• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

AP incorrectly claims scientists praise Gore's movie (1 Viewer)

Little-Acorn

Banned
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
216
Reaction score
5
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Even seven-year-olds know better then to tell an obvious lie - it's far too easy to get caught. Looks like the AP has a lot of learnin' to do, to get up to that level.

-------------------------------

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

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.”

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


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
 
Gee, I don't know. From all the posts I've seen on other sites, a lot of people bought it. The typical topic heading is, "Scientists support Gore's Movie."
 
I think that a news story from the Associated Press is a lot more reliable and balanced than a press release from a website ending in senate.gov.

It seems that the general consensus is that Gore's movie captured the basic science extremely well. Of course there are a few dissenters. But I wonder how long these senators (with an agenda to push) had to spend looking for such scientists, implying that they make up a large portion of the scientific community.
 
Kandahar said:
I think that a news story from the Associated Press is a lot more reliable and balanced than a press release from a website ending in senate.gov.

It seems that the general consensus is that Gore's movie captured the basic science extremely well. Of course there are a few dissenters. But I wonder how long these senators (with an agenda to push) had to spend looking for such scientists, implying that they make up a large portion of the scientific community.


That's why you rarely know what is going on in your world.....really!:shock:
 
Kandahar said:
I think that a news story from the Associated Press is a lot more reliable and balanced than a press release from a website ending in senate.gov.

It seems that the general consensus is that Gore's movie captured the basic science extremely well. Of course there are a few dissenters. But I wonder how long these senators (with an agenda to push) had to spend looking for such scientists, implying that they make up a large portion of the scientific community.
Most people don't trust journalists much more than they trust politicians. Liberals probably trust journalists a lot more than conservatives do.

Where's the evidence of this consensus?
 
Who controls the Senate? Those who give the money. Who controls the press? Those who give the money. Who gives the money to the Senate EPW? Oil. Don't trust the EPW, thank you very much...but I don't trust most journalists besides NPR or PBS either. Those are the only publicly funded ones that I can trust.
 
The movie explains, in very easy to understand terms, and very hard to dispute terms, that global tempurature track with global atmospheric carbon content. And it starts to speak to the broader message: the current GOP policies are selling out American interests on defence, economic, and environmental security - just so the US oil companies can keep pumping money into the pockets of America's enemies, while cyphening a bit off the top for themselves.

I don't care what the AP, the Senete GOP leadership, Bush, or even Gore, has to say about the facts; I care about the facts themselves. The scientific evidence presented in the movie is hard to dispute. The fact that Al Gore in narrating it, or produced it, or what the promo poster has on it, doesn't really matter. The movie should be judged on its scientific content.

Why don't people stop quoting the VERY FEW scientists that disagree, and watch the damn movie so they can actually debate the facts and conclusions. The GOP must be reaching pretty deep if they are quoting former professors from the University of Winnipeg!

Is everyone so in capable of comprehending something more complicated than American Idol that they have to settle for quoting a .GOV website to try and throw cheap shots at the movie?

It is not about the movie; it is about the facts in the movie. They are VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

To everyone on this site who has spent more than 90 minutes debating Global Warming on this site, they should be able to find time to watch the movie. And if a movie comes out promoting carbon burning you have my word I will watch it BEFORE I START TRASHING IT. Even if it is from the American Petrolum Institute.
 
Last edited:
python416 said:
The movie explains, in very easy to understand terms, and very hard to dispute terms, that global tempurature track with global atmospheric carbon content. And it starts to speak to the broader message: the current GOP policies are selling out American interests on defence, economic, and environmental security - just so the US oil companies can keep pumping money into the pockets of America's enemies, while cyphening a bit off the top for themselves.

I don't care what the AP, the Senete GOP leadership, Bush, or even Gore, has to say about the facts; I care about the facts themselves. The scientific evidence presented in the movie is hard to dispute. The fact that Al Gore in narrating it, or produced it, or what the promo poster has on it, doesn't really matter. The movie should be judged on its scientific content.

Why don't people stop quoting the VERY FEW scientists that disagree, and watch the damn movie so they can actually debate the facts and conclusions. The GOP must be reaching pretty deep if they are quoting former professors from the University of Winnipeg!

Is everyone so in capable of comprehending something more complicated than American Idol that they have to settle for quoting a .GOV website to try and throw cheap shots at the movie?

It is not about the movie; it is about the facts in the movie. They are VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

To everyone on this site who has spent more than 90 minutes debating Global Warming on this site, they should be able to find time to watch the movie. And if a movie comes out promoting carbon burning you have my word I will watch it BEFORE I START TRASHING IT. Even if it is from the American Petrolum Institute.
If I was a climatologist, it would be easier to decide whether I should believe Al Gore, or a .gov website. Since I'm not a climatologist, why should I necessarily believe that Al Gore's "facts" are indeed facts, and disbelieve the .gov website?
 
mpg said:
If I was a climatologist, it would be easier to decide whether I should believe Al Gore, or a .gov website. Since I'm not a climatologist, why should I necessarily believe that Al Gore's "facts" are indeed facts, and disbelieve the .gov website?

If you won't believe Al Gore, fine, but you should believe the Associated Press. Journalists may occasionally let their political opinions seep into their reporting (although not as often as some people believe), but at least they aren't personally lining their pockets with lobbyist money the way politicians are. This is why the Associated Press is a more reliable source for accurate information than the US Senate. A journalist does not stand to gain or lose as much from pushing a certain agenda as a senator does.
 
Kandahar said:
If you won't believe Al Gore, fine,
:shock: :shock:

*** "IF"??? ***

but you should believe the Associated Press.

Oh, stop, man, yer killin me here.....


:lol: . . . . . :rofl
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If you won't believe Al Gore, fine, but you should believe the Associated Press. Journalists may occasionally let their political opinions seep into their reporting (although not as often as some people believe), but at least they aren't personally lining their pockets with lobbyist money the way politicians are. This is why the Associated Press is a more reliable source for accurate information than the US Senate. A journalist does not stand to gain or lose as much from pushing a certain agenda as a senator does.
IMO, the AP didn't offer enough facts to back up their opinion.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Even seven-year-olds know better then to tell an obvious lie - it's far too easy to get caught. Looks like the AP has a lot of learnin' to do, to get up to that level.

-------------------------------

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

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.”

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

Junk science, its quite appropriately named.

"JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

Oh, and Steven J. Milloy, a paid advocate for Phillip Morris [1], ExxonMobil [2] and other corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

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 )

Let's see you pitting the opinion of a politician against one of the top climatologists in the world. Just the same, the "hockey stick" has since been confirmed by no less than 6 peer reviewed studies, and now has been bolstered by the findings of The National Academy of Sciences after an exhaustive study and peer review on the subject.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

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.

Yeah, and if you had even a basic understanding of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming, you would know that deforestation is one of the factors in Anthorpogenic Global Warming.

Moreover, a study just completed, and found through multiple lines of evidence that glaciers worldwide are melting at a higher rate than in at least 5,200 years.

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=1038881


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

Bob Carter is a contributing writer for Tech Central Station. Tech Central Station is a propaganda arm of the DCI Group. Now I bet you are wonder "What is this DCI Group"? Well the DCI Group is: is a American lobbying and public relations firm. Its client list includes some of the largest US corporations, including several Dow Jones Industrial companies.

Otherwise, its a lobbying firm for the chemical industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI_Group


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

Richard S. Lindzen is probably the most qualified of the few actual scientists that are Global Warming Skeptics. However, he doesn't deny that they earth is indeed warming, he simply does not believe that it is necessarily warming due to human activity. Oh, and also, he is conservative and has done consulting work for the Fossil Fuels Industry.

Now, as to this absurd notion that there is no scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Just because a handful of scientists disagree with a theory does not mean that there is not a consensus. It is simply the peer review process in action. Just the same, in this case, virtually all of the scientists who disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming theory have financial ties to the fossil fuels industry.

There is a strong scientific consensus on Global Warming. Every major scientific society with expertise in climate in the western world officially backs the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The American Meteorological Societies official position is here:

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climat...arch_2003.html

The National Academy of Sciences official position is here:

http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.ns...e?OpenDocument

The American Association for the Advancement of Science official position is here:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...6climate.shtml

The American Geophysical Union's official position is here:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/cl..._position.html

If you believe that an American Scientific Society exists with expertise in Climate that officially disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming, then please provide one. Here is a list of the websites of every major scientific society in the United States:

http://www.aaas.org/international/intlinks/profsoc.htm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (represents every major nation on earth and over 3000 climatologists) website is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

A list of scientists who authored their last assessment is available here:

http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/SRCCS_AppendixIV.pdf

So to sum it up:

Anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming: A handful of scientists, many with financial ties to the Fossil Fuels industry, and a large number of industry and ideologically funded think tanks.

Anthropogenic Global Warming: Every scientific society with expertise in climate in the western world, who together collectively represent the views of tens of thousands of scientists. The IPCC, which assessment represents the findings of some 3000 Climate Scientists from virtually every nation on earth, and the vast majority of scientists who have submitted works for peer review on this subject.
 
mpg said:
If I was a climatologist, it would be easier to decide whether I should believe Al Gore, or a .gov website. Since I'm not a climatologist, why should I necessarily believe that Al Gore's "facts" are indeed facts, and disbelieve the .gov website?

Watch the movie and then tell me that. What is given in the movie is pretty straight forward. All the GOP website does is quote a bunch of people. Why don't you watch the movie and make up your own mind?

You can get it off torrentspy for free. And if you have time to _debate_ on this site, you got time to watch the movie.
 
what is the political motivation to ignore global warming and discredit the science of global warming, and to deny the clear, unmistakable consensus among mainstream, serious, environmental scientist?

Big business and the perceived cost to big business.

What is the political motivation for pushing an unpopular, loser of an issue such as global warming, an issue that most of us would like to ignore right along with the Bushies and little-acorns of the world?

Nothing. A few thousand hippie votes maybe?
 
Kandahar said:
If you won't believe Al Gore, fine

how could anybody not beleive the man who was such a genius he was able to help create, one of mankinds greatest advances, the internet:roll:

he is the epitome of the unhinged left wing
 
DeeJayH said:
how could anybody not beleive the man who was such a genius he was able to help create, one of mankinds greatest advances, the internet:roll:

he is the epitome of the unhinged left wing

Actually, he never said that. He said that he lead the fight in congress to fund it in the 80s. Which is absolutely correct.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, he never said that. He said that he lead the fight in congress to fund it in the 80s. Which is absolutely correct.
I've seen him make fun of himself for saying that. He also said that the book "Love Story" was written about him, to which the author replied "What?". He also claimed to bring the Love Canal to national attention.
 
mpg said:
If I was a climatologist, it would be easier to decide whether I should believe Al Gore, or a .gov website. Since I'm not a climatologist, why should I necessarily believe that Al Gore's "facts" are indeed facts, and disbelieve the .gov website?

How about the fact that Bush Cheney and Rice are all big oil people and it is in Big Oil's interest to pretend that global warming doesn't exist? Rice had a freaking tanker named after her!

Or that Bush left the position of Science advisor unfilled for about a year?

Or that Bush demoted the Science advisor postion from it's former cabinet level status?

Or that Bush wants creationism taught in schools?

How's that for a start?
 
mpg said:
I've seen him make fun of himself for saying that. He also said that the book "Love Story" was written about him, to which the author replied "What?". He also claimed to bring the Love Canal to national attention.

Either way, in the end it would not matter if Al Gore had claimed to be the messiah, on the the issue of global warming, as I have shown in my above post, he has a strong scientific concensus behind his assertions.
 
wonder cow said:
what is the political motivation to ignore global warming and discredit the science of global warming, and to deny the clear, unmistakable consensus among mainstream, serious, environmental scientist?

Big business and the perceived cost to big business.

What is the political motivation for pushing an unpopular, loser of an issue such as global warming, an issue that most of us would like to ignore right along with the Bushies and little-acorns of the world?

Nothing. A few thousand hippie votes maybe?

Yes you have hit it on the head my friend. And it is all result of the media campaign of the rightwing.

In actual reality, security is directly connected to Global Warming. The right is too inbed with oil to admit it, and to date the left hasn't had the stones to say it. But defense and economic security are being sold out everyday; just so the oil companies can keep getting rich.

The environment is the third point that shouldn'teven be brought up cause it is a loser issue that paints global warming as a pot smokers issue.

Global waarming messaging should revolve around one word: security.

How about someone standing up and saying that it is wrong to be funneling money into the hands of our enemies in a time of war? How about someone standing up and saying that we should be working towards the leadership position in the emerging economy for new energy technologies?
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
How about the fact that Bush Cheney and Rice are all big oil people and it is in Big Oil's interest to pretend that global warming doesn't exist? Rice had a freaking tanker named after her!

Or that Bush left the position of Science advisor unfilled for about a year?

Or that Bush demoted the Science advisor postion from it's former cabinet level status?

Or that Bush wants creationism taught in schools?

How's that for a start?
None of that is relevant to the post you quoted.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Either way, in the end it would not matter if Al Gore had claimed to be the messiah, on the the issue of global warming, as I have shown in my above post, he has a strong scientific concensus behind his assertions.
You did a better job than jfuh because you provided this link:
http://www.aaas.org/international/intlinks/profsoc.htm

I'm too lazy to go through the whole thing to count how many societies believe that humans are playing a major role and how many believe that the consequences will be catastrophic. Have you done that? In the meantime, I'll assume that these theories are correct, because pollution is bad anyway. I'll keep my 4 cylinder car and try not to drive it too much. I'll also support things like higher taxes on fossil fuels. The one thing that I won't do is claim to KNOW that there's a consensus about all these things.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom