As I walk out the door on my two-week vacation, I submit this excerpt from an important AP article about the most important movie of our lifetime:
Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tue Jun 27, 9:15 PM ET
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."
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 said, "I was on the edge of my chair."
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tue Jun 27, 9:15 PM ET
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."
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 said, "I was on the edge of my chair."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
Enjoy your vacation, Alan. I'll miss your articles while you're gone.
The graphics were way beyond anything I'd seen before. The correlation between co2 and temperature was incontovertable. The trend of the co2 emissions was particularly scary...and Gore presented the projected growth in these emissions very effectively by taking some sort of lift up about thirty feet in the air.
And, perhaps not coincidentally, as we read this and comment, the Deleware River is cresting and all the bridges between New Jersey and Pennsylvania have been closed. When was the last time that happened.
I think - or at least hope - that the American people are catching on to the administration's in-your-face attitude with respect to environmental and military issues and the extent that it panders to big business, at everyone else's expense.
Tropical moisture can cause flooding. Ask the residents of Houston. Hurricanes have storm surges associated with them. Much of New Orleans is located below sea level. Linking Hurricanes with global warming is probably not the way to gain creditability. There are global weather patterns.
Solving the problems of the industrial world will not be easy. There are many places trying to become the new industrial growth engines (China, India, and others in the emerging world). Managing a growing economy is probably difficult enough. Dealing with a shrinking economy is worse.
How will we get China to cooperate on meeting global reductions of CO2 emmissions? Don't they have enough problems managing their own water systems? Rivers and Benzene come to mind.
China is a member of the Kyoto Accord, at least. The U.S. and Australia are the only sizable countries that are not, and since Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere, its involvement is not so important. The question should be - How does the rest of the world get the U.S. - the largest contributor of CO2 - to cooperate?
You say: "Tropical moisture can cause flooding."
As the icecaps melt more less heat from the sun is reflected and more heat is absorbed into the earth. The warmer oceans fuel the hurricanes which cause increased surges and flooding. Do you disagree with this. I don't get your point here.
Finally, those who prepared this movie and slide show allegedly took great pains to be accurate. Scientists who have seen it agree that it is. You say you think some of the temperatures are incorrect. Can you be more specific?
Yet there is another contributiion perhaps more significant. The current US Congress and Administration is dominated by a branding mentality. Karl Rove and company have had political success in defining away political enemies and trivializing real science by offering pseudo-scientific counter theories. These are then distributed for mass consumption through a carefully constructed noise machine headed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and echoed cooperation from major media outlets.
Gore has shown how real science can and should trump blind ideology. I'm hoping his logic and incisive use of facts carries over into other substantive policy areas. We can't afford to waste any more time pursuing issues like banning Gay marriage and flag burning when world peace and climate catastrophe get short shrift.
A classic pseudo-scientific counter theory.