Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[GaryC 7]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

So, since you didn't take issue with that part of the judge's finding, I take it you stipulate that the film is not just hysteria but is in fact founded on scientific research and fact. Good.

Now, what does raising awareness in GW have to do with promoting and/or preserving world peace? GW is something that already impacts millions of people and has the capacity to impact billions more in the not too distant future. We're talking mass migration. We're talking small island nations losing their countries altogether. This sort of thing will raise tensions quickly when those that have been deprived of their land or those who have seen their land become uninhabitable knock on the doors of those that still have inhabitable land to live on. You think the 12 million illegals we deal with in the US is bad? I suspect that if the trends continue the way they are projected, we ain't seen nothing yet.

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision and I do think the movie is nothing but hysteria and hype. But as I said that is a different issue.

If you let that chain of events qualify AlGore for the Peace Prize then just about anything will qualify. There are just to many things that we have to take for granted to make it a viable possibility. It is just to far removed from the final outcome to make this a valid award.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

So, since you didn't take issue with that part of the judge's finding, I take it you stipulate that the film is not just hysteria but is in fact founded on scientific research and fact. Good.

Now, what does raising awareness in GW have to do with promoting and/or preserving world peace? GW is something that already impacts millions of people and has the capacity to impact billions more in the not too distant future. We're talking mass migration. We're talking small island nations losing their countries altogether. This sort of thing will raise tensions quickly when those that have been deprived of their land or those who have seen their land become uninhabitable knock on the doors of those that still have inhabitable land to live on. You think the 12 million illegals we deal with in the US is bad? I suspect that if the trends continue the way they are projected, we ain't seen nothing yet.

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision and I do think the movie is nothing but hysteria and hype. But as I said that is a different issue.

How so? The judges decision is what started this threat. Well, the part that's convenient to your truth anyway...

[Caladan 19]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

Sure - which is why Mahatma Gandhi and the last pope were notably omitted.

Dude, all I can say is read the list of Nobel winners. Many have connections to peace. Many have connections to 'international cooperation' or benefit, like the one given to the founder of the Red Cross. Read the directives of Nobel's will. You're saying 'it wasn't his intent', but Nobel's will did not say 'only give this to people who negotiate political peace settlements.' The terms were VERY vague.

[Caladan 19]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

Sure - which is why Mahatma Gandhi and the last pope were notably omitted.

Forgive my ignorance, Did Gandhi and John Paul II get the award? IMO those people are what the award was founded for, not "raising GW awareness".

Gandhi was on the short list ('nominated' is sort of a bad term because there isn't a formal nominations process), reportedly, several times, and the story goes that he would have received it in 1948 but he died that year. Nobels are not awarded posthumously.

[GaryC 7]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

So, since you didn't take issue with that part of the judge's finding, I take it you stipulate that the film is not just hysteria but is in fact founded on scientific research and fact. Good.

Now, what does raising awareness in GW have to do with promoting and/or preserving world peace? GW is something that already impacts millions of people and has the capacity to impact billions more in the not too distant future. We're talking mass migration. We're talking small island nations losing their countries altogether. This sort of thing will raise tensions quickly when those that have been deprived of their land or those who have seen their land become uninhabitable knock on the doors of those that still have inhabitable land to live on. You think the 12 million illegals we deal with in the US is bad? I suspect that if the trends continue the way they are projected, we ain't seen nothing yet.

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision and I do think the movie is nothing but hysteria and hype. But as I said that is a different issue.

How so? The judges decision is what started this threat. Well, the part that's convenient to your truth anyway...

Hehe, we can go round and round if you want. I think I have already stated my objections to the idea of man-made global warming in general and to the movie specifically. We really don't need to go over that again. It is obvious that I will not change your mind and I know you will not change mine.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision and I do think the movie is nothing but hysteria and hype. But as I said that is a different issue.

How so? The judges decision is what started this threat. Well, the part that's convenient to your truth anyway...

Hehe, we can go round and round if you want. I think I have already stated my objections to the idea of man-made global warming in general and to the movie specifically. We really don't need to go over that again. It is obvious that I will not change your mind and I know you will not change mine.

Out of curiosity: Were you with the deniers during the time when awareness for the man made depletion of the ozone layer began to be raised?

[GaryC 7]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

Sure - which is why Mahatma Gandhi and the last pope were notably omitted.

Dude, all I can say is read the list of Nobel winners. Many have connections to peace. Many have connections to 'international cooperation' or benefit, like the one given to the founder of the Red Cross. Read the directives of Nobel's will. You're saying 'it wasn't his intent', but Nobel's will did not say 'only give this to people who negotiate political peace settlements.' The terms were VERY vague.

I think you were addressing me here so I will reply.

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.

I fail to see how raising awareness of GW even remotely fits in here. It may be vague but it isn't that vague.

[GaryC 7]

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision and I do think the movie is nothing but hysteria and hype. But as I said that is a different issue.

How so? The judges decision is what started this threat. Well, the part that's convenient to your truth anyway...

Hehe, we can go round and round if you want. I think I have already stated my objections to the idea of man-made global warming in general and to the movie specifically. We really don't need to go over that again. It is obvious that I will not change your mind and I know you will not change mine.

Out of curiosity: Were you with the deniers during the time when awareness for the man made depletion of the ozone layer began to be raised?

Not really, that had a real and measurable effect. The science was strong and hard to deny.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

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?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

I fail to see how raising awareness of GW even remotely fits in here. It may be vague but it isn't that vague.

If we manage to preserve the inhabitable land of just one nation, that would be a huge contribution in terms of the fraternity of nations, wouldn't it? I suppose you're upset that the Nobel committee isn't stacked with them deniers.

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?

Chuck, this goes as far back as mankind. They always preached water and drank wine. They still do. Most of them.

[Peikko 1,575]

Priests are not particularly immune to temptation.

Regardless, that waasn't what I wanted to ask. I know this is a tangent, but Gary, I am interested in this statement you made

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision

Do you think the court didn't investigate this film thoroughly enough or??? Just curious as it seemed to me, on the surface anyway, that the judgement seemed balanced and fair.

[GaryC 7]

Have you been reading the thread? Everything I have written about AlGore has been about his positions and his actions. None of it has been poking fun at him. If pointing out the truth is smearing then you have re-defined the word. Are you saying that whenever he gets brought up we should just remain silent and let the false claims go unchallenged? You can't have it both ways Steven.

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.

So you don't think his legitimacy has been taken away?

I will remember that the next time a rep gets caught cheating or playing with boys.

[Caladan 19]

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.

[GaryC 7]

Priests are not particularly immune to temptation.

Regardless, that waasn't what I wanted to ask. I know this is a tangent, but Gary, I am interested in this statement you made

In fact I do take issue with the judges decision

Do you think the court didn't investigate this film thoroughly enough or??? Just curious as it seemed to me, on the surface anyway, that the judgement seemed balanced and fair.

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

Edited October 13, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Have you been reading the thread? Everything I have written about AlGore has been about his positions and his actions. None of it has been poking fun at him. If pointing out the truth is smearing then you have re-defined the word. Are you saying that whenever he gets brought up we should just remain silent and let the false claims go unchallenged? You can't have it both ways Steven.

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.

So you don't think his legitimacy has been taken away?

I will remember that the next time a rep gets caught cheating or playing with boys.

Now you're just reaching, Gary. Those reps committed illegal and/or unethical acts. There's a huge difference. You might not be able discern that difference but I assure you there is one.