Turns out that the AP may have overstated the number of scientists that considered Al Gore’s movie to be an accurate portrayal of anthropogenic global warming:
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 [Junk Science.com].
Of course, if you don’t believe in the theory of anthropogenic global warming, you’re either not a scientist or you’re in the pocket of big oil. It’s a terrific dodge, because it allows you to completely discount the other side of the debate without having to argue the specifics. In fact, it’s no longer a debate; the other side is just plain wrong and evil because they’re deliberately ignoring carefully-created computer models and other bits of “evidence” supporting the theory.
What do you call belief in something for which you have no real proof? Faith. If the Earth gets too hot, it’s anthropogenic global warming. If it gets too cold, it’s anthropogenic global warming. Very convenient: like rain dancing. If you don’t like the comparison of environmentalism to religion, then don’t smear the other side with slimy accusations of financially-motivated bias.
I’ve spoken with scientists on both sides of the aisle on this topic. The whole concept of anthropogenic global warming is based on the fact that the carbon dioxide levels have gone up from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million over the past 100 years. I can believe those numbers as I believe the data has been accurately been reproduced from multiple sources.
The problem is that the leap of faith that the global warming scientists expect us to take is the theory that the 100 parts per million difference is causing the change in climate. Climatology scientists don’t really accurately know exactly the heat to carbon dioxide ratio. What they do is make estimates and then put them into a computer model. The computer model then runs a scenario of what can happen based on these estimates. The output is a scenario and not a prediction. However, when these scientists give the information to the public, they call these scenarios predictions.
Here is another detail that most paleoclimatologists won’t tell you: From ice core sample readings, we know CO2 levels have been as much as ten times higher in the past (450 million years) than they are right now. During that time, the Earth was in an ice age when the planet was at its coldest in the last 500 million years.
I believe that a lot of the anthropogenic global warming scientists have become fixated on their view of the data that is out there. They are leaving out more and more researched data that disagrees with their premise. Is the Earth getting hotter? I believe it is, but I also believe that most of the warming is a natural cycle of the Sun’s influence on the Earth. I believe climate change is coming. My question is: what will we do as a people to adapt to it?
Here is an article that backs me up on some of the statements I have made. It basically tells of a group of scientist that have spoken out against Al Gore’s recent film.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Once again, you ignore the scores of actual scientists on the issue and choose to believe what you read from, of all places, the government.
YOUR SOURCE IS BIASED. They take donations from oil companies. It’s not a dodge, it’s the TRUTH! The vast majority of SCIENTISTS, not the goddamn U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has a little more credibility on the subject.
Once again, the accusations of bias from an apparently objective source.
“My scientists can beat up your scientists! Your scientists are in the pocket of BIG OIIIILLLL and mine are true altruists working for the better of humanity!”
Give it up.
There are just as many scientists (solar physicists, climatologists and paleoclimatologists) that debunk anthrogenic global warming as are for it. The media for the most part has picked a side and only reports from that side. Differing opinions are treated either as if they have an agenda or not reported at all. If the other side were shown, the news would suddenly would have one less scare tactic in its repetoire.
Then brainwashed parrots such as yourself repeat those statements as if they were facts. They’re not facts, Bob. They’re speculation based on projected estimates. Being louder and better covered by the media doesn’t make them right.