The following brief news account appeared in the Peoria Journal Star on June 28, 2006, page A2.  Since it is only four paragraphs long I will quote the entire story.


“Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore’s movie


Washington, D.C.—The nation’s top climate scientists are giving ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.


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.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”


Let’s analyze what this story actually states and some of the problems with the report.  First according to the story, “the nation’s top climate scientists are giving ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.”  Is that a valid conclusion from the information presented in the story?  Answer: NO!!!


According to the article, the AP selected the scientists to be questioned.  That process alone could slant the answers given.  That is not the only problem though.  They questioned over 100 scientists by e-mail and phone.  That is another instance of using a poor research methodology.  The problems don’t end there—only 19 of the over 100 scientists approached had seen the movie or read the book and answered the questions asked.  By my calculation, that is less than 19% of the total number of scientists contacted.  


So, please explain to me how the author of this story can conclude that the nation’s top climate scientists are declaring the movie accurate.  That is an illogical, incorrect, and absolutely misleading conclusion.  The vast majority of the scientists contacted never said any thing of the kind.  They didn’t say any thing.  Yet, the conclusion is the movie is valid.  What utter nonsense!!!


Here are some key descriptions in the article: “five stars for accuracy,” “mostly got the science right,” “same general impression,” “conveyed the science correctly.”   So, which is it really for these 19 scientists who bothered to answer?  Was it five stars—the highest rating used or “mostly got it right”?  Was it “conveyed the science correctly” or “same general impression?”  Or, doesn’t the author understand that there is a difference between mostly being correct and being correct scientifically.  Does the author realize that “same general impression” is hedging on the correctness of the science?


The author declares “Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory.”  How many vocal skeptics were contacted?

Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Was it two vocal skeptics or 50% of the 100+ scientists contacted?  Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Were any of the vocal skeptics among the 19 scientists who answered the questions asked?  Don’t know.  The article does not give that information.  Would the number of skeptics asked and the number of skeptics who responded make a different in the conclusions reached?  I would think so but we don’t know the information necessary to draw any conclusions in that area.  I wonder why.


My guess is that very few skeptics were contacted.  My guess is that none of the skeptics answered the questions.


Why would I reach the conclusion that none of the skeptics answered the questions?  My guess is that none of the skeptics read the book or saw the movie.  


Earlier this year, I read the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by Byron York. He is a reporter for the National Review (or was at the time the book was printed).  In one of the chapters, he discusses Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.  He tried to determine who actually saw the movie.  His conclusion is that the people who saw the movie were people who already agreed with Michael Moore and the political statement of the movie.  That is, conservative Republicans and those who supported George Bush and the Iraq Conflict did not spend money to watch propaganda from the other side.  Neither did those who were undecided about the Conflict.  Basically, the audiences were composed of “true believers” whose position was reinforced by the movie—not altered.


My guess is that the same is true for Al Gore’s book and movie.  The scientists who bothered to read the book or see the movie already supported the position held by Al Gore.  Those who do not accept the concept did not bother to either read the book or see the movie.  Consequently, they had no basis for answering the questions posed by The Associated Press.  It seems probable those who responded already accepted the position presented by Al Gore.  Therefore, the conclusions of the article are invalid.  The article was a waste and does nothing to clarify the issue.      


Therefore, my questions are: Does the author of this article believe that the reading public has no ability to critically analyze the junk written as scientific analysis?  Does the author of this article believe that if it is reported as truth then it must be the truth?  Do the powers that be at the Peoria Journal Star believe the same?  


This article even though it is only four paragraphs long is so replete with error it is almost criminal that it was printed as a legitimate news story!