believe in and discount the ones you don't.
That doesn't make you right.
You posted an article that promotes a position you like, I posted an article that refutes/rebuts the first article... Doesn't make either correct.
Just remember that most scientists are the recipient of government grants or work for big corporations. Most people are in bed with someone. Don't assume that yours aren't just because you believe in them
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I did some research work with one of my profs on global warming and there is actually enough scientific evidence that contrary to popular belief, this is caused by the long term weather pattern of our planet.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
.
.
.
.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes! Toxic waste and stuff like greenhouse-gases turns into fresh water that plants thrive on and animals can drink. I read that in a comic once. I believe it.
I heard that europeans and most of the rest of the world believe in global warming and that some started to adapt their industries in the 90's, but that's just stupid. USA is the best country in the universe, I know, 'cause I've seen other solar systems in battlestar galactica (they made a documentary about it. Darn those robots!), and our scientists cannot be wrong. Science was invented in america, and we don't need plants and animals (humans aren't animals. We're gods). I read that in a comic too. I believe that too.
The Kyoto stuff (What's with those japanese guys) is just bull. I believe in China and the US of A.
I love my führer... Ooops! lolzor. ...President and I hope he starts a war in france, 'cause they don't think like me.
"While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers.
President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the
Environmental Protection Agency and
NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list."
Christalmighty !! Dubya said he WON'T see it ??? Sure sounds like he's got something to be scared of. Worried that the little pea brain might actually understand global warming and have to do something about it. Smacks mightily of ostriches and sand to me.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Fastjetz
Ax 51v, 2200 mah batt, Rhinoskin Al ext batt case, BT-338, 2GB CF, 2 GB SD, Sennheiser PX-100,
Al Gore, who had a dangerous brush with the presidency in 2000, has long been associated with this particular fright syndrome, and I have no doubt that he is perfectly sincere in believing that global warming is a real danger. But recently he has stepped forth with a brand new campaign to sell the American people on the peril. It is spearheaded by a documentary film entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," in which Gore himself presents what he chooses to regard as overwhelming evidence of the reality of the danger. Given his political history, it is perfectly fair to wonder if this maneuver isn't simply, or primarily, a device to promote his own candidacy for the presidency in 2008. But, whether it is or not, it is also a powerful blast in the propaganda war over the issue of global warming -- and must be treated as such.
Gore begins by insisting that the scientific argument over the truth of the matter is over; climate scientists, he asserts, are virtually unanimous in endorsing it. Among the thousands of predictions on the subject, moreover, he invariably opts for the worst-case scenarios. The increase in the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused, to an important extent, by human "pollution," and this is the cause of a dangerous increase in the planet's surface temperature. That, in turn, is causing glaciers, and the great ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, to melt. This will inevitably result in the disastrous flooding of coastal areas all over the globe, and all sorts of ecological upsets (e.g. the extinction of the polar bear).
The trouble is that all of the statements in the last paragraph above are subject to challenge, and in several cases, are almost certainly false. Among the many systematic attacks being waged against the spurious case for global warming, one of the deadliest and most effective is a weekly report available on the Internet, called "The Week That Was" (TWTW). The author is the formidable S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Each week, Singer summarizes or reprints the most recent studies debunking global warming, with generous references to still more information. In TWTW for June 17, he demolishes Gore's contentions, one by one.
Spencer, who also writes for TCS Daily (which receives some funding from ExxonMobil), believes that some global warming is human-induced, but "I don't believe in climate catastrophe. And: "It comes down to whether you believe the climate system is fragile or resilient." So it all comes down to belief -- and that is the problem. Global warming has become so politicized that scientists must believe in it. If they predict dire consequences, they win praise from true believers and grants for their important research. Scientists who question the prophecies of doom can expect to be marginalized.
Oddly, Gore begins "An Inconvenient Truth" discussing a young classmate who wondered if South America and Africa once had been connected. Their teacher ridiculed the friend, who turned out to be right. Sometimes the know-it-alls are wrong.
Now Gore is the know-it-all teacher -- and woe to any scientist who does not agree with him, not just on global warming, but also on a 20-foot rise in sea level. It is this alarmism -- this extremism -- that has led many a thinking person to question global warming. It's hard to trust those who believe only the most extreme scenario.
Besides, whenever the establishment says you have to believe something, you want people who question the establishment. Or as global cooling guru Gray once said, "Consensus science isn't science."
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There have been huge climate changes during the history of our planet. This does not mean that our actions don’t affect the environment we live in. As a mechanical engineer and energy specialist with some knowledge on environmental science I have heard both opinions from recognized scientists and engineers. The fact that one day we are all going to die doesn’t make it right to go out and start shooting people.
Our opinion in this subject has nothing to do with our political beliefs. On the other hand big decisions always have a political and economic cost. I believe that things need to be changed. There is always a solution for this kind of problems and a balanced way to move forward.
I did some research work with one of my profs on global warming and there is actually enough scientific evidence that contrary to popular belief, this is caused by the long term weather pattern of our planet.
<GASP!!!!!!!!!!>
For true, accurate, scientific view on climate change, everyone should view the "Two days before the day after tomorrow" episode of South Park.
I'm not sold on the whole disaster deal. Look up mini-ice age and you find extreame global cooling in the 1700s. If you want doom and gloom watch the weather channel. However, I also believe that anything to curb polution is a good thing. It always takes a chicken little to get peoples attention and cause a change. There use to be a ship off the shore of Lake Erie in Cleveland that had "Help Me I am Dieing" painted on it. That was in reference to the lake dieing from polution. I remember the lake then and see the lake today and it is much cleaner.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy ...... oh, and... ******BREAKING!!!*******
Addicted Member
