Gore’s movie gets five stars for accuracy
By on Jun 27th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Damn straight. Do you think Gore would’nt have done his homework? Do you think Gore wasn’t anticipating attacks from the Right?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pmMan, talk about a good role model.
Gore has always been a favorite of mine.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:27 pmSaw it, loved it! Go Gore!
June 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pmRate that article UP. The freepers are going at it, obviously.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:33 pmtoo bad he didn’t have the nads to do anything while in the whitehouse
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pmThis film is a compelling argument for trying to stop Global Warming and it’s a well made documentary. Pity our dictator won’t see it.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:42 pmbut there’s a guy with a sandwich board and a drool cup standing at the corner of my block and screaming that Global Warming is just a myth!!!
so…
June 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pmIt’s a “debate”!!!!
Yeah, “scientists.” Hmmpf…
June 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pm/sarcasm off
Report Card:
Gore: A+
Bush: F-
But, we already knew that, didn’t we?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHey, I know!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:16 pmBush should create a “Science Czar” and put a Big Oil Fundraiser in charge of it!!!
yeah!!!
that would be…
consistent.
I hear Gore deliver the Opening Ceremony speech to the 1996 ParaOlympic games in Atlanta. It was the first time I’d heard him speak that he sounded like a leader. I remember being impressed as hell. Too bad he never got to do the job he was hired to do in 2000. I think he was a good second in command but would be an amazing President.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm“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.” Let me get this straight: The LLL Mo0nb@+ scientist (the only kind that would see his stupid movie) AGREE that he is right? Well I am convinced and since the world is doomed lets have one huge party and trash the whole thing. It’s reporting like this that lets you LLL down all the time: Truthful but Imcomplete. I also heard that 9 out of 10 liberals plan to vote for a Democrat this year; therefore, all the Democrats should win, right?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pmBravo to Al Gore and I do hope he runs for president in 2008 > Hillary Clinton is a skank!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pmlets have one huge party and trash the whole thing.
Sounds like a Republican plan. Or we could have leaders who will actually do something about it. Kerry is off to a good start:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062606R.shtml
June 27th, 2006 at 4:31 pmIn the past, Al Gore has made his environmental positions a big part of his message, notably in his book “Earth in the Balance”, which sold well. We don’t critique candidates’ policy positions, but some of that may come back to haunt him by making him look extreme, trendy or hypocritical.
Gore runs the risk of being shown up as a hypocrite, the way Mike Dukakis was in 1998 after Boston Harbor’s pollution problem was exposed.
One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.
Another example is a Gore family property that has been mined for zinc and germanium for decades. The Vice-President and his dad, the late Senator Albert Gore, Sr., obtained the land in a very favorable deal with the late Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum. Gore, Sr. was heavily supported by Hammer financially, and carried his water in the U.S. Senate.
Back in 1972, when zinc was discovered across the river from the Gore family land in Carthage, TN, Hammer sent engineers out and offered $20,000 per year for a mineral rights lease on some property owned by a church that had been willed the land. Instead, they wanted to sell and Hammer won a bidding war to buy the land for $160,000. He then sold it to Gore Jr. and Sr. for the same amount, and immediately started leasing the land back from him for the same $20,000. Lynwood Burkhalter, who in the 70s was president of the company that assumed this lease from Occidental Petroleum, called the payments “extraordinarily large.”
Mining is, of course, a very messy business environmentally. The mine itself hasn’t been that bad. Republicans have claimed that it’s polluting the local drinking water, but according to the Wall Street Journal those problems “are actually very minor.” However, the Journal notes that the plant in Clarksville TN, which processes the Gore minerals, is a federal Superfund site contaminated with cadmium and mercury, posing “a threat to the human food chain.”
June 27th, 2006 at 4:36 pmCome to think of it, having “one huge party and trash[ing] the whole thing” sounds specifically like a Bush plan…
June 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pmIt’s not a Superfund site anymore, Randy. Bush eliminated the Superfund program.
That makes him better for you, right?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:39 pmTo the republican soldier who has made the assumption that the top 100 climate scientists must be liberals.
Your probably right.
It takes brains to be a scientist.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAs 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.
I love this quote – his wife represents the way the majority of America feels about this issue. The data is doctored, the facts are fixed and the movie is boring.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmRandy– Who says Gore’s running? His favorite cause is getting lots of attention. And it looks like other pols are taking up his cause.
I know that this line of thinking isn’t very intriguing for political hack types, but making a life out of doing things pro bono has its appeal. Just look at recent Bill Gates…
June 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pmMore like the data is extensive, the facts are accurate but if there’s no car chases or explosions middle America thinks it’s boring.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pmRandy, you know I life facts and links. Serve them up. Here are mine:
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/index_np.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
June 27th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWhile President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales have publicly called for the extension of the Voting Rights Act, behind the scenes the White House and Congressional GOP are working to undermine it.
For the details, see:
June 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pm“Republican Plantation Politics.”
I look out the window and the air is brown ,I need a climate scientist to tell me there”s a problem? I’d breath a lot easier if people had just a modicrum of common sense !
June 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pmOh please. 19 scientists respond out of 100, and only a few are actually quoted by the AP. Among them are Schlesinger, who is the scientist who is behind research claiming that the sea level will rise 20 feet – something no other scientists agree with. Of course he would say that Al Gore said everything right, Gore is using his research in making his ridiculous claims.
The IPCC and the Nationa Academy of Sciences says 0.1 to 0.9 meters, while Schlesinger and Gore say 20 feet. Who to believe? Well, the Associated Press sure let’s us know!
What a complete crock. This is propaganda, plain and simple. You can all just read this article and see that this is completely BS.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#26 – Thanks for your contribution…um…George Gooding.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:15 pm:-D
Alright, adding Zookeeper to the list of people violating Think Progress rules…
June 27th, 2006 at 6:24 pm#28 – Is that list going into my “permanent file,” George? Just something I saw on a thread…
June 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pmPoor Seixy can’t escape his past.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:59 pmJPark,
What does my past have to do with anything being discussed here? Oh, nothing. Why was it brought up? Because people at this site are dishonest and smear-mongering filth who seek to intimidate rather than debate.
I don’t seek to escape my past, there’s nothing there haunting me, but I would appreciate to have my privacy along with everyone else here. I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to have my privacy while everyone else is allowed to have theirs.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pmI don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to have my privacy while everyone else is allowed to have theirs.
Comment by Seixon
Like you haven’t googled everyone of us by now, George. These are the names I use online: Zookeeper & Luna. Knock yourself out, boyo.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:42 pmBut did they run it by Michael Crichton?
June 27th, 2006 at 11:00 pmThe IPCC and the Nationa Academy of Sciences says 0.1 to 0.9 meters, while Schlesinger and Gore say 20 feet. Who to believe? Well, the Associated Press sure let’s us know!
What a complete crock. This is propaganda, plain and simple. You can all just read this article and see that this is completely BS.
Comment by Seixon — June 27, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Norway Bob, There you go again. If I was trying to find the exact right spot to build my house incase ALL the ice sheets melt then 3ft 20ft or more would be real important I would want to know the exact elavation. Your one twisted dude.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pmMajority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 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.â€
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.â€
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.â€- 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?â€- 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.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:35 pmInconvenient or Inconsequent?…
The Associated Press attempts to whitewash Al Gore’s movie. Don’t be fooled. Read what the scientists actually have to say, not what the Associated Press wants you to think….
June 28th, 2006 at 6:55 amYou know, i’d just like to see the damn thing.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:48 amHere 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.â€- 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?â€- 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.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:19 amGreen Guru Gore (a poem)
The frighteningly frantic Al Gore can be seen
Jetting around the world painting it green.
The fossil fuels used to carry this guru
Might kill a rain forest, if his words were really true.
Of this teller of tales, this dreamer of fantasy,
One might ask the question, “But why on earth can’t he see
The world of serious historic climatology?â€.
Science requires nothing less from him than apology.
To seize on a topic and make it one’s own
In order to ascend a political throne,
Is nothing new. It has been used before,
Even by the insatiable Mr. Gore.
But now as he seeks support far and wide,
One has to admit there might be another side.
Many a researcher and history buff,
With educated background, has had enough
Of this worn out, used up discredited theory
And has with this blathering grown ever more weary.
The time has gone, the time is wrong
To use this to frighten a gullible throng.
Hanging onto something that can be discredited
Hasn’t the substantial clout he once bet it did.
Mimi Evans Winship 6 27 06
June 28th, 2006 at 8:53 amAntagonist: 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…” according to the Canadian Free Press
This article was written by PR flacks. Tim Lambert has the rundown:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php
June 28th, 2006 at 11:28 amThanks for the link JJ,
However it only serves to further muddy the water for me. There’s two extremes at work here, in regards to global warming. One extreme paints a bleak picture, and the other extreme is in total denial. Closer to the middle, one side lists scientists who affirm the man-caused reasons for global warming, repleat with charts, graphs, and scientific data—while the other side lists scientists who deny the man-caused reasons for global warming, repleat with charts, graphs, and scientific data. Both sides claim that the other is wrong. Both sides attack the messengers of the other. So who do you believe? I’m not a scientist. all the charts, graphs, and scientific data in the world do nothing to persuade me to believe one way or the other. Besides, I wouldn’t know correct data from incorrect data. It seems to me that the actual science has been swallowed up in politics, and it’s become impossible to get unbiased imformation.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pmTest
June 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pmIt’s not so difficult, Antagonist, even without scientific knowledge.
I assume that a study may be not biased if the author/s aren’t payed directly by someone interested in demonstrate a thing who benefits that someone. Example: the (few) “scientifics” payed by the Oil Industry to write articles against Global Warming. I assume they are biased, because are payed by a company not interested in Global Warming being true, because, if not contended (even with lies), they will lose a great share of income.
Also, look at the signature of the writer: if it says only “MBA” or anything alike, maybe he doesn’t know enough of science to be a trustable source. But if you see MIT, Harvard, Nobel Prize, etc in the signature, specially in areas related to climatology…
And if you see someone signing as metheorologist, but he has no works published in the late 30 years…
Even not knowing science, Internet makes too easy to check the truth.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pmThanks Evil Spaniard, good advice. That helps a little.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pmAntagonist,
Basically, Al Gore and his ilk are exaggerating and misleading about the science. That’s basically all you need to know. The rest of the scientists are not on board with their Al Gore ‘08 gravy train, so they just keep mum about the whole thing. Then you have the “skeptics” who think human-made global warming is a bunch of crock. The Al Gore club loves pretending they don’t exist and that they are all oil-company stooges, which they aren’t. As you can see, there’s one side doing a lot more lying about the issue than the other, conveniently the same side that has a movie out, and the one getting quoted in the media.
Makes you wonder.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pmStewart
This sure as heck beats reading Playboy in the dark wth a flashlight.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:04 pmonline university mba
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:23 amAttorney Bankruptcy Carolina In North
Thanks for this post!
April 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am