« Home | Your Tax Dollars And How They Are Spent » | US "Plan" to Leave Iraq » | The Iraq War, a Moral Essay » | More Crazy Talk From the Global Warming Cult » | Patriotism (An Oldie But Goodie) » | Open Mouth, Insert Foot (President and the Press C... » | The Incontinent Truth About “An Inconvenient Truth... » | Leftist Agenda Just Not Having a Good Day » | Be Proud of Your Government, Be Proud » | Zarqawi Is Dead, Are You Happy Or Mad? (And Whats ... » 

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 

Global Warming Cult Gets Help From AP Reporters

From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

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.”

This report then goes on to site some specific critics that the AP failed to mention:

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.

Yet again, there are willing accomplices in this charade of Gore’s movie. My view is often attacked by saying that all scientists that refute global warming are on the oil/industry payroll. I think you’ll find that all scientists that support global warming on getting paid by the scare it produces. Many of them wouldn’t have a job if there wasn’t some fictional crisis to study.

And what about Gore, why would he do this? What does he have to gain? Well, actually a couple of things:

1. He is a politician, and they love themselves, and love the spotlight. This has regained that attention after losing the election to Bush six years ago.

2. After being the Vice President of the United States of America, did you really expect him to go back to being an Investigative Reporter?

|