Scientists OK Gore’s movie 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. —Seth BorensteinScientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy (LA Daily News)

But the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement that said,

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.

If a reporter called up 100 scientists to ask them whether they had seen the latest Jim Carrey movie, there’s a good chance that those scientists who were fans of Jim Carrey would be among the first to see that movie. Just imagine a headline that uses the same numbers: “Four out of five scientists surveyed ignored Gore movie” or “Survey: 19% of Scientists Support Gore’s Doomsday Flick.”

Protecting the environment is important, but can we do it without the alarmist and armageddonist factoids?