Scientists Uneasy with Gore’s Hype

By March 13, 2007Global Warming

There’s an extraordinary — if not heretical — piece in today’s New York Times by William Broad entitled, “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype.” The story is heretical to the Gray Lady’s notoriously liberal base of readers in that it actually deigns to suggest — no, says — that some scientists are just flat uncomfortable with the level of hype in Al Gore’s movie and accompanying pronouncements. Hype? What hype? We thought this was all science. You mean it’s just entertainment? Crikey! Next thing you’ll know,we’ll find out the Bionic Woman wasn’t real either.

Says Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology of Al’s claims, “There are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” Real data? Somebody wants to talk about real data? Wow, if that ever catches on, the liberals will be finished, and Al right along with ’em.

Even reliable Gore lapdog Jim Hansen has to sound a cautionary note in the article, saying that some of Gore’s work may hold “Imperfections” and “technical flaws.” Hmmm… Would those be “errors?” Nah, just “imperfections.” (Remember that one, kids, on your next test: “Teacher, these aren’t errors, they’re just ‘imperfections.'”….)

Says our friend Bob Carter, “Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet.” He probably just forgot. Remember we profiled Gore supporter and Penn professor Bob Giegengack, who tells his environmental science students, “Every single one of you knows more about this than Al Gore.” Yeah, we know.

Again, this is an extraordinary story, and it is sure to be followed by many more. The truth is that the scientific community is getting increasingly skittish about Al’s fantastic claims. In his haste to weave this yarn, he has overreached and oversold the story — an inconvenient truth indeed.

UPDATE (By Carter Wood, 10:30 a.m.): Followed by many more …

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Lou Cipher says:

    Before you further embarrass yourself and your publication, you should find out what real climatologists think about Mr. Broads’ piece.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/

  • Bob Calder says:

    Re: The “update”
    The IPCC Working Group One report was compiled from 1,500 research articles from peer reviewed journals presented by scientists around the world. The review was open to all – this INCLUDES the so-called skeptics and they damn well know it – the number of reviewers totaled 600. In 2003 the confidence level was 66% and in 2006 it went up to over 90%.

    The economic analysis done in Great Britain (Stern Report) suggests that the cost to industry will be high in the near future. However if remediation is delayed, the cost to the economy will be stupendous. Staggering. Ruinous is a word I shouldn’t use but it could happen.

    Retaining unknown risk is about the stupidest thing a company can do but you are advocating walking right into it. The world’s capital pool is too small to cover the risks we plan on retaining without making it worse. Consider the fact that extreme weather events will become more frequent – both cold and hot, dry and wet – in the near future. Can you list just a few things that could happen if a disaster hits a manufacturer’s facilities in Asia or his supply line?

    Consider also the increasing fragility of the American economy as we press for economy in scale.
    A passenger ship with a capacity of 5,000.
    An airplane with a capacity of 555 passengers.
    A single chicken producer that slaughters 14 million chickens a day.
    It would be nice if risk concentration was going in the opposite direction, but it isn’t.