Posted on 06/27/2006 11:32:51 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
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."
"You can find a few "scientists" to support any theory!"
That is because most science is junk science. Many in society want to fool everyone into thinking science is very accurate, when just the opposite is true. Most science is junk.
I wonder if the majority of Algore's stock portfolio is still invested in oil.
Yea they self selected the Gorites by making the reponding subset only those who actually paidgood money and went to the limited release propaganda movie!!
What a crock!!
Must have done the poll from the AP's new office (was it?) in North Korea or was it Mogandishu?
More than likely.
In a file photo former Vice President Al Gore makes talks to the media as he walks into a screening of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' in Boston Tuesday, April 25, 2006. The nation's top climate scientists give the movie based on Al Gore's book, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' five stars for accuracy. He mostly got the science right, say 19 climate experts who had seen the moive or read the book. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)
17,000 scientists dispute Gore's assertion that global warming is human-inducted. They also mention that global warming is just one of many cycles the earth goes through.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654996/posts
|
And since there are more than 20,000 scientists who have reviewed the issue, how did they decide on these?
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."
I looked him up. He is NOT a climate scientist. He's a bio chemist!
William H. Schlesinger
James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry
and Dean of the Nicholas School
Earth and Ocean Sciences Division
AB, Dartmouth College, 1972
PhD, Cornell University, 1976
Primary area of expertise: Biogeochemistry
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.
Corell is not even a scientist. He has a PhD in Engineering from Case Institute and then worked in ocean engineering before becoming a government bureaucrat and now the head of a "non-profit" (LOL) lobbying group.
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.
Wigley PhD in mathematics, albeit he has also worked as a meteorologist (which is not climate science, but weather forecasting).
There are a number of Climate Scientists who have seen the movie and reviewed it and they all said it's junk. But AP couldn't seem to find any of them. They only found 3 non- climate scientists to interview, then falsely identify them as climate scientists.
So typical of the Associated Propagandists.
I thought they said "scientists". Climatology is the short bus of science.
You can have your facts correct and still come to wrong conclusions.
That may well be the case here.
www.oism.org website has a list of 17000+ scientists who are in disagreement with Gore. Over 2600 are directly involved in climate and closely related fields. Projection is not prediction.
Yes. I'm one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.