"See, Gore was correct."
When he picked Donna Brazil to run his campaign, or when he chose a Jewish grandmother for a running mate?
He will have to work on saving the earth for the rest of his life just to offset the Bushco damage.
Posted by TIKI AL at June 28, 2006 02:00 AMAP 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.
# # # # #
Posted by Ray Zacek at June 28, 2006 04:10 AMBut Al Gore's a robot! Buddist Temple! Campaign phone calls! Clenis! Internet! Love Story!
Just trying to get it all out of the way.
Posted by idiosynchronic at June 28, 2006 04:19 AMRush and the religious right
Posted by Joseph at June 28, 2006 05:42 AMI think an even more telling stat is that out of 100 climate scientists only 19 had seen the movie. Someone made a movie out of their boring life and only 19% went to see it?! Gore's opposition couldn't write that shit! Also, lets use some logic here. Would it be fair to say that of the 19, all of them agreed with Gore before they saw it anyway??? I'm even less convinced about all this stuff now.
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 06:33 AMRealclimate also has a post up wholly supporting and applauding Gore's use of current climate science and research in the film.
There's also a post there on the recent National Academy of Sciences Synthesis Report, which report supports the Mann conclusion on the "hockey stick" (the last decade's temps were the highest in a thousand years). So the above Wingnut's "article" is (surprise, surprise) utterly biased.
Can't determine the source of the troll's "article", most likely a right wing internet shit trough, hence the lack of attribution.
Note that the only climate scientist quoted doesn't really challenge Gore's use of the science, he just says we shouldn't be afeared of the coming shit climate we're creating. RRRight...tell it to the animals, people living on the coasts and people living in more arid regions, which will become deserts.
Others quoted do not appear to be experts in the field, or their criticisms are quite minor, such as that voiced by Ball on arctic ice thickness.
Posted by euzoius at June 28, 2006 06:50 AM"I'm even less convinced about all this stuff now."
That would be the conclusion one would expect from your poisoned brain, Reason-unable.
Posted by euzoius at June 28, 2006 06:56 AMI notice that you go for the "make fun of the name argument". That ALWAYS holds up really well. I'm suprised you got me so good. lol. Can you believe this guy?
Anyway, people! Really think about it. Only 19% saw the movie, let me ask you people something that I really want you to answer honestly. What percentage of Paleotolgists went to see Jurassic Park???
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 07:07 AMReasonable, if your point is that because 19 out of 100 saw the movie, their review of what he based his movie on is irrelevant, then try again. Are you denying global warming and man's role in creating greenhouse gasses?
And Ray Zacek, provide the link to the material you quoted, or else I'll scrub it from this comment thread.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 28, 2006 07:16 AMSteve I'm saying that I am pretty open minded on this issue and when I saw that only 19 of 100 scientists saw the movie that seemed odd to me. Also, if you don't see my point in the fact that the 19 probably leaned in Gore's position on this issue anyway then you're VERY close minded. That said, I DO agree that we should do whatever we can on pollution and the environment. But the jury is still out on if this is going to be a catastrophe or even if it's man-made.
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 07:29 AMAlso, one forgotten point, there is a real possiblity that only 19% of the scientists agree with Gore on this. I'm sure it's more but really why would someone who supports Gore on this issue not see the movie??? Not saying that the movie is totally false but your comment "Gore got it correct" cause of these numbers and comments from scientists sounds like "junk science" to me. sorry.
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 07:33 AMA movie is made by a politician on a scientific topic.
The press contacts 100 scientists who are experts in the field. 19 have seen the movie. All 19 (100%) who had seen the movie conclude the science was portrayed completely accurately.
A self described "reasonable person" reads such an article and concludes:
i) that because only 19 of 100 saw the movie, its scientific accuracy is unlikely;
ii) that all 19 scientists who did see it were predisposed to agree with it anyway; and
iii) wonders what percentage of paleontologists went to see Jurassic Park.
Yep, to a right winger, that's really "using some logic". I suppose the "logical" corollary is that the 81 scientists who hadn't seen the movie disagree with Gore, right?
I conclude that "Reason-unable" perfectly describes your intellectual "methods", you rubber-nose wearing GOP clown.
Posted by euzoius at June 28, 2006 07:46 AMI support Gore, and I haven't seen the movie yet. You're pulling your argument outta your butt, it stinks so much. Gah, what's with the tweaky trolls this morning? Oh, that's right, the elementary schools are out for the summer and the kids have too much time on their hands.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 28, 2006 07:46 AMAnyway, people! Really think about it. Only 19% saw the movie, let me ask you people something that I really want you to answer honestly. What percentage of Paleotolgists went to see Jurassic Park???
What percentage of Americans voted?
Posted by ann at June 28, 2006 07:50 AMAnn, good one.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 28, 2006 07:56 AMeuzoius: Only a lap dog would read that article and say "this is truth beyond a doubt".
Coyote: Your comment would hold much more weight if you happen to be a climate scientist. If you are, you may want to stop commenting all day and get to saving the world from immenent doom. I'm saying someone made a movie about what global scientists are most likely very passionate about and only 19% saw the flick. It's a nail, not the last nail but there's no point in lying about what it is. And if you can't agree that the 19 most likely agreed with him anyway then you're another nail.
Ann: You may want to bring the point with you on your next take.
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 08:04 AMAnyway, people! Really think about it. Only 19% saw the movie,
maybe they were already familiar with the contents, einstein? you ever hang around with scientists? not big moviegoers in my experience.
Posted by benjoya at June 28, 2006 08:05 AMAnn: You may want to bring the point with you on your next take.
I understand that nuance is difficult for Republicans.
Posted by ann at June 28, 2006 08:09 AMAnn: I always love the "well screw you" argument. Gets 'em everytime.
Posted by Reasonable at June 28, 2006 08:16 AMAnn: I always love the "well screw you" argument. Gets 'em everytime.
What is the "well screw you" argument? And why do you find it so effective?
But anyway, more to the point, Gore was right.
Posted by ann at June 28, 2006 08:22 AMOnce again, the silly li'l troll makes up a non-existant controversy, and argues it to the death. Have fun wrestling with your straw man, unreasonable one, then you can move on to why Ray Nagin didn't use the busses, and why Joe Wilson wasn't indicted for outing his wife. You've bored me once again with your idiocy, and it isn't even lunchtime yet. Go get a popisicle, li'l guy, and play outside like normal kids.
'Cos you know, Gore was and is right. And you are wrong.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 28, 2006 08:25 AMRay Zacek's quote is from a report issued by Inhofe's Senate Environment committee - consider the source and author (because we, the taxpayers, paid for it). It's debunked on Think Progress.
Posted by Jim Faith at June 28, 2006 08:32 AMReasonable, only to people who quote anything by Inhofe would the "jury be still out" on this subject.
Be gone; you're done here. You've used up enough of my bandwidth.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 28, 2006 08:40 AMThanks, Steve.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 28, 2006 08:59 AMSteve - as I think about it, I wonder if this is a new rw noise machine technique adapted for the blogs?
Some new report or press release is issued and 'reasonable' or 'concern' trolls are paid to support it? Just a thought.
Posted by Jim Faith at June 28, 2006 09:09 AMJeebus H.
How long are people like Ray and unReasonable going to trot out this crap. Why is it so hard for you people to simply accept and understand the issue. There is a preponderance of evidence out there to read, yet you continually only read and cherry pick the crap that supports your world view.
Seriously, it makes you look like complete and utter idiots.
when I saw that only 19 of 100 scientists saw the movie that seemed odd to me.
Have you seen the movie? Is that 19 of 100 Scientists or 19 of 100 climate scientists? Its a b.s. stat that means nothing. Now, who would I trust on the issue, a skeptic that hasn't seen the movie, or someone that does research on the issue that hasn't seen the movie?
The scientific method is, by design, supposed to question every conclusion. The fact that you can find some of these questions and ignore the responses or ignore the vast scientific concensus (note the right is doing a great job of turning "concensus" into a pejorative term).
I think your fundamental problem is the failure to grasp how complex the systems involved are. There is a lot of variability and it is easy to find specific bits of data that don't appear to support a larger conclusion (nevermind that 95% of all the data collected does support the theories).
Again, I will repeat an offer. My wife and I have not yet seen the movie (hard to imagine with 2.5 y.o. twins). But she is going to see it with a couple of colleagues on Thursday night. Though we have seen a lot of Gore appearences on the circuit and have spotted a few things that haven't been correct, but for the most part, for a non-scientist he has it nailed.
Why don't you 2 construct some intelligent questions and she will be happy to answer them directly.
Most of her work is in the Antarctic region, so dig up some of that tripe and let's just put it to rest, shall we?
Posted by Simp at June 28, 2006 09:30 AMignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science
What scores? Where? Whre are the reports in the jounals? When the leading climatologists in 60 countries think it's a problem, I tend to side with them. Damn-it! I screwed myself! The leading climatologist from the Sudan didn't weigh in on global warming's side...so there goes my argument. Hold it. The Sudan doesn't have a leading climatologist. But you need to use this argument cause it's a good one for your side. Holds as much water aas any bucket you've got.
Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Uhhh. This guy hasn't published in 20 years. He has done no research in 20 years. He works for oil and coal interests.
And the article you quote written by Bast from the Heartland Institute? "A glance at Bast's list of scientists reveals Robert Balling, who has been funded by coal and mining companies, Sallie Baliunas, whose work has been funded by the American Petroleum Institute and John Christy who has been sponsored by the extremely conservative, contrarian and oil-backed Marshall Institute, among others."
Spunky, you are a fucking moron. If you are right, and global warming isn't a problem, we spend money to get cleaner emissions and alternative fuels. If I am right, and global warmimg is a problem, we are all dead.
Which odds are you playing for your grandchildren, you brain dead piece of shit for the neo-con agenda?
Posted by phidipides at June 28, 2006 09:50 AMI still don't understand why I was blocked.
Posted by Reason at June 28, 2006 10:18 AMun-reasonable..you were blocked becuase you're a fucking moron...
Posted by headxray at June 28, 2006 10:21 AMIf you are right, and global warming isn't a problem, we spend money to get cleaner emissions and alternative fuels.
Global warming aside, reduced rates of asthma would be just another plus. I believe this is what is known as a "win-win situation."
Posted by ann at June 28, 2006 10:25 AMRay Zacek said
"....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."
Did anyone else catch this "slip-up"
I doubt the "deforestation" being blamed
for this "less moisture" had a natural
cause...or in simpler words ... the less snowfall
was caused by (drum roll please) a "man-made event"
like deforestation.
The problem is (in my viewpoint) rarely can one take
"one event" and prove it is a cause of another event.
Which is typically how people try to "prove their case".
Yet, when you roll everything in together like pollution, deforestation,
chemical drainage (both fertilizers and sewer systems) into
the world's water supply....and the "balance" of the world's
ecology is affect....I say we had a problem....
regardless if you can point to one single "cause" or
multiple-causes ... you still have the resulting problem.
I still don't understand why I was blocked.
Probably for lunatic crap like this:
I think an even more telling stat is that out of 100 climate scientists only 19 had seen the movie.
And witty shit like this:
I'm saying someone made a movie about what global scientists
You don't have the common sense that would indicate to you that these guys already know the plot, and that the movie is in very limited release. It is also not released globally, just barely in the United States. Try and find where it's playing in your area. It's as stupid as saying only 20% the world population has running water, so who the fuck needs it?
Posted by phidipides at June 28, 2006 10:34 AMGive the red-staters a break. Bushco has the little bedwetters "feared out" with the war on terrah.
They won't come "on board" with global warming until Noah Christens Ark II.
G.(global)W.(warming)Bush, a name that will live in infamy.
Posted by TIKI AL at June 28, 2006 12:39 PMuRcoyote: "I still don't understand" was signed "reason", not "reasonable". ??
I just heard Shepard Smith on "The Fox Report" say 11 militant groups have offered to stop fighting immediately, if the US agrees to pulling out of Iraq within 2 years. He further reported that this was rejected outright by Rumsfeld because Bush feels a timetable would not be "useful".
That timetable looks better all the time. Who made Bush God of pull out procedure? I guess Iraq has nothing to say in the matter, after all.
Posted by TIKI AL at June 28, 2006 05:00 PMI just heard Shepard Smith on "The Fox Report" say 11 militant groups have offered to stop fighting immediately
At least one of these militant groups said, "No one talked to us." Who knows what the hell this is about.
Posted by phidpides at June 28, 2006 07:40 PM