Sure, there are still a few scientists -- most of whom seem to have ulterior motives -- who continue to deny global warming.
But the vast majority of climate experts agree that our planet is getting hotter. However, some climatologists -- who claim that they have "no axe to grind" -- say that Gore exaggerated facts and statistics in his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
According to an article in the New York Times, many of these "rank-and-file" scientists are questioning whether Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. And lot of them are saying -- via talks, papers, and blogs -- that the picture presented by Gore was "too alarmist."
Gore responded to the Times' questions, saying that the movie made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” that the scientists might want to see. He added that he tried to communicate scientific points to the lay-person.
For those of us with a green streak may feel a bit conflicted after hearing this news.
On the one hand, the movie and its central arguments have raised public awareness about global warming, climate change, and especially the responsibility that each of us has to reduce our carbon footprint. That sense of alarm is a real motivator -- well, it motivates me to separate my plastics for recycling and walk to the grocery store, rather than hop in my car.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that the movie failed to present scientific facts with 100 percent accuracy. Let's face it: I don't care if the ice sheets have melted by .25 inches or .5 inches or whatever. I just care that they're melting. In that sense, I can accept Gore's point that the specifics -- in many ways -- aren't important to the lay person.
I'm glad that the experts are around to parse out the specifics, analyze the data, and provide corrections as needed. It's their job to make sense of the details, and naturally that entails some arguments. Meanwhile, I still only care about the big picture.
As it turns out, most scientists find themselves in the middle when it comes to climate change. They're somewhere between the kooks who continue to deny the impact of global warming and the zealots who are marching around with a "The World Is Coming To An End" sign. And the middle is pretty much where I find myself too.
I think that there are so many people who still aren't acknowleging it that it's good that Gore scares them into doing something.
Look at all the SUVs still on the road. So many people don't seem to care. They just want what they want. So I say let him terrify people into action. It's a shame it has to be this way.
It's the same reason why so many people in the world are obese until they are told they better do saomething or die.
Suz
.......As for Al Gore (the inventor of the internet) movie the 'Inconvenient Truth' - view the segment in the video starting at 20 minutes running through 24 minutes. You'll discover the inconvenient truth about Al's 'facts'. ....
http://www.dare2baware.com/article/6136/the_great_global_warming_swindle
www.home-schooling-uk.com www.dare2baware.com www.shamanicjourney.com www.fun-travels.com
But William Broad has been pretty solidly criticized throughout the scientific and journalism communities over the past few days for painting an inaccurate picture of the scientists he cites as critical of Gore's project. For the most part they are not, as he suggests, mainstream or centrist; they are widely known for their relatively extreme views of climate change. For a good point-by-point rebuttal of Broad's article, click here, or go to realclimate.org, a highly respected climate science blog, which also took Broad to task for his story.
Most scientists are not, in fact, "in the middle" of the climate change (so-called) debate, but firm believers.
On monday I read an article on LIME that said scientists were getting death threats for spreading the word on global warming. What has this world come to?