WASHINGTON — 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.
…

June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

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
…

…
Schlesinger’s scare citations are disingenuous. With regard to “scientific consensus”, he must be aware of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition that received more than 17,000 American scientists’ (two-thirds with advanced degrees) signatures, that stated, “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
…

…
Dr MacCracken served as the first Executive Director of the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) under the Clinton Administration from 1993-1997.
…

…
NCAR scientist Tom Wigley used a much simpler model to make a similar calculation.

Both studies conclude: If the emission of greenhouse gases were to stop today, their associated global warming would continue mainly because of the thermal inertia of the ocean, and sea level rise would continue because of thermal expansion. Even in the most optimistic scenario, temperatures will rise by as much as 0.5°C and sea level will rise by tens of centimeters, not including any melting from ice sheets and glaciers.

Given these findings, common sense would suggest that we have to cope with global warming and that it is useless to spend trillions of dollars in order to meet the Kyoto objectives.
…

…
“There is no doubt that humans are warming the