Executive Summary: Science Fiction
5 Years After: Networks Celebrate Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth,’ Ignore Scientific Flaws, Criticism
By Julia A. Seymour, Business and Media Institute
The cause for the end of the world has been imagined by screenwriters to include everything from giant insects and malevolent robots to asteroids the size of Texas. But five year ago in May 2006, Hollywood found a new menace: carbon dioxide. This scenario was different in another respect. It was supposedly true.
The documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” wasn’t intended to be the blockbuster end-of-the-world tale that “Armageddon” was, but it was intended to frighten. The new film was full of disaster footage and catastrophic predictions about climate change. Its leading man: former vice president Al Gore.
The apocalyptic warning earned nearly $50 million worldwide and turned Gore into a “movie star,” according to the fawning networks. Gore won accolades, including an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. Reporters and anchors on ABC, CBS and NBC also made a hero of Apocalypse Al, embracing his views and bringing on guests with the same views including one who said Gore had been busy “saving the planet – literally.”
Gore received almost entirely uncritical coverage from the network morning and evening shows over global warming, despite plenty of evidence – scientific evidence – that would have discredited him and his film. Since the movie’s release, nearly 98 percent of those stories have excluded criticism of the so-called “science” of the film.
Gore’s film has been criticized for many errors and hyperbole regarding the past and future effects of global warming – including his exaggerated claim that sea levels will rise by 20 feet and his now-debunked assertion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change. Such examples were used to scare audiences into accepting Gore’s political agenda. The errors and agenda of the film prompted a British judge to rule that the film couldn’t be shown in schools without a disclaimer pointing out its inaccuracies and political bias. But those critical views are regularly banished from the networks.
The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute analyzed broadcast news coverage of Gore about climate change and mentions of “An Inconvenient Truth” between May 11, 2006, shortly before the film’s release, and April 30, 2011. Here are some of BMI’s findings:
- Who Needs Science?: Nearly 98 percent of broadcast stories (266 out of 272) failed to challenge the supposedly scientific claims of “An Inconvenient Truth” about global warming, including dramatic predictions of sea level rise and links between climate change and extreme weather such as tornadoes, hurricanes, fires and droughts. Many of these claims have been challenged, yet scientific criticism was barely represented by ABC, CBS and NBC.
- Gore’s Way or the Highway: More than 80 percent (222 of 272) of the network stories and briefs excluded any criticism of Al Gore or his film. About one-fifth of the stories that included opposition were critical of the 2007 Live Earth concerts organized by Gore, but expressed no dissent about global warming.
- Gore For President, or VP or Czar: Gore’s success with “An Inconvenient Truth,” was used by all three networks to push him to run for president again or accept a position within the Obama administration. In one CBS “Early Show” interview, Harry Smith literally tried to pin a “Gore ’08” campaign button on the former vice president.
- NBC the Worst: NBC has thrown objectivity out the window on the issue of global warming, preferring activism instead. In the past five years, “Nightly News” and “Today” maintained that role by including the lowest percentage of opposing views (17 percent) in its Gore/”An Inconvenient Truth” reports. Its parent company NBC/Universal also partnered with Gore for the Live Earth concerts, which were aired on its networks.
- ABC the Best: ABC news programming with “World News” and “Good Morning America,” ranked best out of the three networks because they included more opposing views than the other networks. But those views were still only included roughly one-fifth of the time (20 of 95).
To improve coverage, BMI recommends:
- Don’t just take Gore’s word for it: Al Gore is certainly a passionate activist, but he isn’t a scientist. The networks shouldn’t take his interpretation of global warming science as truth. Rather, they should be skeptical because of his very real political agenda.
- Include both sides: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states journalists should “ Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is the media’s job to inform the public, not persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints. Particularly, networks should give skeptical scientists the opportunity to share their findings – just like they include scientists who say manmade global warming is going to devastate the planet.
- Recognize that advocacy is not reporting: The SPJ Code of Ethics also says to: “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”
Read the Full Report
Read the Sidebar: Live Earth: NBC Joins the Fight for ‘Climate in Crisis,’ Fails to Stay Objective
DJ says:
May 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Let them debate each other. Camping vs Gore.
climate change is “the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced”
You can certainly trust the guy that invented the internet for your facts. A case could be made that Al probably killed more people by growing tobacco than have ever been killed by AGW induced climate change. More people are killed by bathtubs than are killed by AGW.
How many people die in the bathtub each year?
Answer: Aprox. 40,000
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_in_the_bathtub_each_year
We should put a tax on bathing. Maybe a BTS – bath trading scheme – whereby we pay people in Africa and the Maldives to take baths for us, so that we won’t be exposed to the risk. Eventually as the tax on bathing gets high enough, people will stop bathing altogether and the death rate will plummet.
Jim Barker says:
Starting to see more anti-CAGW thoughts in engineering blogs. He makes the point that at least the preacher makes his predictions specific enough to be falsified.
Followed up, of course, by people spouting the typical talking points (i.e. he’s a physicist, so he’s not qualified to talk, etc.)
See – owe to Rich says:
May 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm
There were only 2 separate spots yesterday for 22, and one spot today for 11.
I cannot see anything on the satellite images that would justify more than that.
For nostalgia’s sake,
Proof: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)
Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
Errors:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore’s ‘alarmist’ climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Guides:
A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (154pgs) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
Appeal to authority seems to have been the single most successful tactic in this whole affair.
I can see that any subject, whether it be religion, population control, health, science or food. It is a successful and powerful strategy. In fact the health industry, and government for that matter have been using this strategy with good success for a very long time.
put them all in jail
Isn’t anyone else as offended as I am that he got a Nobel “peace?” Prize. What do you think Albert Schweitzer might say about that, or Martin Luther King, or Henry Kissinger, or the Red Cross or any of the other real recipients?
Journalists are no longer interested in journalism, they have devolved to being nothing more than propagandists. Quiet please social engineering at work.
Al Gore has plenty of serious errors in his movie. I dont know if we can say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is fully exhonerated from significant contribution to 20th century warming observations though, at least not yet. I think we can say that we dont fully understand all of the mechanisms of climate change and anyone who says they have all the answers when it comes to understanding climate change is a BS artist. Less hubris and more study is required.
jorgekafkazar says:
May 24, 2011 at 9:58 am
Mike McMillan says: “Asteroids the size of Texas are called planets.”
No. Dwarf planet or Kuiper belt object. Pluto is no longer called a planet.
At least until the next time a bunch of astronomers desperately need to get published or go on TV.
John Marshall says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:13 am
It would be good if the BBC had a code of ethics where CAGW were concerned.
Did anyone see BBC breakfast news this morning about 7.20am-ish? The BBc are doing reports every day about the drought in the south of the UK and although I haven’t heard them mentioned AGW, you know what they are getting at.
Today a reporter was on a fruit farm somewhere in the East of the country (didn’t hear where) and was stood in an orchard with trees with brown leaves and shrivelled plums (no rude jokes please 🙂 )
He was talking about the drought causing problems for farmers, food prices etc. Anyway he interviewed the farmer and asked him if this year was the worst in the 5 generations of farming there. The farmer basically said no there were worse years and it wasn’t the drought that was the problem, they could deal with that but it was the nightime frosts that were doing the damage. I had a wee chuckle to myself.
@Keith. Woollard: A lot of us are just as angry as you about the debasement of the Nobel prizes, peace in particular, but remember that it was debased long before Gore: once Kissinger had one, the prizes had already moved into being a parody of themselves. Sad, but indisputable.
I agree with the other commenters who thank Gore for the film, though: I’m another one who started wondering after seeing his obvious poppycock, and discovering the truth has reinforced both my faith in (real) science and my contempt for the political class.
Meanwhile, here in the UK, the Gore-inspired AGW drones drone on: f’rinstance the “good ole” Guardian is still asking a question long since answered (in the negative) here on WUWT:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/24/tornadoes-more-common-climate-change
– Keep it up, Mr. Jha, “science” correspondent. I used to buy your paper every day. Never again while there’s only this sort of tosh to read in it, though.
Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is purely in the realms of an infomercial for AGW, and as such any resemblance to facts or scientific content is purely coincidental.
People like to bring up the British court case, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education, and claim it discredits the Al Gore Oscar winning documentary film, “An Inconvient Truth”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ruling says,
“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.”
I wonder what percentage of news stories about the film mentioned the above?
James of the West says:
May 24, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Al Gore has plenty of serious errors in his movie. I dont know if we can say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is fully exhonerated from significant contribution to 20th century warming observations though, at least not yet.
Nor can we say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is causing any significant contribution to 20th century warming observations, either.
“Significant” meaning “primary”, “detectable”, “theoretical”, “barely noticeable” or what?
The ruling in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education also says,
I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The ruling says as well,
“The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as “very likely” to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
Robert Stevenson . . .
. . .when I said he was a complete charletan.
Made me spill my coffee with this one. Would’ve loved to have been there.
The British court ruling found “An Inconvienent Truth” to be a valuable teaching tool which was accurate with the current science. None of the “errors” in the film call into question the major points of the film, but are instead outlayers, with which the court disagreed about the magnitude of the points, not the factual basis of the “errors”. At this point, “An Inconvienent Truth” has stood up to criticism and has been shown to be a good representation of some climate science. Mr. Gore has done a good service in speaking about climate change and has shown himself to be knowledgable about the issue.
Just go to http://www.generationim.com, look up the press announcements they made, and then try to convince yourself that the film had nothing to do with the 5 billion they managed to collect for their investment fund.
In a way Gore’s movie turned me into a skeptic as well. The biggest factor was his chart on temperature/CO2 correlation. When I saw that I wondered to myself how anyone could be skeptical of AGW. However, I knew smart people like Crichton were skeptical so I dug a little deeper. That was when I learned that the temperature rise always preceded the CO2 rise.
Now, that in itself would not necessarily have made me skeptical. But, the fact that this TRUTH was hidden and an obvious lie was being used to try and convince folks that AGW was true was more than enough to make me a skeptic.
When I see naive comments like those from “sceptical” above, it makes me realize there are many, many people that simply won’t take the time to understand the issues. We see them posting here regularly.
sceptical says:
“The British court ruling found ‘An Inconvienent Truth’ to be a valuable teaching tool which was accurate…”
…And down is up, white is black, and evil is good. The court in fact found numerous instances of pseudo-science. Handing a fig leaf to “consensus” doesn’t change the fact that Gore’s propaganda film was full of anti-science.
The proof is that many years later, the evidence shows that despite still rising CO2 – a harmless trace gas – global temperatures are trending downward.
So who are you gonna believe? Algore? Or the planet and your lying eyes?
Gores film is laden with errors that remain, yet Wegman is being hung out to dry for an undergrads “cut and paste”. The errors in Gore’s film render it useless as a teaching tool, and the “cut and paste” error affects the outcome of Wegman’s report not at all. Balance?
Courts are not competent to rule on science unless the they have scientific judges. Courts accept acreditted experts but unfortunately do not examine their qualification with enough accuracy. This is because courts are used to dealing with forensic scientists who have qualifications and experience in spades. When you speak with a climate ‘scientist’, you don’t know what private agenda he is supporting. Judges have to be more pro-active in assessing the worth of so called experts.
Meanwhile the courts in the UK are out of control making up law as they go along and even seeking to keep Members of Parliament under control. English Courts now have a ‘Supreme Court’ thanks to the liar, Tony Blair but in the constitution, Parliament is the supreme court.
The court found no instances of psuedo-science or anti-science in the award winning documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”. The court found the film to be an accurate representation of the science and condoned the use of the film as a teaching tool. Thanks to the award winning documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”, thousands of students have become more aware of the science involving a critical issue of our time. A thank you should be extended to Mr. Gore for the work he has done helping to shape the minds of thousands of students.