Scientists Ok Gore's Movie for Accuracy

[jasonxctf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science

[Rex Kickass]

Clearly, these scientists are biased.

[Soxy]

Clearly, these scientists are biased.

Everyone knows scientists are a bunch of pinko liberal commies anyway.

[jackie hayes]

Bush said he would not see it? Wow. Am I the only one who thinks that's a tonedeaf move, politically? There are a million ways to dismiss the idea without making it look as if you're shielding yourself from outside ideas.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bush said he would not see it? Wow. Am I the only one who thinks that's a tonedeaf move, politically? There are a million ways to dismiss the idea without making it look as if you're shielding yourself from outside ideas.

 

I have to paraphrase because I can't find it now, but GWB said that while he is "concerned" about global warming he thinks it's time to "move beyond" who/what to blame for it.

 

That tells you how concerned the Administration really is right there, as solutions can only emerge when the causes are identified by science and then governments do what is necessary to affect solutions.

 

With the Supremes ready to hear arguments and eventually rule on whether the Administration has a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse emissions, it's certainly no wonder they would like to move beyond assessing principal causes.

 

And, while not diminishing the significance of the GWB conservation move a couple of weeks back at declaration of the NW Hawaiian Islands a National Monument, the cynic in me now sees that the timing of that pro-environment move makes sense in light of the anti-conservation move the Administration knew they would soon be taking in defending their refusal to enforce the Clean water Act.

[WCSox]

Everyone knows scientists are a bunch of pinko liberal commies anyway.

 

Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie.

 

I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO.

[EvilMonkey]

Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie.

I cannot agree with that statement more. And if people think a scientist won't lie to protect his grant, they have their heads up their asses. They are as bad as politicians and earmarks. maybe worse.

[WCSox]

I cannot agree with that statement more. And if people think a scientist won't lie to protect his grant, they have their heads up their asses. They are as bad as politicians and earmarks. maybe worse.

 

A few scientists are and most academic scientists are liberals, but the vast majority of them don't mix their research with politics.

[jackie hayes]

I have to paraphrase because I can't find it now, but GWB said that while he is "concerned" about global warming he thinks it's time to "move beyond" who/what to blame for it.

 

That tells you how concerned the Administration really is right there, as solutions can only emerge when the causes are identified by science and then governments do what is necessary to affect solutions.

 

With the Supremes ready to hear arguments and eventually rule on whether the Administration has a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse emissions, it's certainly no wonder they would like to move beyond assessing principal causes.

 

And, while not diminishing the significance of the GWB conservation move a couple of weeks back at declaration of the NW Hawaiian Islands a National Monument, the cynic in me now sees that the timing of that pro-environment move makes sense in light of the anti-conservation move the Administration knew they would soon be taking in defending their refusal to enforce the Clean water Act.

 

I agree with all that, but I wasn't thinking so much about actual concern, just some fake political interest. I'd expect something like, 'Mr Gore feels very strongly about this issue, and I am looking forward to seeing his film as part of the ongoing debate about global warming.' Something where the WH gets in the 'no consensus on global warming' tomfoolery, instead of just admitting that it's going to hide from ideas it doesn't already agree with.

 

Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie.

 

I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO.

 

So the best way to get grants from a GOP dominated federal government is to publically back up the movie of one the nation's most prominent Dems...? How does that work?

[Rex Kickass]

Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie.

 

I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO.

 

Al Gore isn't the President. The administration which would have a hand in federal grants has an evironmental perview that's closer to the Coal industry commercials than Al Gore's movie. Given the administration's history of dealing with contrarians, legitimizing the viewpoints of Mr. Gore would be the last thing in their self interest with this scenario.

[WCSox]

Al Gore isn't the President. The administration which would have a hand in federal grants has an evironmental perview that's closer to the Coal industry commercials than Al Gore's movie. Given the administration's history of dealing with contrarians, legitimizing the viewpoints of Mr. Gore would be the last thing in their self interest with this scenario.

 

So, the Bush administration is going to throw environmental science professors in Gitmo for being "contrarian"?

 

Nice try, but Gore's movie has the ability to sway public opinion, which will ultimately affect who moves into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Researchers who rely on federal grant money have every motive under the sun to legitimize Gore's movie.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Here's the real question. Could anyone in here last 15 minutes in a movie made by Al Gore without falling asleep?

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Two words: Lockbox.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the Bush administration is going to throw environmental science professors in Gitmo for being "contrarian"?

 

Nice try, but Gore's movie has the ability to sway public opinion, which will ultimately affect who moves into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Researchers who rely on federal grant money have every motive under the sun to legitimize Gore's movie.

Actually, it has been shown multiple times in this very forum that scientists with agencies like NASA and NOAA have been told to reign in certain pieces of information, by the Administration.

[WCSox]

Actually, it has been shown multiple times in this very forum that scientists with agencies like NASA and NOAA have been told to reign in certain pieces of information, by the Administration.

 

I was talking about professors (like the ones cited in the article), not government employees. Their applications for federal grants are reviewed by their peers... not Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The Administration does not attempt to stop them from publishing their results in independent, peer-reviewed journals.

[jackie hayes]

I was talking about professors (like the ones cited in the article), not government employees. Their applications for federal grants are reviewed by their peers... not Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The Administration does not attempt to stop them from publishing their results in independent, peer-reviewed journals.

You seemed to be suggesting that if the Dems take the WH, these scientists will stand to benefit. Now you're saying that the administration ("Cheney and Rice") doesn't affect grant applications, that it only depends on peers -- who obviously can't change with a change of administration. So right now I'm just confused about what point you're trying make.

[WCSox]

You seemed to be suggesting that if the Dems take the WH, these scientists will stand to benefit. Now you're saying that the administration ("Cheney and Rice") doesn't affect grant applications, that it only depends on peers -- who obviously can't change with a change of administration. So right now I'm just confused about what point you're trying make.

 

I'm trying to make a few points...

 

(1) Environmental scientists stand to benefit from Gore's movie regardless of who's in office. The main point of Gore's movie (which I agree with, BTW) legitimizes the concept of global warming and the research programs that revolve around it. Gore's movie could affect public opinion, which could affect elections, which could affect overall federal funding for environmental research.

 

(2) A Dem in the WH (or Dem control of Congress) would also tend to benefit proponents of global warming, given that many of them run on environmentalist platforms. It's possible (even probable, if somebody with Gore's agenda occupies the WH in '09) that they could increase funding for environmental sciences.

 

(3) The Bush Administration has little control over scientists not directly employed by the federal government. They can't "silence" their results and they don't control whose grants get funded.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I was talking about professors (like the ones cited in the article), not government employees. Their applications for federal grants are reviewed by their peers... not Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The Administration does not attempt to stop them from publishing their results in independent, peer-reviewed journals.

 

An important point you are neglecting to consider is that the Administration and Congress DO set the research agenda for the nation by approving federal funding. Science funding by NSF, DOE, and NOAA (three of the bigggies for climate shange research dollars) has already fallen precipitously since 9/11 and the Iraq War. NOAA funding for my fields (ocean sciences) has all but disappeared these last few funding cycles.

 

Aa a matter of fact, I'm sitting at my desk at work right now, writing a final report for NOAA Sea Grant trying to convince them that I made wise use of the $296K they've given my group for over the last three years. I certainly believe we have, and all our interim reviews have been favorable. But we've been told in no uncertain terms not to count on a similar project grant any time in the foreseeable future because the funding just ain't there.

 

For now, the atmospheric side of NOAA is in better shape, funding-wise (we ocean heads cynically lament that NOAA now stands for "No Ocean, All Atmosphere"). But who is to say that the administration and their Congressional lackeys won't change tthe rresearch priorities if the don't like seeing mountains of anthropogenic climate change evidence continue to pile up?

 

Several prominent AAAS members already stuck their necks way out a couple of years ago when they signed an open letter to GWB admonishing him for being strongly anti-science, for caving to industry instead of crafting policy based on sound science. Now tell me the stage is not now set for abuse and coercion. Is it really so far fetched that the White House might have a list of blacklisted scientists that start losing their funding 'for budgetary reasons?'

 

There also is hesitancy at the institutional level in some places to let scientists publish certain findings because it may thrreaten funding sources. Thtat's a chilling thing to contemplate as a scientist who believes in free information exchange.

 

(3) The Bush Administration has little control over scientists not directly employed by the federal government. They can't "silence" their results and they don't control whose grants get funded.

 

Not true, see above post.

 

If congress says NSF, NOAA, DOE get gutted, they get gutted. If the White House and Congress decide to fund NASA or more cancer research instead of atmospheric research, they get gutted.

[jackie hayes]

I'm trying to make a few points...

 

(1) Environmental scientists stand to benefit from Gore's movie regardless of who's in office. The main point of Gore's movie (which I agree with, BTW) legitimizes the concept of global warming and the research programs that revolve around it. Gore's movie could affect public opinion, which could affect elections, which could affect overall federal funding for environmental research.

 

(2) A Dem in the WH (or Dem control of Congress) would also tend to benefit proponents of global warming, given that many of them run on environmentalist platforms. It's possible (even probable, if somebody with Gore's agenda occupies the WH in '09) that they could increase funding for environmental sciences.

 

(3) The Bush Administration has little control over scientists not directly employed by the federal government. They can't "silence" their results and they don't control whose grants get funded.

But (on your third point) they can affect the total amount of grant money available and how it gets directed -- as you mention in your second point. That's a game both parties could play.

 

If that's really what's going on, if scientists are just shilling the movie to get some research money later, you'd think scientists in other discliplines would be downplaying global warming (to make sure their own research dollars don't get redirected) -- Is this a common phenomenon?

 

Imo, losing your reputation over discredited statements is a much bigger downside risk than the small upside risk that your individual statements will sway the public debate in any noticeable way.

 

Edit: Or just ignore my post and read Jim's, since he actually knows something about this.

Edited June 28, 2006 by jackie hayes

[Soxy]

I cannot agree with that statement more. And if people think a scientist won't lie to protect his grant, they have their heads up their asses. They are as bad as politicians and earmarks. maybe worse.

Wow, I don't think I've ever been this offended at a Soxtalk post. Congratulations, your inane comment and complete ignorance of the grant reviewal and application process wins you a big prize.

[Gregory Pratt]

Wow, I don't think I've ever been this offended at a Soxtalk post. Congratulations, your inane comment and complete ignorance of the grant reviewal and application process wins you a big prize.

 

Well, to a minimal extent he has a point: scientists have lied about their results, historically. I'd direct you to the Korean Stem Cell Scientist, for one. But, I share your disgust. I'm just pointing out that there ARE scientists who lie.

[Soxy]

Well, to a minimal extent he has a point: scientists have lied about their results, historically. I'd direct you to the Korean Stem Cell Scientist, for one. But, I share your disgust. I'm just pointing out that there ARE scientists who lie.

And there are safeguards in the funding system to catch liars. It's like the old adage: One replication is better than ten publications.

[EvilMonkey]

Wow, I don't think I've ever been this offended at a Soxtalk post. Congratulations, your inane comment and complete ignorance of the grant reviewal and application process wins you a big prize.

Soxy, are you, or a close relative, a scientist? My statement was not intended to personally insult you, or to insinuate that ALL scientists will lie, just as all politicians don't lie (if you look hard, you may find a few who don't, they ARE out there, somewhere). But why this manufactured outrage over that statement? Global warming, second ice age, then global warming, then the next ice age, then global warming, whatever the current funding will support, they (in general) will do. In regards to global warming, once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Thosestudies that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. With the loud voice and center stage that global warming gets, studies that would contradict that would be met with extreme scepticism and dismissed as bad science. http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

That links to a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists that disagreed with Kyoto and some of the global warming alarmists. When Kyoto was turned down (by Clinton), all you heard about was the concensus in the scientific community about global warming. This doesn't look like concensus.

Oh, here is a review of Gore's flick, although if may be a bit biased.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../4/173940.shtml

[FlaSoxxJim]

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

That links to a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists that disagreed with Kyoto and some of the global warming alarmists.

 

I'm at a loss that you can even site Frederick Seitz petetion as being relevant. No, if anything, this is a premiere example of how money can buy bad science and protect evildoers. Here's the quick history lesson:

 

Seitz was the NAS President for a few years in the 60s, and he was one of the fathers of solid state physics, back in the 40s. So he has the credentials to be seen as a believable authority by those who don't know better (i.e., unsuspecting Joe Public).

 

Before Seitz started shilling for Big Oil, guess who he shilled for? Big Tobacco. I s*** you not, look it all up as it is incredibly well documented. He was hired by RJ Reynolds because he had the credentials to dupe the Joe Publics into thinking he was an authority, and nbecause he was willing to sell his soul for a buck. He oversaw the awarding of more than $45 Million (!) in RJ Reynolds "research" money that was supposed to go to labs looking into the potential health risks of smoking (something we know know Big Tobacco had been aware of since the 50s). The catch? Seitz specifically looked for and awarded money to crappy researchers at lousy labs who would NOT look very hard for health issues. And he paid them millions to not look hard for it.

 

It's no coincidence, then, that it was a Canadian and a Mexican lab (University of Toronto/Ontario Cancer Institute and the University of Mexico) that eventually blew the lid off of the Big Tobacco cover-up. TThat's because Seitz wasn't controlling the pursestrings of those institutions.

 

There's a lot more to that story, but we have to move on to Seitz and Big Oil and the "Oregon Petition." First, I'm going to SHOCK you and tell you wo funded the "reseearch" underlying the petition: the American Petroleum Institute. I'll also tell you about the scientists who wrote the Robinson Report: Two (of five) of them had ties to the coal industry, and two others were senior scientists with a Washington conservative think-tank (the George C. Marshall Institute) supported by ExxonMobil and a slew of right wing and pro-industry foundations. Oh, yeah, they worked there under Seitz too.

 

As for the Robinson Paper itself – sent out by Seitz along with his petition cards and made up to look like it was reprinted from the American Petroleum Institute. It wasn't. It was NEVER peer reviewed and NEVER published in a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, for a paper titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," it seems Robinson et al were not well-qualified. Robinson was a biochemist who had never published a thing in the fields of atmospheric science or climatology. None of the other four authors were climatologists either.

 

What sid REAL atmospheric scientists have to say about Seitz and the Robinson Report?

 

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review."

-- Raymond Pierrehumbert (U of C atmospheric chemist)

 

"Researchers are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." "

-- F. Sherwood Rowland (atmospheric chemist and NAS Foreign Secretary)

 

Well, it seems like 17K plus scientists who should have known better were indeed hoodwinked.

 

And what did NAS say about its beloved former President?

 

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

 

I can go on, but I've got to get back to work. Suffice to say, you Googlemonkeyed about as bulls*** an "expert" as you could to evoke a fanciful climate change naysayer movement in relevant academic fields. Seitz is rivaled only by S. Fred Singer, whos story is remarkably similar (eg, used to be a relevant scientist, then shiiled for Big Tobacco until they could't keep up the lie – currently shilling for Big Oil and having a hard time keeping up the lie).

 

In my opinion there is currently one scientific authority who remained a climate change naysayer and had (HAD) some science to back it up, and that is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville/Marshall Space Flight Center. He's got all the integrity in teh world and his findings were just not showing the "hocky stick graph" effect Michael Mann and others were seeing. he even made cogent arguments that HE was ggetting funding short-shrift because all the global warming believers at NSF were screwing him over.

 

Well, a year or so ago, his evidence came crashing down - and he admits it. He was using satellites and high altitude baloons to take sea surface and atmospheric readings, annd he was not seeing the evidence of atmospheric warming that others were seeing. Then some other researchers looked at his calculations and realized that there had been a half-day time shift somewhere and he was (get this) measuring temperatures at noght and thinking they were daytime temperatures! So, not surprizingly, his measurements always came out several degrees cooler than anybody else's

 

Like I sauid tthough, Spencer has conceded the methodological error. He wasn't trying to hoodwink anybody, he just got it wrong.

 

Sorry for the rant/ramble. But when I saw Friggin Fred Seitz posted as the big anti climate change authority, i had to respond.

[KipWellsFan]

Here's the real question. Could anyone in here last 15 minutes in a movie made by Al Gore without falling asleep?

 

 

I'm sure many people would have, but Gore has actually become very loose and charming since his loss in 2000. Pretty moving documentary.