AP Article Gushes Praise for Gore: Gets Refuted by Scientists.

The clownishly incompetent ultra-left agitprop crew infesting the Associated Press generates Bolshie-skewed propaganda like termites generate cellulose wood-pulp, but without the positive effects termites have on their environment!

After a particularly vapid puff piece praising Gore's superficial and inaccurate new flick, the AP has been reprimanded for running fast and loose with facts, something a news agency should not make a habit of doing. Indeed, a
U.S. Senate Majority Committee release proves much more newsworthy and accurate than the silly kudos Gore's hangers-on in the scientific outliers have given the spectacularly unendowed VEEP's cartoonish movie portrayal. Actually, the whole scientific phenomenon of a complex set of contingencies an airhead like the Gorebot doesn't begin to explore with any depth or perceptiveness remains a subject of debate by grown-ups and people with triple-digit IQs.

The release begins:

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the "more than 100 top climate researchers" they attempted to contact to review "An Inconvenient Truth." AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore "five stars for accuracy." AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific "skeptics" they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken "Hockey Stick."

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Okay, so Gore exaggerates, takes credit for the internet, and dresses in earth tones while he bores us all to tears---until he gets a well-crafted PR for the greenies thrust upon him and looks intelligent while on-screen. What is the real set of facts that this silly shill ignores while he touts his leftie gibberish? Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

"…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?"- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

So a she-pig "social scientist" named Oreskes claims that a "study" done using keywords proves something scientific? Who are you going to believe, a bow-wow bi-yotch or someone who checked her sloppy, dishonest, lying piece of greenie propaganda? What a load of horse manure! For once, or actually, once again, a U.S. government position paper is far more accurate than an MSM scat-sheet put out by a widely disbelieved and very often discredited MSM outlet, AP, whose glorious past belies the sorry state of affairs this once credible news outlet has fallen into.

Anyone who actually expects the serially-dishonest collection of losers at the AP to put out a list of the sceptics and the other 14 "supporters" of Gore's movie should actually put on a tin hat and prevent aliens from stealing your thought waves.