Scientists Ok Gore's Movie for Accuracy

[southsider2k5]

Or did they? ....

[jasonxctf]

Or did they? ....

 

 

i think i'll trust the AP before a Senate Committee on the accuracy of an AP article. This letter looks weird too. If it was a non-partisan office, the attack language in the first paragraph would have been a little calmer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Or did they? ....

"Majority Press Release"

 

Hilarious.

 

And not one thing in this article that I can see actually supports any falsehoods in the questioned article. Just makes opposite claims. Its simply a response column.

 

Fine. Don't believe them. Don't believe the scores of scientists, and keep polluting and writing death sentences for millions. Yes, millions. Increase our health care costs, give us more heart and lung problems, destroy more crops... because God forbid we expect users of natural resources to do so responsibly. History is repleat with examples of what happens when any society, small or large, assumes the earth will just give us whatever we want regardless of how we treat it: decimation. The earth acts like a living thing, and it reacts in kind to threats. When we become the threat, we will suffer the consequences. One would have to be blind to not see this pattern in history.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Or did they? ....

 

Now, all of these criticisms, lodged by respected scientistts in the field, are valid. As is the tempering of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” studies which were not the be-all of historic climate change reporting (and he has said so himself).

 

But, a lot of that criticism seems to be aimed at the alarmism of the film (which I've not seen and doesn't start her until Friday), and the dumming down of the science for a general audience. In wanting to make a stir and sell tickets, the film may have taken unwise shortcuts on explaining soem findings more fully.

 

Two of the big problems continue to be that climatologists generally ARE in concensus that human activity is influencing climate, but disagree about the amount of change is due to anthropogenic factors. Secondly, when 'global warming' is isolated in a vaccuum and presented as THE big issue, it is problematic. the 2004 Nature study about Kilimanjaro cited in the Senate press release is a perfect example. The study confirms a man-made decrease in Kilimanjaro snowfall due to deforestation. The press release spins this into a refutation of global warming, when in truth it is very good evidence that human activity does alter the Earth's climate. As a cautionary academic I always frame the issue as one of global climate change, and the Gore movie shouls have too. We know damn well that greenhouse emissions are not the sole cause of global climate change, and we've known for years that things like deforestation and diminishhed ocean health are also part of the equation. Global climate systems are pretty complicated things, and the sickness of the planet is systemic and due to many causes. Greenhouse emissions is one of the biggies, and it is something that is in our power to remediate, if only partially.

 

Trying to distill a few decades of research by hundreds of individuals into a 90 minute movie for a popular audience is probably a losing proposition from the standpoint of the academics. A legitimate discussion of the film's merits and shortfalls is healthy (And completely different than the industry-funded smear campaigns of Seitz, Singer, et al). Probably more importantly, if the film gets a critical mass of people thinking about the issues then we can move toward some solutions.

 

"Majority Press Release"

 

Hilarious.

 

And not one thing in this article that I can see actually supports any falsehoods in the questioned article. Just makes opposite claims. Its simply a response column.

 

Fine. Don't believe them. Don't believe the scores of scientists, and keep polluting and writing death sentences for millions. Yes, millions. Increase our health care costs, give us more heart and lung problems, destroy more crops... because God forbid we expect users of natural resources to do so responsibly. History is repleat with examples of what happens when any society, small or large, assumes the earth will just give us whatever we want regardless of how we treat it: decimation. The earth acts like a living thing, and it reacts in kind to threats. When we become the threat, we will suffer the consequences. One would have to be blind to not see this pattern in history.

 

You are right in suspecting the motives of the source (The GOP Senate Majority). That is why I tried to separate the spin from some valid scientist concerns. And like you I agree that most of the concerns stem from the fact that the Gore film is only telling part of the story, probably doing it an an alarmist way that is anethemic to most scientists, and possibly short-changing other anthropogenic and natural (ie, cyclical) factors.

[bmags]

this post makes me think many people have little experience with the scientific community. Where accuracy and support is everything.

[WCSox]

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.

 

Science funding by NSF has fallen across the board since 9/11 and NIH funding has stagnated significantly. Grant applications from research programs that have nothing to do with environmental or atmospheric sciences are getting thrown into the trash can (despite excellent reviews in many cases) because the money isn't there. This isn't a case of the Bush Administration selectively "picking" on people in your field. PIs in structural biology and materials science are having the same problems.

[Soxy]

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

The outrage is because I know how hard grants are to get (I'm in the process of applying for a competetive NSF pre-doc grant, and in renewing, with my mentor, an equally competitive NIH grant).

 

And I assure my outrage is genuine, not manufactured.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Science funding by NSF has fallen across the board since 9/11 and NIH funding has stagnated significantly. Grant applications from research programs that have nothing to do with environmental or atmospheric sciences are getting thrown into the trash can (despite excellent reviews in many cases) because the money isn't there. This isn't a case of the Bush Administration selectively "picking" on people in your field. PIs in structural biology and materials science are having the same problems.

 

Oh yeah, you are correct in the claim claim that it's a tough funding environment for science across the board.

 

But there IS selectivity involved in what is being cut. In the case of NOAA, like you say, there are lots of proposals getting excellent reviews and being reccommended for funding, but they remain unfunded. The science advisory board makes reccommmendations as to what they think the research priorities should be. But it is OMB (A White House office) that signs off (or not) on it. Lautenbacher (the NOAA chief) has very little say in the matter, other than to tell the advisory board what foelds will and won't be funded per OMB.

 

My point was not that the Bush Administration is selectively "picking" on people in any one field, merely that the White House is not at all divorced from setting policy for federal science funding.

[WCSox]

The outrage is because I know how hard grants are to get (I'm in the process of applying for a competetive NSF pre-doc grant, and in renewing, with my mentor, an equally competitive NIH grant).

 

And I assure my outrage is genuine, not manufactured.

 

FWIW, I was recently denied a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship (grant)... and the research had nothing to do with earth and atmospheric sciences.

 

 

My point was not that the Bush Administration is selectively "picking" on people in any one field, merely that the White House is not at all divorced from setting policy for federal science funding.

 

I agree with that, as long as it's acknowledge that ALL sectors of science have taken a hit.

[Soxy]

FWIW, I was recently denied a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship (grant)... and the research had nothing to do with earth and atmospheric sciences.

And, FWIW, my work has nothing to do with the earth/atmospheric sciences either; nonetheless it's a hard field filled with dedicated professionals who work their ass off in the pursuit of knowledge and I hate to see them slimed without hard facts supporting an opinion. But I guess, that's why I'm a good scientist.

[WCSox]

And, FWIW, my work has nothing to do with the earth/atmospheric sciences either; nonetheless it's a hard field filled with dedicated professionals who work their ass off in the pursuit of knowledge and I hate to see them slimed without hard facts supporting an opinion. But I guess, that's why I'm a good scientist.

 

Never said that it was... and I disagree with the slime thrown your way.

 

Working in academia is tough. My boss (and I'm sure yours as well) have very difficult jobs.

[Soxy]

Never said that it was... and I disagree with the slime thrown your way.

 

Working in academia is tough. My boss (and I'm sure yours as well) have very difficult jobs.

My comment was mostly in reference to evil's post not yours.

 

But congrats on, presumably finishing the dissertation.

[WCSox]

My comment was mostly in reference to evil's post not yours.

 

But congrats on, presumably finishing the dissertation.

 

Thanks, but the life of a postdoc isn't much better. You get paid more, but still not really enough to justify working 60 hours/week. Guess that's why I screw around on the Internet so much.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thanks, but the life of a postdoc isn't much better. You get paid more, but still not really enough to justify working 60 hours/week. Guess that's why I screw around on the Internet so much.

 

I got paid less as a post-doc than as a county high school teacher - by about $10K!! Friggin' slave labor.

 

To add insult to injury, the institution does not withhold taxes on postdoc salaries for some reason, so at the end of each year after I had to scrape by on about @24K, I got screwed because I couldn't sock away anything for taxes during the year.

 

To science . . .

 

[WCSox]

To add insult to injury, the institution does not withhold taxes on postdoc salaries for some reason, so at the end of each year after I had to scrape by on about @24K, I got screwed because I couldn't sock away anything for taxes during the year.

 

Not to mention that postdocs have to start repaying their student loans.

Edited June 28, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

I am a three time academe washout.

[BigSqwert]

Gore on The Daily Show tonight.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am a three time academe washout.

 

Lucky bastard. I got a life sentence.

 

[BigSqwert]

So has anyone seen this movie yet? I plan on seeing it over the weekend.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So has anyone seen this movie yet? I plan on seeing it over the weekend.

 

 

You better stop by the drugstore and get yourself the econo-size bottle of NO-DOZ. You're gonna need it.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

You better stop by the drugstore and get yourself the econo-size bottle of NO-DOZ. You're gonna need it.

Oh come on. I didn't even vote for him in 2000. I voted for your boy (biggest mistake in my life). I'm not going to see it because he is in it. I am very interested in the material.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Oh come on. I didn't even vote for him in 2000. I voted for your boy (biggest mistake in my life). I'm not going to see it because he is in it. I am very interested in the material.

 

 

I understand you're interested in the material but that monotone of his is gonna make it hard to stay awake. I give you 20 minutes before you're passed out and drooling on yourself.

 

[BigSqwert]

I understand you're interested in the material but that monotone of his is gonna make it hard to stay awake. I give you 20 minutes before you're passed out and drooling on yourself.

 

If I can sit through the Rugrats movie with my daughter and not fall asleep I'm sure I can make it through this.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If I can sit through the Rugrats movie with my daughter and not fall asleep I'm sure I can make it through this.

 

 

Damn. You got more guts than I do. Last time I tried to watch one of those cartoon movies with my girlfriend and her daughter I was gone inside of 15 minutes.........and I just polished off a big bottle of pop right beforehand.

[BigSqwert]

Damn. You got more guts than I do. Last time I tried to watch one of those cartoon movies with my girlfriend and her daughter I was gone inside of 15 minutes.........and I just polished off a big bottle of pop right beforehand.

Keeping my eyes open was one of the most difficult things I had done in my life.