http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

AP 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.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

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.

The above has the letterhead of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works. Are they claiming that this viewpoint represents the entire committee, or just a couple of senators?

I see a major debate brewing here. I just wonder why they're so resistant to this whole idea. It's not just because they're trying to protect the interests of big oil. One conservative blog I went to this morning opened its article with "Al Gore is well known for his lies . . . " So they're going to start smearing him again, trying to paint him as a liar. They also criticized the MSM for "shilling for Gore." If it weren't so funny, I'd laugh. Surely these A-Holes know that it was the MSM who did Gore in back in 2000?

So I have to assume that a lot of resistance to this whole idea of a climate crisis is rooted in a couple of other things: the messenger (Gore), and the fact that this is a liberal cause. God forbid you'd ever want to admit that a liberal cause was valid. Can't have that.

The whole thing makes me so angry I can't stand it . . .

Here's as good a rebuttal as I've seen today to this story:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/200...gore_do_sc.html

June 28, 2006
More Gore: Do scientists think he's right or not?

I've had several requests to address the issue raised yesterday by an AP story that attempted to determine whether scientists approved of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

I hesitate to do this, because we've already discussed the issue a lot, notably here, here and here. However, I not only received a phone call from a reader wanting me to share the AP story with the skeptics who joined me for the film, I received several e-mails. Asher even commented about a rebuttal to the AP article. So here we go:

The gist of the AP story is that the organization contacted 100 climate scientists, including skeptics. Of those, 19 responded and had seen the film. According to the AP, all 19 said the film at least "mostly" got the science right. Appropriately enough, the scientists' main objection is the one I also raised, namely that the link between climate change and hurricane intensity is not yet a firm one.

Almost immediately, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works issued a rebuttal criticizing the AP's "methodology." It's worth noting that the committee is chaired by Sen. James Inhofe, who has famously called global warming a "great hoax."

The committee's letter reiterates the objections of a few scientists, many of whom are recognizable from a group of skeptics regularly cited by those who deny that humans have played a major role in warming up the planet.

Here are my views on the topic: it's possible the skeptics are right, but I tend to doubt it. It is possible to find dissenters on almost any topic (there are those who contend the Holocaust did not take place). That doesn't make the skeptics bad people, (unless, however, their views really are being influenced by corporations with a biased view.)

Let's be clear, however. The vast preponderance of scientists are arrayed against the skeptics, including the following organizations: United Nations IPCC, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, American Geophysical Union, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Even Saudi Arabians think it would be wise to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In short, the scientific debate over climate change, and the role of greenhouse gas emissions, is pretty much over. That is the science. If reporting this prevailing view of the scientific community makes me a biased reporter -- as some e-mailers to me have claimed -- then I guess I'm biased. I can live with that. I guess I'm also biased when I report that smoking is bad for you. (So you should quit, Matt!)

However, I think much of the current debate really revolves around what should be done to address a warming world. That is politics. That's an important distinction. Politicians are the right people to ultimately address what financial pain the country should endure for environmental gain. I just wish the opponents of action to improve the environment would stop distorting the views of a vast majority of climate scientists.