Welcome to Thunderdome

I saw that article earlier and chuckled.

19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)

Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.

Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.

That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree. That conclusion has no supporting evidence.

The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.

Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.

Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.

I think this goes back to your definition of WMDs in Iraq. You have a much looser standard for WMDs than, say, the White House or most of America. However, you have a much tighter definition of "changing the environment" in order to make a statement like that. The scientists who would make such a statement are not crackpots, they prolly just have a different view of it. "Changing" the environment doesn't mean "responsible for 100% of environmental changes." It means altering, affecting, modifying. Having an impact on.

Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.

Are you joking? Man indeed changes the environment.

That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree. That conclusion has no supporting evidence.

The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.

I went to go quote why I made that conclusion, but the article was changed. Originally, the part where it discusses "most of the scientists" was in the third paragraph, not the second. Thus, it was originally saying most of the 100 agreed with Gore's accuracy, not the 19.

In their defense, I'll say that maybe the author realized the problem and fixed it.

I will point out that the author specifically mentions that among the 100 scientists contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory". However, he doesn't mention if any of the 19 scientists who agreed with the film were those vocal skeptics. I wonder why he mentioned them then?

And while you mention the movie is in limited release and some people are going to refuse to answer the question, I notice you didn't bring up the possibility of scientists saying they weren't going to go see it at all. Another point not covered by the article.

I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming or that Gore's film is inaccurate, I'm just pointing out that the article Gordo linked to is rather friendly to Gore and his film.

After all, "the end of the world" sells more papers than "everything's going to be just fine."

The Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a joint press release about an AP article entitled "Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy."

The press release takes issue with the scientists the AP cited, as well as scientists it ignored.

Begin quoted bit ---> 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.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

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.”

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.

Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.

Are you joking? Man indeed changes the environment.

You fucking people fucking know what I mean. We're talking about global warming.

Turns out the US senate called the author on his "all top scientists agree" bullshit.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6138