Wednesday, June 28, 2006

A List for James Inhofe....

Update 6/4/07

Welcome to our new friends from Planet Gore. You might be interested in some further comments on An Inconvenient Truth such as "The lag between temperature and CO2 (Gore's got it right)" and Glaciers (Al Gore got it right), and oh yes, sea level. For those wanting more details about the IPCC sea level rise statments, and why Gore's statement are not in disagreement with the latest IPCC report we have more from someone involved in drafting the IPCC report. More references on request.

Update 7/4

18. In the department of you take it from whence it comes we have Roy Spencer:

What would Spencer have said if he was contacted? It’s interesting to note that both he and the other skeptic E talked with had mixed reactions to An Inconvenient Truth. Asked if the film was scientifically accurate, Spencer said, “Partly yes and partly no. His explanation of global warming theory was very good. He correctly showed that the planet is warmer now than it has been in hundreds of years. But Gore said ‘thousands,’ and the National Academy of Sciences report says we know only that it is warmer than any time in the last 400 years. Gore repeatedly buys into the most catastrophic views and presents them as fact. And he incorrectly makes it appear as if extreme weather is increasing with global warming.”

But many scientists do believe that hurricane strength is affected by warmer water. Does Gore’s film go beyond that? “He shows all these things that happen naturally, ice calving off and falling into the ocean, for instance, droughts and floods—and implies that it is all related to global warming,” Spencer said. He also claimed that only two of the five scientists interviewed in Borenstein’s piece were actually climate scientists.

Update 7/2

17. Judith Curry
"You cannot blame any single storm or even a single season on global warming. ... Gore's statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this," said Judith Curry. She is chairwoman of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is co-author, with Mr. Webster, Mr. Holland and H.R. Chang, of a paper titled "Changes in Tropical Cyclones," in the Sept. 16 issue of Science, a weekly publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
UPDATE 6/30

16. I'll go out on a limb with Bob Watson, chief scientist of the World Bank and former head of the IPCC.

UPDATE 6/29:

15. Dr. Jeffrey Masters, meteorologist posted a review on his blog. Disagreed about the Katrina bit, but what the hell, he is a meteorologist

-------------------------------------
Senator James Inhofe is demanding that AP provide him the names of the 19 atmospheric scientists who told the press agency that the science in "An Inconvenient Truth" was accurate. I have gone through a number of articles and put together a list of the first 14 that I could find.

Here is a chance for climate scientists to step up to the plate. If you agree with Jim Hansen, Robert Corell, Eric Steig, and the others listed below, put your name, some indication of your expertise and any other words you may wish into the comments. I will move them up into the text, and we will have our own little list. The only rule is that you MUST be a climate scientist, or in a closely related field and have seen the movie or read the book.

1. James Hansen, NASA/GISS, - NY Review of Books
Indeed, Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes. By telling the story of climate change with striking clarity in both his book and movie, Al Gore may have done for global warming what Silent Spring did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.

2. Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - source AP

"I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

3. William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "Excellent. He got all the important material and got it right." - source AP

4. Karen Bice, an associate scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
..saw Gore's film last week in New York City. As a scholar in paleoclimatology - the study of past climates - Bice said she was impressed with Gore's knowledge and said information presented in the documentary was factual. - Cape Cod On Line
5. "I saw it last night and was impressed with the climate science presented in the film," said David Archer, a climatologist at the University of Chicago. - Inter Press Service

6. Eric Steig University of Washington geochemist in Real Climate
How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).
7. Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA/GISS climate modeler in Salon
"Such an amount of relatively hard science could have been extremely dull, and I've been to a lot of presentations on similar stuff that were very dull," says Schmidt. "Where there was solid science, he presented it solidly without going into nuts and bolts, and where there were issues that are still a matter of some debate, he was careful not to go down definitively on one side or the other."
8. Lonnie Thompson, a professor at Ohio University, - in Salon
whose work on retreating glaciers from the Andes to Kilimanjaro and Tibet is featured in the film, was happy with the result. "It's so hard given the breadth of this topic to be factually correct, and make sure you don’t lose your audience," he says. "As scientists, we publish our papers in Science and Nature, but very few people read those. Here's another way to get this message out. To me, it's an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university. What are the issues and what are the possible consequences of not doing anything about those changes? To me, it has tremendous value. It will reach people that scientists will never reach."
9. John Wallace, of the University of Washington, in Salon
"I think that he's gone to great lengths to make the science comprehensible to the layman," he says. "Given the fact that this was a film intended to bring the message to the lay public, I think it was excellent."
10. David Battisti, a University of Washington scientist in the Seattle Pilot
There are some minor things I might nitpick, but they don't detract from the overall message," said .
11. At a screening organized by EPA scientists and engineers:

Bob Hall -- chief of EPA's air pollution technology branch, which does research on pollutants emitted by boilers and engines -- called the film an eye-opener.

"There is a little bit of politics in it," Hall said of the film. "Overall, it's more factual. I think he is doing a good public service if the public will watch it."....

12. continuing
Like her colleagues, Geri Dorosz, an environmental scientist, said the fact that the movie will bring the issue to a wider audience was inspiring.

"He is preaching to the choir here," Dorosz said. "Now, if he could preach to some of those that are singing out of tune."

13. Richard Gammon, another UW climate change expert, said the film could be "pretty shocking" for people who are in denial about global warming and see the movie as their first exposure to the evidence.

He doesn't criticize the science in the movie, but wished "it could have ended on a more positive note and talked a bit more about solutions." in the Seattle Pilot

14. And perhaps most touchingly in a tribut to Yoram Kaufman, the chief atmospheric scientist at NASA/Goddard, who was killed while riding his bike Laurie David said
In a fitting tribute, Yoram's NASA colleagues have arranged for a special memorial screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" to honor Yoram. The screening is open to the public....

NASA and other scientific agencies around the world observed a moment of silence during his memorial service on Sunday. The tribute even extended into space, where data collection on two satellite spacecraft ceased for the moment of remembrance.
Let's go

11 comments:

QUASAR9 said...

Strike One! to Eli.
Excellent prose. I've got a link to your posts from my blog & posts.

llewelly said...

I'm now imagining an NCSE t-shirt: "Over x00 Scientists Named Jim Agree: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an Inconvient Truth".

Anonymous said...

You must realize of course, that Inhofe may (probably does) have ulterior motives for getting such a list of names.

Pauley Tishan said...

"The only rule is that you MUST be a climate scientist, or in a closely related field and have seen the movie or read the book."

I really think you need to open up those criteria, just a scoche.

Please allow politicans to join the list. It does not make sense that politicans are deemed worthy to produce a science documentary, but not to comment on it.

Anonymous said...

If the whole point is to rub Inhofe's face in the dirt by demonstrating that the scientists (less biased than the politicians) agree NOT with him, but instead with Gore, what sense would it make to open up the list to politicians who are, by definition, politically motivated?

It would not make any. In fact, it would completely defeat the purpose (and this is certainly why Eli has made the restriction he has).

Politicians have more than enough say on scientific policy as it is. Let the scientists have their own say for a change without any interference. The difference bewteen Al Gore and most other politicians is that Gore 1) actually knows something about science becasue he has taken the time to learn it 2) actually asked for the input of scientists when he put together his movie. That's why, as a politician, he is worthy to produce the movie while other politicians are not worthy (qualified) to comment on it.

Stewart said...

Eli, I think this is an excellent idea. Senator Inhofe is trying to be Joe McCarthy, complete with lies, smears and innuendo, and is more dangerous because he has substantial corportae funding (hence, he doesn't have to organize it all himself). McCarthy was stopped eventually because he overreached, but his bullying went a long way, becuase decent people couldn't imagine he was such a psychopath. Stand up and shout back! Too bad I'm a psychologist, not a climate scientist.

Steve Bloom said...

"Tailpipe Jim" Inhofe.

Anonymous said...

(Mr. Lambert your name comes up alot and led me to a google search)

Just one comment from a nobody in paticular:

"scores of scientists" have criticized the movie"

I know several myself. So I know there must be several more I do not know. It certainly is plausible and very likely that the above statement is also true and could be >19. You might want to consider this.

Here we have one article, available to the public, disagreeing with a certain way of thinking. The original AP story traveled across the world. Drudge surely has less influence I would think.

Conversations such as this one sprinkled across the blog sphere provide reasonable people with much more insight then some would give them credit for.

thank you.

EliRabett said...

1. While Tim Lambert has a large number of readers, Drudge has about an order of magnitude more.

2. We have played the scores of scientists game before, among other places with the bogus OISM petition (you can google it), where every dentist in Chicago and some a lot less qualified were flim flammed by the denialist lobby. We are interested in the opinion of CLIMATE scientists, who have a professional training in appropriate fields. An interesting take on that issue can be found at http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29804 where someone did a Web of Science (a citation index across all fields of science) search on some noted denialists and some who hold to the IPCC stated consensus of climate scientists.

Anonymous said...

And yet you still "play".
Like stated above:
Conversations such as this one sprinkled across the blog sphere provide reasonable people(scientists and non-scientists alike) with much more insight then you would give them credit for.

Anonymous said...

I love it when anonymous people leave vaguely threatening posts. Meanwhile, my oopinion is that the lists game is, technically unnecessary, but since so much these days seems to hinge on things like it, everyone ends up playing it. Ultimately, they cancel each other out, on the small scale.

And on the large scale, there is no evidence that i have seen that a majority of climatologists think that global warming isnt real or isnt to a large extent human caused.
guthrie