CONFUSING, CONTRADICTORY CAMPAIGN WINNING

David Suzuki exposes the Vast Anti-Science Conspiracy seeking to undermine environmentaloid cineaste Al Gore:

A story by the Associated Press on experts who critiqued the science behind the movie found that they too gave it a thumbs up for accuracy. Personally, I thought it was brilliant.

But shortly after the Associated Press article came out, other articles started popping up that said Mr. Gore’s science was shoddy. People claiming to be experts wrote opinion pieces in newspapers decrying the film, Mr. Gore, and the “theory” of global warming in general.

Contrarians, it seemed, were coming out of the woodwork. What happened?

Beats me, Dave. Freedom of speech? Differences of opinion? Collapse of consensus?

What happened was a well-funded campaign to discredit the film and carpet bomb North Americans with confusing and contradictory information about the science of global warming. It appears to be having an effect too.

Horrible! Just as well Gore’s warm troopers are running a counter campaign of their own:

A former Fox Valley woman now living in Washington state is providing free tickets to a Thursday night showing of the global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Posted by Tim B. on 07/29/2006 at 01:30 PM
    1. What an odd thing to write: that Americans are being “carpet-bombed” with information.

      Dang, we need to be kept stupid by and obedient to our intellectual enviro betters!

      Posted by ushie on 2006 07 29 at 01:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m here in Virginia, hunkered down in my bunker, weathering the non-stop carpet bombing of confusing and contradictory information (Whoa! The neighbor’s house was just taken out by a Right-Wing Bunker Buster filled with fact-shrapnel! Ohhhh, the humanity!). Is it possible – is it even conceivable – that Al Gore’s vision of a Green Tomorrow can survive this assault?

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 29 at 02:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Free?  Not good enough.  I want the tickets, plentiful Coke (the kind that comes out your nose onto your keyboard, not the other kind) and a bucket of pop-corn with a hole carved in the bottom -and -oh yeah -a cute co-ed. Then, I’ll see this piece of shit -one more thing -do any penguins die?

      Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2006 07 29 at 02:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. David Suzuki has a long history of (government funded) eco-nuttery. He’s the last person I would look to for a fact based assessment.

      Posted by phil_b on 2006 07 29 at 02:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Unfortunately, masquerading as an expert in the media is pretty easy. All you need are a few letters after your name and a controversial story to tell. That makes news.

      Pot, kettle. Or what does Suzuki think the hysterical doom-mongering he and his pal Al and the rest of his echo-chamber think they’re engaging in?

      Posted by Crispytoast on 2006 07 29 at 04:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why not ask why the experts all agreed when the AP contacted them? Why not even a single dissenting voice? In the original story they admitted that these were all experts who had seen the film on opening day. In other words, they were all preselected zealots. Of course they all agreed with the science.

      In a survey of musical aficionados contacted after the Eminem concert 100% of the attendees agreed that it’s the best music on the planet.
      Well duh. Elvis doesn’t stand a chance in that kind of survey.

      Posted by lumberjack on 2006 07 29 at 04:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. I forget, but was that the AP article that was criticized in the aftermath because many of the quoted experts in fact hadn’t seen the movie, and had been fished for convenient quotes by the journalist?

      Posted by PW on 2006 07 29 at 04:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. A former Fox Valley woman now living in Washington state is providing free tickets to a Thursday night showing of the global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

      Let’s tell the Muzzies there’ll be Jews at the screening.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 29 at 04:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. I swear, all of al-Gore’s followers must be a horde of lace-collared old Aunt Sallies.  They just can’t understand—- cannot understand—- why people don’t just accept what they say without questioning it.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 07 29 at 05:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. You people are lucky.  I have to put up with Suzuki’s bloviations in the “community” newspapers as if he were fucking Moses.  Thank God for mortality.

      Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2006 07 29 at 05:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. #8: Second the motion!

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 29 at 05:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve just ordered my free tickets so let’s see what happens.

      Posted by Wand on 2006 07 29 at 06:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yeah. Here’s the shit we pay for on “our” CBC from the enviro-millionaire geneticist:

      http://tinyurl.com/lzstd

      And this week’s treat (see page bottom), a two-parter about the joys of living in the agricultural Stone Age in Cuba, bravely recovering from no longer receiving the equivalent of US$6-billion a year from the Soviets. (Funny how growing food in shit is so good for you and how 1950s, and earlier, American cars don’t cause global warming when their driven in Communist regimes.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 07 29 at 06:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. For those who doubt Dr Suzuli’s scientific credentials, he is a geneticist who specialized in breeding fruit flies. Thus he is eminently qualified for his current role as international eco-warrior.

      Cheers

      Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 07 29 at 06:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. A former Fox Valley woman now living in Washington state is providing free tickets to a Thursday night showing of the global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

      Hey if she provide’s free hot hard and easy young (but over 18) males, I’m there

      Posted by spyder on 2006 07 29 at 06:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why not ask why the experts all agreed when the AP contacted them? Why not even a single dissenting voice? In the original story they admitted that these were all experts who had seen the film on opening day. In other words, they were all preselected zealots. Of course they all agreed with the science.

      Odds are the story is actually a re-write of a press release. All the quotes would have been in the press release.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 07 29 at 06:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Are they encountering An Inconvenient Critique?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 07 29 at 07:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. Have you noticed the ‘objective science community’ is reacting to questioning their global warmist majority by arguing ‘It’s the only theory we’ve got, so it must be right, don’t question it’.
      This is the same monolithic approach they take to anyone who dares to question the absolute truth of their “only a theory” of evolution.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 07 29 at 07:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. @12 “I’ve just ordered my free tickets so let’s see what happens.”

      I think Wand has the spirit here :).  Let’s all order free tickets and then don’t show up :D.

      Posted by mamapajamas on 2006 07 29 at 08:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. Suzuki’s got his timeline wrong.  Tom Harris wrote a story in the Canadian National Post quoting climate scientists criticizing Gore’s science on June 13, but the AP story Suzuki talks about was published June 27.  The story is the exact opposite.  Even I wrote about on my own little blog here.  Like Tim writes, the organized campaign is on the other side.

      Posted by joeschmo1of3 on 2006 07 29 at 09:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. #14 And I just read a few weeks ago, I think at the junkscience Web site, that he hasn’t had a peer-reviewed paper on genetics published since the 1980s.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 07 29 at 11:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. I recall Fidel’s call for 10 million tons of sugar. My newspaper reports this year’s crop will be under 1.5 million tons.

      ‘Pas azucar, no hay pais’ is now they used to measure success in Cuba.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 07 29 at 11:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. All Geneticists breed fruit flies. I studied genetics at undergraduate level. Loved the subject, but breeding and then counting fruit flies drove me nuts.

      Posted by phil_b on 2006 07 30 at 12:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. #21

      He makes far more money getting anything he writes published and hyped by credulous journalists.

      Posted by amortiser on 2006 07 30 at 04:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Moonbat Whine Number One about any “issue”:

      “It’s a complicated situation. We’re not getting enough information.”

      Moonbat Whine Number Two about any “issue”:

      “It’s a complicated situation. There’s just too much information.”

      Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2006 07 30 at 06:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. J.M. Heinrichs, that’s an awesome ad hominem on “Sazuli”. Now we need not look at his body of published work.

      Posted by gson on 2006 07 30 at 06:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #14 Aha -so David Suzuki is to blame for the Australian Flying Fruit Fly Circus?
      The environmentalist I’m gunning for is David Attenborough,destroying the mystery and romance of the unknown by lurching about invading all the dark corners of the planet,accompanied poignantly -or if something is being eaten- by the thumping jungle bongo beat of the BBC Symphony Orchestra stoically wading in after him.Is there no place to avoid him and his danged well intentioned,deranged, jolly enthusiasm.The man’s a menace.

      Posted by crash on 2006 07 30 at 08:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey crash, I read your #27 using a good ‘ol David Attenborough voice over – and it worked!

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 30 at 09:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #27: Of course, one of the good things about some of Attenborough’s work – notably, in his “Trials of Life” series – is that he explodes (whether intentionally or not) a lot of that “mommy” nature nonsense. I remember the horror of watching killer whales using their tales to play badminton with a young seal.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 30 at 10:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. #24 And running the “Suzuki Foundation” brings in quite a bit of change, too, I’d imagine. (Probably getting tax money there, too, that he’s used to getting from the CBC as well.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 07 30 at 12:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Suzuki should be worried about the bad science in the original AP article.  Only 19 out of the 100+ climate researchers contacted by AP had seen the movie or read the book.  Yet the article’s headline reads “Scientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy” and the opening paragraph reads “The nation’s top climate scientists are giving ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.”

      By any standard, 19% is too low of a sample to warrant such claims.  The fancy name for this is fallacy of insufficient statistics.  Note also the movie review hyperbole—“five stars for accuracy.”  It’s doubtful that even the 19% who responded favorably to the movie would use such hyperbole.  Indeed, they do point out problems with the movie, but the article describes those problems as “tiny errors” that “weren’t that big of a deal.”  In short, the article is an example of biased science writing.  The writer wanted to give the impression that most, if not all, climate researchers have scrutinized Gore’s movie and subsequently approved of its scientific content.  That claim is only justifiable, however, if a solid majority of climate researchers have carefully reviewed the movie or book and found it to be accurate.

      Posted by Bill Ramey on 2006 07 30 at 01:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bill……got a link discussing “…19 out of the 100+ climate researchers contacted by AP had seen the movie or read the book”?  Thanks!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 30 at 03:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sunday, July 30, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
      Cuba: The Accidental Revolution – (Part 1)

      A look at the country’s hugely successful experiment in sustainable development. Cuba’s latest revolution – a green one – is having repercussions worldwide. Will it continue?

      WTF?? Can anyone who watched (it is yesterday there, right?) this enlighten me?

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 07 30 at 04:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Jeff, Here’s something.

      Posted by PW on 2006 07 30 at 07:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Jeff,

      Here’s one link to the article:

      http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm?csp=34

      You can find it on several sites by googling the title “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy.”

      Here’s the relevant excerpt:

      The former vice president’s movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

      The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

      Now compare those paragraphs with the headline and opening paragraph, both of which imply that a solid majority of climate scientists have a high opinion of the science in Gore’s movie.

      Posted by Bill Ramey on 2006 07 30 at 11:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks Bill, PW!  I thought I had read the article in question, but I wanted to be sure…..and was too lazy to Google!  😉

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 31 at 12:17 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.