Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[GaryC 7]

While what Al Gore does or doesn't do in his personal life to reduce his carbon footprint may make him seem hypocritical, it doesn't negate the legitimacy of his documentary. Anyone who has seen the documentary should understand that point.

there's no may about it steven.

if someone preaches about something, i and many others expect them to also live what they are preaching. you don't expect priests to preach abstinence and be out in whorehouses do you?

Do you expect wealthy benefactors funding anti-poverty initiatives to be poor? Do you criticize the Gates Foundation because Gates still has lots of wealth of his own?

Gore's work is mostly on the level of policy, too; the relevant analogy would be whether he would support a green policy, not whether he lives a third-world lifestyle. It's rather like someone promoting healthy nutrition and exercise programs; most of us wouldn't ignore the warnings of the FDA if the chairman were fat or had developed diabetes. To influence global policy you are going to have to use a lot of resources; this doesn't mean Gore gets a free pass, but to dismiss the man's entire work because he's not living in a straw hut and hunting game with a spear (especially since you don't seem to criticize Bush over it) is just messed up.

--

"and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

It seems to fit under fraternity among nations & peace congresses well enough, and as much as previous winners.

How? This does nothing to work for fraternity among nations. That statement is about nations settling their differences without violence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think we are talking about two different judges here. I think ET was talking about the Nobel judges with whom I take issue with for awarding the prize.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with this judges decision?

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible†to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

As I said earlier, the same judge also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". I know you don't like it but the judge in no way supports your position, Gary. He's not a denier.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, ok, apologies, it was the British judge I was agreeing with. Having said that, I don't really know enough about it. I didn't bother to go to see the film for the reasons it appears to have been called into question for. However, I realise that that makes my opinion pretty irrelevant

[Fandango 1,440]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

Don't you dare attempt to condescend to me, Stevo. Lack of character? First you question my 'authenticity' because I agreed with someone, now you're questioning my character? How dare you.

I am not making this into one big 'Conservative/Liberal' hoo ha like you seem to be making it out to be. I am talking my views on Al Gore...he's a hypocrite. Now he can cure cancer and be an ecological hypocrite, and if he got a Nobel Prize for curing cancer...well I'll be the first one dancing in the streets. But he got a Nobel Prize for all his 'work' with the environment....which he doesn't practice in his regular life. He chunters on and on about how man can make a difference, yet he is one of the biggest footprints around.

Which is WHY he shouldn't have rec'd a NP for essentially nothing but hot air. Talk is cheap. Action means something. We can argue all we want on what we THINK, but it is what we DO that really matters.

I have tried very much to explain my POV to you...but no matter how many times I do, you keep coming back with the same questions. Now regardless of your comprehension problems...I will not sit idly by why you cast aspersions as to my character....so not only do I see you owing me an apology, you need to be more mindful of what you're saying to me.

You kicked up a fuss when someone made assumptions about your character...didn't you? Even wanted a 'moratorium' on political threads because of it. Yet you freely bash others' characters with ease.

Interesting. And pathetic at the same time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While what Al Gore does or doesn't do in his personal life to reduce his carbon footprint may make him seem hypocritical, it doesn't negate the legitimacy of his documentary. Anyone who has seen the documentary should understand that point.

there's no may about it steven.

if someone preaches about something, i and many others expect them to also live what they are preaching. you don't expect priests to preach abstinence and be out in whorehouses do you?

Do you expect wealthy benefactors funding anti-poverty initiatives to be poor? Do you criticize the Gates Foundation because Gates still has lots of wealth of his own?

Gore's work is mostly on the level of policy, too; the relevant analogy would be whether he would support a green policy, not whether he lives a third-world lifestyle. It's rather like someone promoting healthy nutrition and exercise programs; most of us wouldn't ignore the warnings of the FDA if the chairman were fat or had developed diabetes. To influence global policy you are going to have to use a lot of resources; this doesn't mean Gore gets a free pass, but to dismiss the man's entire work because he's not living in a straw hut and hunting game with a spear (especially since you don't seem to criticize Bush over it) is just messed up.

--

"and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

It seems to fit under fraternity among nations & peace congresses well enough, and as much as previous winners.

How? This does nothing to work for fraternity among nations. That statement is about nations settling their differences without violence.

Sure - but then you have to start questioning whether the likes of Eli Wiesel should have won the prize. As mentioned - the terms are very vague, vague enough that a novelist can win on the basis that his works make him a "messenger for peace".

[GaryC 7]

While what Al Gore does or doesn't do in his personal life to reduce his carbon footprint may make him seem hypocritical, it doesn't negate the legitimacy of his documentary. Anyone who has seen the documentary should understand that point.

there's no may about it steven.

if someone preaches about something, i and many others expect them to also live what they are preaching. you don't expect priests to preach abstinence and be out in whorehouses do you?

Do you expect wealthy benefactors funding anti-poverty initiatives to be poor? Do you criticize the Gates Foundation because Gates still has lots of wealth of his own?

Gore's work is mostly on the level of policy, too; the relevant analogy would be whether he would support a green policy, not whether he lives a third-world lifestyle. It's rather like someone promoting healthy nutrition and exercise programs; most of us wouldn't ignore the warnings of the FDA if the chairman were fat or had developed diabetes. To influence global policy you are going to have to use a lot of resources; this doesn't mean Gore gets a free pass, but to dismiss the man's entire work because he's not living in a straw hut and hunting game with a spear (especially since you don't seem to criticize Bush over it) is just messed up.

--

"and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

It seems to fit under fraternity among nations & peace congresses well enough, and as much as previous winners.

How? This does nothing to work for fraternity among nations. That statement is about nations settling their differences without violence.

Sure - but then you have to start questioning whether the likes of Eli Wiesel should have won the prize. As mentioned - the terms are very vague, vague enough that a novelist can win on the basis that his works make him a "messenger for peace".

I am not failure with Eli Wiesel but a quick google tells me that at least his work is about world peace and combating intolerance. It's at least on the same subject as world peace. AlGore and his GW tripe has nothing at all to do with peace.

[GaryC 7]

I think we are talking about two different judges here. I think ET was talking about the Nobel judges with whom I take issue with for awarding the prize.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with this judges decision?

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible†to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

As I said earlier, the same judge also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". I know you don't like it but the judge in no way supports your position, Gary. He's not a denier.

He may have but the dire consequence's of GW that AlGore spouts is in doubt. Without the cataclysm that he predicts GW is nothing more than an aggravation and not something we need to be awarding Peace Prizes for.

[Badrs Love 0]

I know it's OT but in 1994 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". I don't think their efforts worked at all, does that make their Peace Prize any less valid?

[no name 1]

It wasn't just Al Gore who won... you're forgetting the IPCC. I think they were both deserving of the award.

But what does that have to do with Peace? That is my whole point. If you want to honor them then start a prize for environmental advances. But the Peace Prize isn't the appropriate award to give.

Gary, why is so hard to get? It's not your call. The Nobel committee decides from among the nominees. NOT YOU. Read up on the histpry of the Nobel, like Steven & #6 said, there is a lot of controversey & thought-provoking decisions. No matter what you say (or how you try to spin it) it is (one of?/the) highest award you can ever receive.

Read up on Al Gore if your eyes can bother to be opened. He has a long history of educating others on the environment. I'll say it again, this award is NOT ABOUT THE MOVIE. It is about one activist + 2000 international scientists.

[rika60607 215]

Geez...

AG's carbon footprint may have to be bigger in order to achieve the goal of getting the planet's total carbon footprint to go down.

He's got a lot of people like you to convince

Actually, you will probably believe whatever you want to believe. No matter the facts...

Does the fact that Jefferson owned slaves at the time that he helped write the Constitution make that document any LESS valid?

I don't think so...for all the reasons DeadPool mentioned above...

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

Don't you dare attempt to condescend to me, Stevo. Lack of character? First you question my 'authenticity' because I agreed with someone, now you're questioning my character? How dare you.

I am not making this into one big 'Conservative/Liberal' hoo ha like you seem to be making it out to be. I am talking my views on Al Gore...he's a hypocrite. Now he can cure cancer and be an ecological hypocrite, and if he got a Nobel Prize for curing cancer...well I'll be the first one dancing in the streets. But he got a Nobel Prize for all his 'work' with the environment....which he doesn't practice in his regular life. He chunters on and on about how man can make a difference, yet he is one of the biggest footprints around.

Which is WHY he shouldn't have rec'd a NP for essentially nothing but hot air. Talk is cheap. Action means something. We can argue all we want on what we THINK, but it is what we DO that really matters.

I have tried very much to explain my POV to you...but no matter how many times I do, you keep coming back with the same questions. Now regardless of your comprehension problems...I will not sit idly by why you cast aspersions as to my character....so not only do I see you owing me an apology, you need to be more mindful of what you're saying to me.

You kicked up a fuss when someone made assumptions about your character...didn't you? Even wanted a 'moratorium' on political threads because of it. Yet you freely bash others' characters with ease.

Interesting. And pathetic at the same time.

Lisa, I apologize if you think I was dissing your character. I was saying in general, this Swiftboating of public figures shows a lack of character and it's getting so predictable to the point of nauseau by the Ring Wing extremists of the Republican Party who've had a stranglehold on the rest of the Party for awhile now. They're losing their grip and we're now seeing divisions within the Party - that it's not so unified when it comes to many of the issues. That to me is a relief. Diversity of thought, IMO, is one of the traits that makes this country strong, not weak.

Let's be honest, anytime you hear about Al Gore, you roll your eyes back and dismiss whatever he says or might say as worthless based on your judgement of his character. That to me, is a disservice to this country. As I stated before, even fools are capable of saying something wise.

[rika60607 215]

Gary,

does this mean you are advocating smearing?

Or you simply throw this statement in, in hopes of provoking more heated argument?

But all those people really are idiots!

But how about all the people on the right that have been smeared? I could easily make a list just as long. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed for that?

[rika60607 215]

Well,

that's just your opinion... You stated the "facts" in the beginning of the thread (such as "polar caps are not melting, but getting bigger"), which are so blatantly off, that... well, no fact can convince you, right? And you would not even admit that "okay, may be I was wrong on that one little part"...

So, denial, eh Gary?

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

does this mean you are advocating smearing?

Or you simply throw this statement in, in hopes of provoking more heated argument?

But all those people really are idiots!

But how about all the people on the right that have been smeared? I could easily make a list just as long. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed for that?

Read my smiley, the first statement was a joke.

[GaryC 7]

Well,

that's just your opinion... You stated the "facts" in the beginning of the thread (such as "polar caps are not melting, but getting bigger"), which are so blatantly off, that... well, no fact can convince you, right? And you would not even admit that "okay, may be I was wrong on that one little part"...

So, denial, eh Gary?

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

The Antarctic polar cap is getting bigger. That is a proven fact. Look it up yourself. But the story I quoted is what it is. I agree with it but I don't take credit for it. As for mankind causing GW it is just a theory. There has been no proof.