V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
> And $300M for propaganda. I wonder how much Ford spent promoting the
> Edsel?
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
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."
> And $300M for propaganda. I wonder how much Ford spent promoting the
> Edsel?
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
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."
5POj.53111$dA2.52089@read2.cgocable.net...
