AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore's Movie

KevinR, as much as you are correct in your statements, it isn't proper and nor is it in concordance with the Newsvine Code of Honor to tell somebody to quit Newsvine. Even were somebody being ridiculously inflammatory and swearing at you and pulling out the ad hominem tactics, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.

The system is set up to take care of these sort of things. Use the exclamation point, label it as "No Value", refute the claims, and leave it at that.

by the by, agreeing with the "science" behind the movie without seeing the movie is suspect at best. Secondly by the way you tell it, they're agreeing with the idea the movie conveys not the science at all.

KevinR: You should note that this is the Majority Press Release, on a committee with ten Republicans, seven Democrats, and one Independent (with the Independent being the minority leader). It's not particularly accurate to use the minority members, without indication that they, too, support this statement, as supporting your apparent argument that this as being a non-political news release.

I'll try and address the items in the press release as best I can:

• Dr. Robert Correll is a member of the American Meteorological Society and regardless of his connections to Gore, is perfectly qualified to speak on the science within the film (at least as much as those who this press release presents as it's detractors). Here is Dr. Correll's testimony before Congress.
• It's almost ironic that this report would claim that last weeks National Academy study would refute Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph, when in fact, it supports the conclusions in Mann's study. Irregardless of the graph, there are a number of other studies and methods which result with the same conclusion: the earth is rapidly warming and human activity is the main cause. Real Climate has also written a thorough critique of Sen. Inhofe's misunderstanding of climate science, if you're interested.
• If Mt. Kilimanjaro were the only alpine glacier retreating (or the only one Gore mentions), this would be different. It isn't.
• Why should we be any more impressed with Bob Carter's credentials than those of Dr. Correll? While some of the circumstantial evidence may be tenable, the science of climate change is solid.
• There are many climate scientists who disagree with Dr. Lindzen, including one of his former colleagues. Further, I don't know of any climate modelling that doesn't include external forcing as well as C02 effects.
• I provided some links below on Naomi Oreskes' survey on climate change related articles, which don't seem to agree with how Lindzen saw them.
• Some information regarding the temperature readings in the Arctic and why they may be different than what would be expected (polar amplification). Here's some more information on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which might answer any other questions.

That's about all I've got the time and energy for at the moment. I hope this helps.

I don't know of any climate modelling that doesn't include external forcing

The problem I've found is that they include effects from the sun, but they may be static or just estimates. I haven't found many (if any long term) measurements of just how much energy the sun is providing to the earth.

Here's an article on Solar Forcing and some of the limitations of that theory. I certainly agree that there remains a great deal of uncertainty in solar data, but very little of that uncertainty points to it having a effect equal to or greater than anthropomorphic climate change.

Since when were the 100 scientists that the AP had the phone number for the entire science community. If you are looking for the so-called consensus on global warming, look to the Science study done on peer-reviewed journals over a ten year period. You, the one where not a single paper argued that that global warming wasn't occurring or that it wasn't caused by humans.

We need to stop having this whole "science consensus" argument anyway. Both sides have drawn this out to no end. Science isn't a democracy. The data shows global warming is happening and that humans are causing it. Gore is just the messenger and it's fine if you don't like him or don't want to watch his movie. However, stop arguing with data just because you don't like what it tells you.

All the naysayers can start producing peer-reviewed articles supporting their claims if they want people to agree with them. At least Gore has bothered to do that.

Sorry, I'm in the middle of a busy day, but I realized I owe to everyone to provide some background on some of the points I was getting at in the previous post. Here's a op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, who did the survey of peer reviewed journal pieces in Science I mentioned.

Here's Real Climate's William Connolley on consensus as it pertains to science and when it matters:

In normal practice, there is no great need to define [consensus] - no science depends on it. But it's useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG's. By "IPCC", people tend to mean WG I). Fortunately that report is available online for all to read at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/. Its a good idea to realise that though the IPCC report contains the consensus, it didn't form it. The IPCC process was supposed to be - and is - a summary of the science (as available at the time). Because they did their job well, it really is a good review/summary/synthesis.

I'd say, and I believe that Dr. Connolley and his colleagues would agree, that the recent NSA report with similar conclusions as well as An Inconvenient Truth also just express what the data has shown.

Here's Chris Mooney's very excellent point on peer-review:

[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they're willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.

The argument is with the AP story and the 19 scientists they were trying to promote as all scientists.

Very well, then. From the article in question:

The former vice president's movie… 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.

I don't think that says any more or less than the AP called up a bunch of scientists and, of the ones who had seen the film or read the book, they all agreed Gore got the science mostly right. You can spend all the time on the fact that the AP didn't call every single scientist in the country (or world) or you can focus on mostly. I'm focusing on the fact that when someone who doesn't seem to have an agenda actually bothers to watch something their asked to comment on, they agree that he got it right.

The AP headline said scientists not 19 scientists. Inferring that all scientists agree with Al Gore. Which has never been true.

You read into it what you like. I don't see how Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy infers all anymore than it infers some, many, most, a few, important, or nineteen random. The paragraph I quoted above makes the exact details of who agrees very clear.

If people can't read past the headline, then I doubt they really much care about global issues, what scientists think, or even that Al Gore is in a documentary film.

I'm not reading anything into anything. Their headline made a leading statement. That's all.

If people can't read past the headline,

Most don't ... which is why a leading headline shouldn't mislead.

So, the headline to this article then is misleading in that it indicates that all scientists in fact did not praise Gore's film (which is an equally false statement)? Should any noun in any headline be assumed to have an implied all before it? How far are you really willing to take that argument? I'm pretty much done right here.

Give me a break. You are arguing nothing.

then is misleading in that it indicates that all scientists in fact did not praise Gore's film (which is an equally false statement)?

This statement and the headline is indeed not false. All scientists did not praise Al Gore's film.

I'm pretty much done right here.

I hope so.

With respect to the headline, there was nothing misleading about it. That's how the AP does headlines because AP style always operates to be as concise as possible. If you saw a headline that said "Monkeys escape from local zoo" would you think that all the monkeys had escaped, or some of them?
If they had meant all scientists, they would have said all scientists. AP headlines are meant to be taken at face value with no assumed words stuck in there (assumed words like "All" or "Every").

Kevin, I'm sorry that this has reached what appears to be such a bitter argument and I'm equally to blame. Your on my friends list and I respect you a great deal. I just don't think what you're saying about this headline in question is really very rational. The headline simply doesn't imply any number, let alone all scientists. When a headline reads "Scientists Hold Conference to Discuss Cancer Treatments," no one thinks that it means each and every scientist. No one reading the headline regarding the Gore film would reasonably think any different.

You may disagree with me (on any number of topics). You may feel that the AP is biased. You may feel that Al Gore is incorrect. All of those are perfectly fine and valid. However, is it really worth our time to discuss some implied value where none really exists?