Bad Science Behind Al Gore's 'Truth'

Bad Science Behind Al Gore's 'Truth'

Ebell letter to the editor in The Washington Post
February 02, 2007

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Al Gore's tireless efforts to promote global warming alarmism, backed by millions of dollars, have undoubtedly changed public opinion. However, this does not mean that truth and virtue are triumphing over falsehood and sin, as Sebastian Mallaby seems to think ["Climate Policy's Odd Man Out," op-ed, Jan. 22].

 

It means only that Mr. Gore has a bigger megaphone with which to influence public opinion than do those of us who oppose global warming alarmism -- not because we are being untruthful but because we have looked at the scientific evidence and the economic and technological realities of global energy use.

 

The cause of the change in public opinion, according to Mr. Mallaby, is Mr. Gore's movie and book, "An Inconvenient Truth." Many claims have been made for the scientific accuracy of his presentation. However, when my colleague Marlo Lewis analyzed the scientific accuracy of "An Inconvenient Truth" last summer, he was astonished to find that nearly every "fact" was either misleading, exaggerated or wrong.

 

Yet my group and others are casually maligned as being untruthful because we base our case on the best science available, while Mr. Gore is applauded. The conclusion that I sadly must draw is that Mr. Mallaby is intent on promoting a politically powerful agenda and is willing to defame anyone who stands in the way.