June 27, 2006

19 Out of 19 Activists Agree!

Hatched by Dafydd

All right, I know you guys love these: here is another "what is wrong with this picture?" conundrums....

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.

Now, imagining the "final Jeopardy" theme song in your head, figure out why those paragraphs made me laugh out loud. When you've got the answer, then slither on through the Slither On below!

Here is the key:

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion.... 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.

This is about as self-selected a group as it's possible to compose: climate scientists who actually take Algore seriously as a spokesman for the dangers of "global warming pollution!"

(While AP is quick to note that some of those they contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory," you may notice they oddly fail to mention how many of the 19 who responded to them were among those "skeptics." At a guess, I'd have to say -- zero?)

If you're a climatologist -- and even if you more or less support the IPCC position on global climate change -- how likely would you be to seek out a showing somewhere of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Most scientists I know cringe at such populist caricatures, even if they agree with the basic premise... especially if they agree.

Scientists tend to be irritated anyway by the depiction of science in movies, even so-called documentaries: everything from orbits that "decay," to explosions that can be "outrun," to a rotating space station that produces a gravitational-like force... directed along the axis of rotation.

But they're even more skeptical of science when the subject is controversial within the scientific community (which anthropogenic global warming certainly is) -- and in spades and doubled when the moviemaker is not himself a scientist but a politician with no formal training in any math or science beyond what he learned in high school (which, considering Algore's GPA at St. Alban's and at Harvard, was probably not very much).

Most climate scientists would steer so far away from An Inconvenient Truth, even if they supported global-warming theory, that they would probably pretend they didn't even know it existed. Those who went to pains to actively seek it out would be a special breed: scientists who were so tickled that someone as important as Albert A. Gore, jr. would make a movie about their crackpot theory, that they could hardly stop themselves from gushing.

I wish the Associated Press had thought to ask those 19 gushers who they thought had really won the 2000 election.

The very essence of scientific consensus is that every person must give an opinion; every position must be canvassed; all objections must be answered. If you contact 100 scientists and only 19% have seen some work, their opinion is not a consensus: at best, it's a sampling; but more likely, it's a biased pool that does not represent the whole.

If you really want to know what climatologists and atmospheric physicists think of An Inconvenient Truth, what you must do is select a pool of them representative of every major strain of thought within the community -- then arrange a viewing for them all. Get their opinions after they have all sat through the clunker, and then commit to publishing all of those opinions (not just "all the news we see fit to print!")

And while you're at it, arrange discussion sections with scientists who thought the movie was accurate and those who thought it was wildly off (the latter group including those who agreed with and those who disputed the globaloney hypothesis); have them discuss it. After they've discussed it for a few sessions, gather their opinions again: has anyone been persuaded to change his mind?

Now that is an article I'd like to see... but it's certainly not the article AP meant to print.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 27, 2006, at the time of 2:54 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/910

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 19 Out of 19 Activists Agree!:

» The AP Conducts A “Scientific” Poll from Flopping Aces
So let me get this straight. Out of 100 contacted, only 19 had seen the movie. And all 19 of them agreed with Gore. That’s 19%…..19 freaking percent agreed with Gore, and he has the gall to write this article in such a way as to convey ... [Read More]

Tracked on June 27, 2006 5:48 PM

» Inconvenient or Inconsequent? from SEIXON
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. [Read More]

Tracked on June 28, 2006 4:01 AM

» Activists Scientists Praise Gore Film? from Ex-Donkey Blog
Well, not exactly. Although the AP would like you to believe it. Yes, some "scientists" gave Gore's An Inconvenient Truth "five stars for accuracy" we need to take a closer look at this report. And the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works did... [Read More]

Tracked on June 28, 2006 6:30 AM

» Thoughts on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" from Mike's Noise
I am constantly amazed by scientists and others who place so much faith in Darwinism and natural selection -- theories that predict ever-changing diversity of life while denying the necessity of an outside force to influence these changes -- but who co... [Read More]

Tracked on June 28, 2006 10:08 AM

» AP gives Gore free plug for his ‘global warming’ documentary from Sister Toldjah
Dafydd at Big Lizards has caught the Associated Press puffing up Al Gore’s supposed-to-shock-youmentary “An Inconvenient Truth” - the AP requested opinions from 100 top scientists in the country, and only received 19 responses in turn... [Read More]

Tracked on June 28, 2006 3:37 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Big D

I find it shocking the people see a movie they are predisposed to liking. How very undemocratic.

Also - Why should the scientific analyses of the movie be any better than the scientific analyses in the movie.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 4:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Dafydd, I am constantly amazed at your self-control... how could you resist the best line in the article?

"My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."
~Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus


It is as you say... the AP deigns to report only on those who have not only seen the movie but will agree to give quotes on it to the Associated Press. I'm sure many more who saw it would want to respond to it, but only in an arena that they trust to quote them correctly and in context, like an established Scientific Journal. In a culture of extreme political charge like Acedemia, getting misquoted on a trigger issue like this one could be a career ender.

I wonder how many of those who responded to the AP are actually.... naw, that would be ungracious of me to ask.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 6:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Whoops... just read Drudge. Seems that a Congressional Committee takes issue with that AP article as well.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 6:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Arrrgh.... must link a link to a word.

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

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 6:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mescalero

How many of these "activists" were associated with the notoroius "nuclear winter" fiasco? Remember that--mass nuclear war would create horrendous amounts of "soot" to block out the sun so we on Earth would freeze to death in short order!

Excuse me, but doesn't the production of large amounts of carbon soot imply combustion of carbonaeous materials, and doesn't that imply the generation of large amounts of carbon dioxide? Thank God Karl Sagan isn't around to propagate this latest piece of liberal-Democrat fear mongering hypocrisy!

The above hissed in response by: Mescalero [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 8:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Sorry, Dafydd -- you got it wrong.

The NYT's masthead motto is actually "All the news that fits, we print."

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 8:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 9:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

The NYT's masthead motto is actually "All the news that fits, we print."

I always thought it was All the News We See Fit to Print.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 27, 2006 11:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Infidel

Hmmm...really? Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

I wonder how many of those 19 are raking in
bountious government research grant money?

The above hissed in response by: Infidel [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2006 8:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Cousin Dave

Mescalero: I will say this much for Sagan, who was generally a level-headed sort. Before he died, he admitted that the science behind the "nuclear winter" theory was bad, and he expressed his regret at having promoted it. Sagan had a good rep in skeptic circles as a reliable debunker of bad science. Nuclear winter was his one big screwup.

The above hissed in response by: Cousin Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2006 12:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I always thought it was All the News We See Fit to Print.

I gotta admit, mine is a pretty old version. Yours certainly fits their current ideological bent better.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2006 6:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Cousin Dave:

Before he died, he admitted that the science behind the "nuclear winter" theory was bad, and he expressed his regret at having promoted it.

Sadly, however, after having admitted he had miscalculated how many missiles it would take to kick up enough dust to create a "nuclear winter"... Sagan continued using the original number in debates.

He admitted his error because it was forcibly pointed out to him, and he was in a venue where he could not escape the admission. But when he was in other venues, where the audience presumably didn't know about his error -- he repeated it, in full knowledge of the miscalculation.

I have never been a big fan of Carl Sagan. Among other things --

  • He was at the forefront of those trying to kill the manned space program (a 180 degree turnabout from his early days on the Gemini and Apollo programs);
  • He was at the vanguard trying to kill the Strategic Defense Initiative (he and Sidney Drell, former Deputy Director of SLAC);
  • And he was the most prominent name among those who successfully suppressed (for a time) the publication of that silly book by Velikovsky, Worlds In Collision... which was certainly wrong to the point of ludicrousness, but which still should not have been suppressed.

He was one of those scientists who insisted that evolutionary theory and God were incompatible, thereby helping create a litmus test where conservatives and religious people often feel compelled to deny evolution to show their religious bona fides.

(In fact, there is no dichotomy: you can be traditionally religious and believe in evolution; you can be an atheist and believe in evolution.)

I love his popularization of science; I love his debunking of UFOlogy; I loved his deconstruction of Velikovsky, showing how impossible was that fairy tale.

(If it were true that hydrocarbons falling from a comet were mistaken by the ancient Hebrews for carbohydrates -- manna -- falling from heaven, and that they could eat those for forty years... then I don't think we'd ever be able to put the shattered pieces of physical law back together again!)

I loved SETI, and I loved his early work with the space program. I even liked the original idea, but not the execution, of CSICOP, of which he was a charter member.

But like most left-liberals, the older Carl Sagan got, the less lovable were his causes.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2006 8:24 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved