From Frank Roso, Arlington, TX:
I was saddened by your review of Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." I have always considered you a thoughtful and insightful reviewer who brings more intelligence to his reviews than most movie reviewers. Despite what Mr. Gore and his producer, Mr. Guggenheim, have been saying, there are many scientists around the world who express grave doubts about any "man made" global warming. If you take the time to examine that data used by those promoting the global warming scare, if you do a little research into the real debate, you will find that there are many critics of the point of view expressed in this film.
The naysayers are not "crack pots" or shills for petroleum companies. They include in their ranks scientists and academics in climatology, atmospherics, geology and a plethora of other disciplines. They don't make glossy environmental horror films. They simply review the data and give their scientific opinion of what has increasingly become a political debate.
Mr. Gore goes to great lengths to create a doomsday scenario, but little time explaining the very flawed computer models on which these suppositions are based. These models are incapable of recreating historical climate conditions when historical data is plugged into them. Yet, these same models are being used to predict the future climate of our planet.
Thirty years ago, the major news outlets were reporting the coming of a new Ice Age. Scientists were, indeed, alarmed that it was coming faster than they thought. It didn't happen. Now we are told it is because the science of climate study had not progressed enough. Hmm. Could it be that the climate like the weather is a chaotic system the cycles of which are dependent on a large number of variables, not just one.
I suggest you do some research on folks like Pielke and Gray of the University of Colorado, Legaste, Lindzen and a legion of others who are vocal critics of the "inconvenient truth" expressed in Gore's film. Sadly, these professionals, well respected in their fields, are vilified and branded as hacks. Most notable was Mr. Lindzen's drubbing at the hands of Mr. Gore when Lindzen appeared in a congressional hearing on global climate change. Does it not bother you that men of science are treated as hacks and crackpots for trying to engage in scientific discussion? Especially, when the best that can be thrown back at them is either an improvable doomsday scenario or the unusual claim that "the science is settled" despite the numerous dissenters.
I do not have a degree in science, but it has been a lifelong interest for me. I value scientific inquiry and watch closely the latest developments. This debate, at least from the alarmists' side, swerves wide of any credible scientific debate. For them global warming is a matter of faith, not science.