35 Flaws in Gore's Movie

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sandy, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Look, even the UK high court has spoken out AGAINST Al Gore's movie:

    Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

    This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.

    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. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine 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.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

    The inaccuracies are:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    8. 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.
    9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    10. 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.
    11. 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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Speaking of the IPCC, looks like some scientists who participated in the IPCC panel have spoken out AGAINST the IPCC own claims...
    The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

    I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...-rejects-nobel-prize-share-denounces-alarmism

    This is yet MORE evidence that the IPCC's claims are biased and political. Not only that the IPCC itself says that their own models are likely to be inaccurate and unreliable since it is difficult to predict climate changes
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There are a few skeptics, and that's fine, but they are probably wrong.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The "inaccuracies" that follow are none of them quoted findings by the judge, but rather inaccurate paraphrases and misdescriptions of the film and the ruling.

    Another way to say it is that your post there is dishonest.

    Ilustration:
    The government's expert was "forced to concede" no such thing. The problem was not that the film was incorrect, but that it was one-sided: there is a possibility that the snows on Kilimanjaro are receding from factors unrelated to CO2 heat trapping. That possibility was not mentioned specifically in Gore's film, leaving the possibility that using Kilimanjaro's receding snowline to illustrate the effects of such heat trapping would mislead the uninformed.

    Gore's point in the film - that mountain glaciers and snowcaps in temperate zones are receading worldwide, and that the effects of CO2 heat trapping would look like that (shows pictures of Kilimanjaro past and present) - was not shown to be incorrect. Not even the inferred claims about the specific Kilimanjaro melting were shown to be incorrect - they are quite possible, even likely, as of right now.

    What the judge found was political bias in the presentation - not inaccuracy in the science behind it.

    Which you would have discovered had you read the actual ruling - the judge determined that the evidence for anthropogenic CO2 trapping heat and thereby changing the climate was solid, and argument sound, and only the presentation by Gore in that film needed qualifiers to avoid misleading schoolchildren.
     
  8. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Hmm...what's more likely, a natural occurrence that's been happening for millions of years or man-made CO2 controlling the weather...

    They're not wrong, but it doesn't matter, the global warming hoaxers claim is unfalsifiable, if nothing happens they'll say "well we were spared" if something does happen they'll say "see it proves it, it can never have been a natural occurrence, any temperature rise or weather disruption proves man-made CO2 causes global warming"

    WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

    Al Gore's movie was entirely propaganda, many glaciers predicted by the global warming hoaxers to shrink are NOW EXPANDING
    http://newsbusters.org/node/13798
    http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

    If Global warming was true those glaciers shouldn't be growing, they should be shrinking, but it's not true, nothing the global warming hoaxers predicted will come true, anthropogenic CO2 trapping heat is debatable, its not solid evidence AT ALL, as recently (Sept. 2007), a NASA scientist noted Dr. David Wojick:
    “The real significance is that such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling…There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend…In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record

    "Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson

    From an official study done - http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

    Eventually the global warming hoax will die out, just like the global cooling hoax, just as more knowledge is gathered, the IPCC was sponsored by the UN to intentionally be biased
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The current rate of warming is unprecedented. The effects are already happening. Some glaciers might be expanding, but the trend overall is rapid shrinking.

    Wojick is not a climate scientist
    Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

    Wojick was a scientific advisor [2] for a now-defunct industry front group called the "Greening Earth Society,[3] created by the Western Fuels Association [4], a large US coal industry association. In his role as a "policy analyist," Wojick's client list [5]includes: AES Corporation [6],one of the largest electrical generation companies, with much of that in the form of coal, and Allegheny Energy [7], a company that generates 95% of its power from coal.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick
     
  10. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    ROFL @ your liberal conspiracies, but what about the other authentic scientist involved in the study?

    It's just as I said, the global warming hoax is unfalsifiable, if evidence comes out proving man-made global warming wrong, the global warming hoaxers will say "no, they must be working for the coal companies" or "they must not be real scientists"
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Did you notice this?

    Notice: This manuscript has been authored by employees of Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 with the U.S. Department of Energy.
     
  12. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    It's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, eventually this global warming hoax hysteria will die out once the evidence shows it and everyone is forced to go where the empirical evidence leads, all the graphs and data already shows that there should be a natural warming trend, just as there was 325,000 years ago

    "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air" - Reid Bryson, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

    Besides, I don't support CO2 emissions, but not because of the mass hysteria, because of other things. The free market will KILL CO2 naturally. These liberal hippies are going the wrong way with getting people to stop using CO2, instead of telling people to "conserve energy" and all that, you should get people to use an alternative source of energy
     
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    if you think the free market will stop co2 emmissions you are out of touch with reality
     
  14. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    No I'm not, you obviously don't even know what a free market is
     
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    yeah it is a market uncontrolled by the government i've already taken and passed basic college econ. the free market is all about making money not doing the best thing. industry will continue to pour out co2 unless regulated
     
  16. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    Then how do you explain the fact that the rate of temperature increase is unprecedented in historic as well as pre-historic terms?
     
  17. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Its not

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    325,000 years ago it was changing more and at a faster rate
     
  18. halo07guy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    400
    I think that the reason the reason they thought that the world was going to freeze, and then melt is due to littles processes called El Nina and, I think, La Pinta (I might be wrong about the last one. They the pattern of cooling and heating the world goes through every few decades. Could explain all the droughts and expanding deserts recently.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That is false. CO2 heat trapping is predicted to to cause many glaciers to grow, due to probable higher temperatures and increased snowfall in places like inland Antarctica and high altitude Greenland.

    The CO2 prediction is that the Kilimanjaro snowcap should shrink, and so it has. That does not, as the judge pointed out, prove anything - other possibilities for the shrinkage exist.

    ? How was that established?

    Outside of an asteroid impact, or a massive volcano sequence, what would do that?
    That's not what the judge said. You are the one who brought in this judge's opinion - well, his opinion was that the evidence of global warming, the argument that it was caused by anthro CO2 accumulation, and Gore's contention that humans could do something about it, were all sound and well based.
     
  20. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    No that's just blind speculations

    Kilimanjara was supposed to shrink anyway (naturally), the glaciers predicted to shrink like the New Zealand glaciers ARE EXPANDING, that's an empirical fact, the global warming hoaxers said that the New Zealand glaciers were "causualities" of global warming in 2002...

    Even participants within the IPCC panel are skeptical of the IPCC's own claims

    It's geology...oh now you're real skeptical when something doesn't support man-made CO2 causing global warming, what a coincidence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , but if you must know it's based on lots of different empirical evidence showing warming happening, you do know that in the past there was an ice age right? You do know that Antartica (which is now one of the coldest regions) which use to be a lot warmer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What's this? 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 300,000 years ago, etc...the EXACT same pattern happened? How could it be? I guess it must be man-made CO2

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ALL the data clearly shows that it's the exact same pattern that's been happening, nothing really new or alarming at all, its no wonder that a co-recepient of Al-Gore's nobel prize has said that all he sees are natural occurences and coincidences labeled as being caused by man-made CO2

    ROFL, I never said the judge said that, it's what was ruled, it was ruled as political propaganda

    I wonder why Al Gore's own co-recepient has spoken out against it, as well as scientists within the IPCC itself...

    Just watch in a few years it'll all be debunked as hoax, just wait for the concrete empirical evidence to come out....

    Just a question: WHY do you liberals WANT global warming being caused by man-made CO2 to be true?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2007
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    NO one wants it to be true, but it is. Look at that last chart and tell me that isn't an alarming spike in CO2 right at the end, the present time.
     
  22. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    There IS an alarming spike of CO2.... but what about the temperature?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Are there any graphs showing just the last 50,000 years?
     
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No wonder the oak tree in the front yard has such thick foliage.
     

Share This Page