Senate Press Release on the Science of Global Warming movie

[jasons2k]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm ... &id=257909

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

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.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

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.

# # # # #

[Aslkahuna]

The fact that this article originated with the Senate Majority (the Senate is not exactly a bastion of Scientific knowledge) means that it and this post are treading dangerously on political grounds.

Steve

[jasons2k]

The fact that this article originated with the Senate Majority (the Senate is not exactly a bastion of Scientific knowledge) means that it and this post are treading dangerously on political grounds.

Steve

MODS: If this is deemed "political" than please delete. Thanks.

The the article is simply a collection of quotes & analysis from scientists, not politicians. That's the "source" of the knowledge, so to speak. I don't see anything in here that is political, one way or the other. There's nothing in here at all about policy. It's just a critique of the reporting on Global Warming.

[Aquawind]

I did notice CNN removed it from the front page..I read it about 3 hours ago and now I found it in my history.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06 ... index.html


Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Posted: 3:44 p.m. EDT (19:44 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."

[Aslkahuna]

There was an implied criticism of the AP report. But the main thing is that anything that comes out of the Senate regardless of content is by implication political since that's the motive behind the release. It's a thin line to be sure but has the potential of crossing over if this thread generates much debate.

Steev

[x-y-no]

The fact that this article originated with the Senate Majority (the Senate is not exactly a bastion of Scientific knowledge) means that it and this post are treading dangerously on political grounds.

Steve

MODS: If this is deemed "political" than please delete. Thanks.

The the article is simply a collection of quotes & analysis from scientists, not politicians. That's the "source" of the knowledge, so to speak. I don't see anything in here that is political, one way or the other. There's nothing in here at all about policy. It's just a critique of the reporting on Global Warming.

It is?

Which scientist is it they are quoting when they say this "raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology?"

Which scientist is it who excoriated the AP for not publishing a list of all 100+ climate scientists (including vocal sceptics) they contacted (and have you ever seen an AP article with such a list? How boring would that be to read for the average newspaper reader?) but in the same breath claim they have "scores" of scientists who dispute Gore's presention yet they only name four. Can you say "hypocrisy?"

Which scientist is it they are quoting when they impugn Robert Correll's integrity merely because he watched a private screening of the movie and has given expert testimony? I see no scientist's name attached to that insulting slur.

Which scientist are they quoting when they falsely claim that the "hockey stick" from Mann et. al. has been discredited? Which scientist are they quoting when they falsely imply that Mann et. al. denied the reality of either the Medieval warm period of the Little Ice Age? Last time I checked, Sen. Inhofe is not a "scientist."

[jasons2k]

Oh, I'm sorry, the AP is always right. Like a few days ago when they called a dust storm near Lubbock a "sandstorm".

[x-y-no]

Oh, I'm sorry, the AP is always right. Like a few days ago when they called a dust storm near Lubbock a "sandstorm".

Did anyone in this thread but you say that? No.

Nice straw-man, though.

[Praxus]

Well thanks for the republican view of global warming. What a big surprise, lol

I saw Gore on CNN a few days ago, was interesting that he thinks global warming is mankind's greatest threat. Seems misguided to me, I think
mankind is mankind's greatest threat !