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."
Our local weather man does not like Gore and just thought his first book was total bunk. However, he said that a good portion of this movie is based on fact. I was really surprised.
Define: top climate scientists
Apparently, those whom agree with Gore.
Science co-opted by political whim is doomed. I'd like to see a complete list of these so-called "top climate scientists", who they get their grant money from and who they gave political donantions to in the last five years.
Apparently the AP is getting even more lax in trying to come up with facts to support their case.
I would've expected something more like "All scientists that responded to the AP poll agreed the science was mostly accurate." And leave out the fact that only 19 of 100 responded, and that all of them had to have seen the movie for it to be counted as a response.
Really? So vocal as to have NEVER been heard on any MSM outlet.
"Only 19% of Climate Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy."
And, you're afraid to speak it, loser.
Among those contacted, but certainly not among those that saw the film and gave it the thumbs up.
This is pretty much how political "polls" seem to be conducted. The NYT probably calls people on their subscription list when doing their polls, which means they are all baised from the start.
What I've seen of the trailers peaks my curiosity. I'm not adverse to seeing this side of the story, even though I won't be around to see much more progressive damage to the environment.
Why isn't the headline "Only 20% of US Climate Scientists Believe Algor"?
And if the movie presents an optimistic view, are we making plans to evacuate the portions of the planet that will be underwater when all of the ice melts? Or merely trying to change the global economy?
Good point! Who are they?
And this guy was a Kerry campaign contributor. I really trust his judgement.
In other news, most scientists have not attended an "Institute for Creation Research" meeting. Those who have attended have the same general impression: Evolution is bunk.
It's like asking one hundred people of all ages if they thought the new Pokemon cartoon was as good as "Citizen Kane", and announcing that one hundred percent (the three kids in the survey) of those who saw the cartoon believed it was even better.
Those who went to see the movie agreed...because they agree with Algores groupthink junk science...anyway...
Agenda driven article that finds the "truth" inconvenient.
You can find a few "scientists" to support any theory!
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.