June 28, 2006

Senate Committee Questions AP's Gore Supporters

Alleging a bias in its methodology, the GOP majority press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works questions Seth Borenstein's Gore puff piece entitled "Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy":
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.
The committee asks the AP writer to diclose those scientists contacted, and quote them all in full:
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.
If the "top climate scientists" were so enthusiastic about Gore's movie and its portrayal of climate change, why not get quoted or drop names? Why does the article cite them anonymously? Have they something to hide? Or are they unwilling to support something they might believe in their hearts--global warming caused by humans--but do not see clear evidence of in the science? Maybe they don't want a repeat of the "global cooling" scaremongering of the '70s. Sounds like nothing more than the response offered by the government bureaucrats at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones asks who was working on the Ark--"top men." Not very convincing in either situation.


Anonymous piboulder said...

I agree. The more I read about it, the more this industrial global warming theory sounds like a massive hoax, or at best agitprop masquerading as science. I noted in the U.S. Senate committee article that one of the people quoted in the AP article was not from the "Arctic Climate Change" group, but from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group (I made up the "Change" group name to make a point). These terms have real meaning, because as has been noted in the CanadianFreePress.com article on Al Gore's film, most of the scientists who contributed to his movie are climate impact experts, not climate change experts. There's a difference. For those who understand the impacts of climate change to presume they know the cause of that change is folly. Since Gore's movie is not just about the impact of climate change, but the cause of it, for climate change impact experts to come out and say the film is "100% correct" is disingenuous. So far as I've seen, the scientific community that supports the industrial global warming theory are being disingenuous as a whole. As noted in a speech by Michael Crichton, the scientific method the practitioners of this theory are using is shabby at best, and they seem to have a problem with subjecting their data to independent review, something any scientist worth their salt would have no problem with.

Sun Jul 02, 11:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home