Scientists are responding to Al Gore’s alarmist movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
“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.”
And checkout this JunkScience.com analysis.
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, writes that there is a climate of fear and intimidation present:
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Hopefully the movie will stimulate debate, rather than stifle it.
June 14th, 2006 - 3:43 pm
Rich,
I read these articles. I find them to be very credible rebuttles to Al Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe. In fact, if someone was looking for a credible rebuttle to Al Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe I would point them right to your site.
June 27th, 2006 - 9:24 pm
from the AP
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.
June 28th, 2006 - 5:55 pm
You reference a very flawed article from the AP. Here’s an analysis:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/06/19_out_of_19_ac.html
August 24th, 2006 - 4:59 pm
I’ve seen the movie. I spend a lot of time with the folks who are studying the impact of global warming, especially the impact in the Arctic. It’s real. It’s very serious. The undeniable consensus among the scientists who study this is that global warming is happening and that CO2 is a major contributor.
But if you are part of the minority who are still on the big river in Africa, consider the pot odds: if there is doubt, which is going to be cheaper over the enxt 50 years? Fixing the problem now or taking the chance of the kinds of consequences that could result?