Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

[Locutus]

A breath of fresh reason here:

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.


The rest of the story:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

 

[Blackleaf]

To balance it out, all schools in Britain should also be given the DVD of a documentary made by Britain's Channel 4 which is called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Handing out DVDs to schools of a documentary which supports Global Warming but not also giving them DVDs of a documentary which says that man-made Global Warming is a myth is a bit unfair. So I think all schools should also be given The Great Global Warming Swindle so that kids can see Al Gore's film but also see this film and then make up their own minds on whether to believe in Global Warming or not.

DVD cover of Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are skeptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Publicity for the programme states that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times.

Viewpoints expressed in the film

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific consensus on global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film explains the publicised scientific consensus as the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other targets are Western environmentalists who, the film claims, promote expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, holding Africa back from industrialising. The film asks the question: "...if solar and wind power are too expensive for America, how can poor Africa afford it?"

Some of the people who are interviewed in the film are environmentalist Patrick Moore, founding member, but for the past 21 years a critic, of Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; and Piers Corbyn. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.

Some quotes from the film include:

"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."
Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris.

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

"The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."
Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace. wikipedia.org

 

[Niflmir]

There is good reason not to show that video to school children, just like there is good reason why I did not watch it.

To grossly oversimplify the issue, I know its important to brush my teeth. I don't need to watch a documentary which claims my teeth could fall out and I could get gangrene or syphilis if I didn't, in order to know that I should brush my teeth.

 

[Tonington]

I really don't think they should be shown either of those documentaries. It doesn't do any good to balance out one falsehood with an opposing falsehood. There are plenty of good programs out there, the Planet Earth Series by the BBC for one.

 

[Niflmir]

To balance it out, all schools in Britain should also be given the DVD of a documentary made by Britain's Channel 4 which is called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Handing out DVDs to schools of a documentary which supports Global Warming but not also giving them DVDs of a documentary which says that man-made Global Warming is a myth is a bit unfair. So I think all schools should also be given The Great Global Warming Swindle so that kids can see Al Gore's film but also see this film and then make up their own minds on whether to believe in Global Warming or not.

This came up in the global cooling thread. Giving two views equal footing when they do not have equal acceptance is of course a case of pseudosymmetry. Either it is established science or it is not. If it is teach it, if it is not it really has no place in the classroom but presenting two sides to a scientific issue is just a waste of time to schoolchildren.

 

[Locutus]

I really don't think they should be shown either of those documentaries. It doesn't do any good to balance out one falsehood with an opposing falsehood. There are plenty of good programs out there, the Planet Earth Series by the BBC for one.

I've always respected the manner in which David Attenborough presents issues. The "Are We Changing Planet Earth?" programme was excellent.

 

[#juan]

I've watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth about five times and as far as I can tell, any errors are insignificant to the message the film is presenting. We sure as hell can tell that the Earth is warming without a degree in climatology.
The only problem I have with it is that it is limited to C02 as the global warming culprit when there are at least seven other greenhouse gases

 

[#juan]

Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.


The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[4][5] Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases).

 

[s243a]

I think it depends on the intent. If the intent is to teach the principle of global warming then neither are good videos. If the intent is to stimulate critically thinking by presenting to strongly opposed views then I say show both.

 

[EagleSmack]

The wheels are falling off this Global Warming bus at a rapid rate. Each day it is getting shot full of holes. Gore better collect his Nobel prize soon because interest is waining.

 

[Tonington]

No, everyday it is hit by potshots. Our emissions are not benign and never will be, despite the best efforts of the denialist's to say so.

 

[goat]

Gore better collect his Nobel prize soon because interest is waining.

He will, as soon as his personal accounts are topped off with wampum wrested from the pockets of card-carrying zealots.

Then it's off to 1600

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Denial's not just a river in Egypt, some of you guys make me laugh.:lol:

 

[#juan]

The zealots are the ones who after all the evidence, still don't believe there is global warming. I thought Bush was the last one to be converted but obviously we missed a few.

 

[mabudon]

I sure am glad we haven't ruined the planet yet- too bad despite "global warming theory" getting "shot full of holes" our planets is turning into a poisonous cesspool. Go take a long cool sip of Lake Ontario

Anyone who crows about how stupid the concerned folks are, and pins the term "global warming" on the entire phenomenon of us wrecking our planet is a dangerous idiot. Actually maybe just a stupid idiot.

Seriously, drop the terminology- nailing too fine a point on what is happening, CHEMICALLY to our environment is an idiots game. Maybe Gore presented things with too many labels- the cackling right-wing mouthpieces have proven this to be the case. Forget Al Gore- think about swimming in a local Lake without worry, that should put the focus closer to the eyes of the idiots who are so gleeful to exhort the "there's no problem at all you ninnies" line

Stupid Stupid Stupid. There are some STUPID people on this planet


Stupid

Okay hope that was clear enough. I sure hope the loudmouth bandwagon types are right, but that too would be foolish, as they're just loudmouth cheerleaders.

This is NOT "trolling" or "flame bait" but I get sick of stupid hillbillies cheering about this business, and knowing there are such stupid people in our society frightens me- almost to the point of taking action against the sheer idiots

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

It's not just Global Warming that we need to be concerned about, what's happening in the oceans is serious.

In many places — the atolls of the Pacific, the shrimp beds of the Eastern Seaboard, the fiords of Norway — some of the most advanced forms of ocean life are struggling to survive while the most primitive are thriving and spreading. Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked. Where this pattern is most pronounced, scientists evoke a scenario of evolution running in reverse, returning to the primeval seas of hundreds of millions of years ago.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean30jul30,0,952130.story

And it's not just CO2 that the petrochemical industry is putting into the environment, it's also huge amounts of plastic that also end up polluting the oceans.

About 100 billion pounds of pellets are produced every year and shipped to Los Angeles and other manufacturing centers. Huge numbers are spilled on the ground and swept by rainfall into gutters; down storm drains, creeks and rivers; and into the ocean.

From his river sampling, Moore estimated that 236 million pellets washed down the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers in three days' time. Also known as "nurdles" or mermaid tears, they are the most widely seen plastic debris around the world. They have washed ashore as far away as Antarctica.

The pellets, like most types of plastic, are sponges for oily toxic chemicals that don't readily dissolve in water, such as the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Some pellets have been found to contain concentrations of these pollutants 1 million times greater than the levels found in surrounding water.

As they absorb toxic chemicals, they become poison pills. Wildlife researchers have found the pellets, which resemble fish eggs, in the bellies of fish, sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

Over time, plastic can break down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually turning to powder and entering the ocean in microscopic fragments. Some plastic starts out as tiny particles, such as the abrasives in cleaning products that are washed down the sink, through sewage systems and out to sea.

People that deny the seriousness of human activity on the environment are either incapable of accepting reality or guided by their own self-interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series,0,7842752.special

 

[Locutus]

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

Of course it is. Marketed by an ex-VP, non-scientist that wants to be president. The judge also did not say it was 'wrong' (in the realm of climate change debate members).

This article does not say that either.

Goreites become very sensitive if they percieve any criticism that implies ol' Al is 'wrong'. Very sensitive indeed.

It's nothing Gore did in the first place. He's simply a hand puppet. Whether you follow the 'theory' or not.

But it is political in agenda. No doubt about it.

 

[Extrafire]

The zealots are the ones who after all the evidence, still don't believe there is global warming. I thought Bush was the last one to be converted but obviously we missed a few.

There you go, twisting things around again and attacking a strawman. It isn't whether there is or isn't global warming, it's whether the cause is anthropological or not. Climate change is a given;everyone believes in it. It's the cause that we're arguing about.

 

[Extrafire]

I sure am glad we haven't ruined the planet yet- too bad despite "global warming theory" getting "shot full of holes" our planets is turning into a poisonous cesspool. Go take a long cool sip of Lake Ontario

Hmmm...sounds like you're concerned about pollution. Don't know anyone who would disagree with you.

Anyone who crows about how stupid the concerned folks are, and pins the term "global warming" on the entire phenomenon of us wrecking our planet is a dangerous idiot. Actually maybe just a stupid idiot.

Don't know anyone who would disagree with that either. Neither have I ever heard of anyone doing that.

Seriously, drop the terminology- nailing too fine a point on what is happening, CHEMICALLY to our environment is an idiots game. Maybe Gore presented things with too many labels- the cackling right-wing mouthpieces have proven this to be the case. Forget Al Gore- think about swimming in a local Lake without worry, that should put the focus closer to the eyes of the idiots who are so gleeful to exhort the "there's no problem at all you ninnies" line

Stupid Stupid Stupid. There are some STUPID people on this planet


Stupid

Okay hope that was clear enough. I sure hope the loudmouth bandwagon types are right, but that too would be foolish, as they're just loudmouth cheerleaders.

This is NOT "trolling" or "flame bait" but I get sick of stupid hillbillies cheering about this business, and knowing there are such stupid people in our society frightens me- almost to the point of taking action against the sheer idiots

Not quite sure what you're getting at. Yes, the effects of chemicals released into the environment is a concern, and the Conservatives initially tried to bring in an environmental act to attack this problem, but were shot down because they didn't ignore the chemicals and focus entirely on CO2.

Pollution is indeed a concern, and if that's what Al Gore was concerned about, he would have few, if any, detractors. But has he even mentioned anything other than CO2 induced global warming? I'm not aware of it if he has. In fact, the consequence of his actions seems to have been to ignore pollution and put all effort and funding toward CO2 reductions.

 

[Extrafire]

It's not just Global Warming that we need to be concerned about, what's happening in the oceans is serious.
[...]

And it's not just CO2 that the petrochemical industry is putting into the environment, it's also huge amounts of plastic that also end up polluting the oceans.

People that deny the seriousness of human activity on the environment are either incapable of accepting reality or guided by their own self-interest.
[...]

Ah, if that's what Al Gore was concerned about he'd have my support. Those are real concerns, Kid!