Executive Summary: Science Fiction
5 Years After: Networks Celebrate Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth,’ Ignore Scientific Flaws, Criticism
By Julia A. Seymour, Business and Media Institute
The cause for the end of the world has been imagined by screenwriters to include everything from giant insects and malevolent robots to asteroids the size of Texas. But five year ago in May 2006, Hollywood found a new menace: carbon dioxide. This scenario was different in another respect. It was supposedly true.
The documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” wasn’t intended to be the blockbuster end-of-the-world tale that “Armageddon” was, but it was intended to frighten. The new film was full of disaster footage and catastrophic predictions about climate change. Its leading man: former vice president Al Gore.
The apocalyptic warning earned nearly $50 million worldwide and turned Gore into a “movie star,” according to the fawning networks. Gore won accolades, including an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. Reporters and anchors on ABC, CBS and NBC also made a hero of Apocalypse Al, embracing his views and bringing on guests with the same views including one who said Gore had been busy “saving the planet – literally.”
Gore received almost entirely uncritical coverage from the network morning and evening shows over global warming, despite plenty of evidence – scientific evidence – that would have discredited him and his film. Since the movie’s release, nearly 98 percent of those stories have excluded criticism of the so-called “science” of the film.
Gore’s film has been criticized for many errors and hyperbole regarding the past and future effects of global warming – including his exaggerated claim that sea levels will rise by 20 feet and his now-debunked assertion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change. Such examples were used to scare audiences into accepting Gore’s political agenda. The errors and agenda of the film prompted a British judge to rule that the film couldn’t be shown in schools without a disclaimer pointing out its inaccuracies and political bias. But those critical views are regularly banished from the networks.
The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute analyzed broadcast news coverage of Gore about climate change and mentions of “An Inconvenient Truth” between May 11, 2006, shortly before the film’s release, and April 30, 2011. Here are some of BMI’s findings:
- Who Needs Science?: Nearly 98 percent of broadcast stories (266 out of 272) failed to challenge the supposedly scientific claims of “An Inconvenient Truth” about global warming, including dramatic predictions of sea level rise and links between climate change and extreme weather such as tornadoes, hurricanes, fires and droughts. Many of these claims have been challenged, yet scientific criticism was barely represented by ABC, CBS and NBC.
- Gore’s Way or the Highway: More than 80 percent (222 of 272) of the network stories and briefs excluded any criticism of Al Gore or his film. About one-fifth of the stories that included opposition were critical of the 2007 Live Earth concerts organized by Gore, but expressed no dissent about global warming.
- Gore For President, or VP or Czar: Gore’s success with “An Inconvenient Truth,” was used by all three networks to push him to run for president again or accept a position within the Obama administration. In one CBS “Early Show” interview, Harry Smith literally tried to pin a “Gore ’08” campaign button on the former vice president.
- NBC the Worst: NBC has thrown objectivity out the window on the issue of global warming, preferring activism instead. In the past five years, “Nightly News” and “Today” maintained that role by including the lowest percentage of opposing views (17 percent) in its Gore/”An Inconvenient Truth” reports. Its parent company NBC/Universal also partnered with Gore for the Live Earth concerts, which were aired on its networks.
- ABC the Best: ABC news programming with “World News” and “Good Morning America,” ranked best out of the three networks because they included more opposing views than the other networks. But those views were still only included roughly one-fifth of the time (20 of 95).
To improve coverage, BMI recommends:
- Don’t just take Gore’s word for it: Al Gore is certainly a passionate activist, but he isn’t a scientist. The networks shouldn’t take his interpretation of global warming science as truth. Rather, they should be skeptical because of his very real political agenda.
- Include both sides: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states journalists should “ Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is the media’s job to inform the public, not persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints. Particularly, networks should give skeptical scientists the opportunity to share their findings – just like they include scientists who say manmade global warming is going to devastate the planet.
- Recognize that advocacy is not reporting: The SPJ Code of Ethics also says to: “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”
Read the Full Report
Read the Sidebar: Live Earth: NBC Joins the Fight for ‘Climate in Crisis,’ Fails to Stay Objective
What can you say….
“World ends at 10..
….film at 11”
Sells advertising
It would be good if the BBC had a code of ethics where CAGW were concerned.
What a fool I was…I fell for it.
I initially believed him….
I now believe the real truth is a bit more convenient.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
It’s interesting how those who lack facts and seek to persuade always label their dogma “truth.” They behave as if they simply know something other people don’t, and must reveal truth to you.
It’s even better for them when they charge you to reveal that truth to you. How many people paid $8-10 for tickets to that film? How many purchased it on DVD? I’ve been in cults where the propaganda was free. Gore is probably making an enormous profit on nonsense.
Perhaps we should exchange those awards with “best snake-oil salesman of the new millenium.”
I always think of Tony Robbins, “The Giant Within,” at TED advising Gore that if only Gore would communicate his message with more passion and conviction then people would act.
If the American people are to get the truth about the bogus pseudoscience of AGW, I wish Fox News (the only TV news network that is not Leftist) would make more of an effort to put the skeptical scientists on the air and give them the opportunity to show us all the science that makes the AGW theory highly dubious (to say the least). Perhaps they could make a one or two hour special (or a short series of specials) about it using the best scientists from the skeptics side of this issue. Of course, to be fair, the special(s) should review and explain the pro-AGW argument as well, but it should
then explain the science that shoots it down. Using TV to educate the American people with the science that makes AGW seriously suspect is the best way to overcome the pro-AGW propaganda from the Left in the MSM and politics.
Yesterday Al Gore stated to a graduating class that climate change is “the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced” which would, I suppose, mean that Al Gore is the greatest ambassador/herald of all time. The arrogance is insufferable.
http://uticadailynews.com/daily_local_news/20942-Gore-addresses-Hamilton-grads.html
On the topic of the media and climate change, I found this article in the NYTimes of interest:
Once-Rare Mississippi River Flooding Now ‘More Frequent and More Severe’
By PAUL QUINLAN of Greenwire Published: May 17, 2011
It contains this quote:
“I’m also confident that because we’re changing the climate, there is human influence on every weather event,” Gleick said. “That influence may be incredibly tiny for every single weather event, but I’d like to argue that it is no longer zero.”
Hard to argue with such a statement, isn’t it. The article itself, despite the headline, was pretty good at giving the ACE interpretation of the statistics.
sdollarfan says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:30 am
=======================================
Hannity did a global warming special August, 2110.
You should be able to find it on Fox or U-tube.
Having never seen the movie or any associated materials, I’ll have to ask here: what was the time-scale on The Goreacle’s predictions? Did he actually assign real numbers to his estimates?
In other words, how long do we need to wait before we can superimpose a plot of “reality” on top of his charts of prediction, to see the divergence?
Because I’ve gotta say, it really drives a point home.
Scott Ramsdell says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:40 am
Yesterday Al Gore stated to a graduating class that climate change is “the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced” which would, I suppose, mean that Al Gore is the greatest ambassador/herald of all time. The arrogance is insufferable.
I’m glad we’ve solved poverty and famine from the world.
I am going out on a limb (not too far) and predicting/projecting that “An Inconvenient Truth” will replace “Reefer Madness” as the classic alarmist movie that will become the laughingstock for many generations.
Sounds as though they’ve employed people from the BBC!
It’s always worse than we thought. The worst storm for 20 years, the worst flooding since 19whenever, the worst drought since 18??. They always give the clue in the headline, & they don’t even have the intelligence to realise it. It’s inevitably happened before, & if it hasn’t, statistically it’s possible for it to happen at some stage. The floods in Queensland (it’s ALL Queen’s land BTW;-) ) are a case in point!
I’m finding the comments of active hyping of global warming to be very much at odds with my own experience in Scotland. We’ve just a quite a dramatic storm with trees down everywhere and despite trying to find anyone hyping it up as “yet another example of global warming” … there’s nothing.
Similarly with the ubiquitous “global warming could …” story which used to be linked to any scientific investigation from lemmings to motorway traffic. A few years ago, the papers were full of “scientists” falling over each other to link their research to the global warming. Apparently these days global warming is … well … it’s like the last thing you want to do is link it to global warming if you want your research to be taken seriously.
Obviously there’s still a few pockets of this nonsense .. the Zimbadwe independent is one website that springs to mind, but overall as far as I can see climate alarmism is dead in the normal news outlets.
This is only one aspect of the all-pervasive liberal bias in the media. I’ve noticed in the morning NPR coverage of Republican primary candidates that following announcing the candidate’s name and background, they ALWAYS include some disparaging snippet of opposition viewpoint. Fine, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Want to guess how many times they do that with Democrat candidates for anything, at any time, anywhere?
And who is Herman Cain? They won’t say his name. They won’t mention he exists. They will refuse to acknowledge his existence until there’s just no other option and they’d be made to look like fools (well, even bigger fools) by remaining silent.
Well, that’s not going to happen!
This is the man was once described as “wooden”.
It followed him around to the point of being a joke with the entertainment industry even: Al Gore Makes Surprisingly Non-Wooden Appearance on “30 Rock”
.
Lichanos says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:42 am
It contains this quote:
“I’m also confident that because we’re changing the climate, there is human influence on every weather event,” Gleick said. “That influence may be incredibly tiny for every single weather event, but I’d like to argue that it is no longer zero.”
Hard to argue with such a statement, isn’t it. The article itself, despite the headline, was pretty good at giving the ACE interpretation of the statistics.
Also hard to argue with this statement:
“I’m also confident that because the climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, there is this influence on every weather event,” JohnWho said. “That influence may be incredibly tiny for every single weather event, but I’d like to argue that it is no longer zero.”
Doh!
Regarding Gleick’s statement, he’s not being specific on exactly what humans are doing to “change the climate” at all.
The cause for the end of the world has been imagined by screenwriters to include everything from giant insects and malevolent robots to asteroids the size of Texas.
Asteroids the size of Texas are called planets.
It is the way religion always has been, and by its very nature is. Therefore it is not surprising. What is surprising is the number of sources that have abandoned all pretexts of science in this debate, and instead rely on the belief system.
Some say that the state of science in education (especially in America) is in a very sad state. Gore’s inconvenient truth is merely affirmation of that statement.
I didn’t even see the movie, but the reports I got from my children who saw it in school (!) was actually what triggered a more skeptical view of global warming theory in me. So thank you Al Gore, your marketing efforts woke me up!
Scott Ramsdell says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:40 am
Actually, Al Gore has the greatest monetary gain to make if he can only convince the world of his thieving, lying ways. Unfortunately, people are waking up, taking note, reading WUWT–but what’s not to like?
I can attest to NBC being the worst, which I think they even force on their affiliates. I’m a bike commuter and as such I am in the elements every day. Our local NBC station has the best radar and weather reporting, so I check their website frequently to see what the radar looks like. I only need a 40 minute window to get home, so on rainy days I can tell if jumping out soon or hanging back will give me clear skies. Anyway, they have a “Climate Change” section of links to the right side of the page. It’s always full of the most easily swiped aside alarmist reports. If I wasn’t a fan of this site I’d really get whipped up into a lather over the stuff posted there. Thanks to WUWT I can chuckle at it.
The movie would have made far less money if it was titled “A Politically Expedient Passel of Hogwash.”
I saw the film when it was released because several of my friends saw it. Among my friends were several Green activists, so I did not discuss it with them. The film contains a lot of utter nonsense. The one I find most outrageous is Gore’s claim that one-third of all CO2 emissions come from burning of forests in South America and Africa by people who are preparing for spring planting and similar activities. I have not been successful in getting anyone to discuss this claim. I guess everyone recognizes it as a ludicrous claim. That is pretty much my opinion of the entire film.
Scottish Sceptic,
Just heard about what you went through. Something similar slammed through central Massachusetts a couple years back. Massive power outages and the debris still hasn’t been completely cleared up. Good luck to you and your neighbors.
Brings to mind another American preacher who predicted the end of the world two days ago, ermmm, it didn’t end and neither will the world end according to the religion of Al Gore!
Mike McMillan says: “Asteroids the size of Texas are called planets.”
No. Dwarf planet or Kuiper belt object. Pluto is no longer called a planet.
Sadly, the lack of fact checking on the part of the major news media is getting worse. Had this sort of junk science come out in the 1950s, the reporters would have given both sides a chance to respond.
Today, the major news media is more about hype and facts take a back seat. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC should change their name to The Propganda Report. In my book, their credibility is ZERO!!!
The movie earned him a Nobel and an Oscar; I hope it will someday earn him an indictment for stock manipulation.
Mike McMillan says:
Asteroids the size of Texas are called planets.
Tell that to Pluto…
I owe Al Gore alot. He saved me. Until “Inconvenient Truth” I believed in AGW. His movie made me start thinking and researching AGW for myself. The facts made me a skeptic. I also realized the people that were telling me AGW was a disaster a coming, and we “peasants” must give up everything and live like people did in the “Dark Ages”; were living in million dollar homes, flying all over the world, and driving big cars. It doesn’t take much smarts to understand the hypocrisy in people the likes of Al Gore.
The minister that was pushing the Rapture coming this last weekend should have taken a lesson from Gore. Make dire pronouncements, point to all disasters in the news and claim they are portents of the coming end of the world. BUT make sure that it’s after you’re lifetime.
That minister should get a job with GISS, he’s adjusted his figures to allow for God’s compassion so armageddon’s been postponed until October 31st.
But wait, there’s more, namely with the “10th error” in his movie about skeptic scientists being corrupted by fossil fuel industry money. Please see ‘Mainstream Media Marginalization of Skeptic Scientists: Was Al Gore just a handy speaker in it, or was he the major driver behind it?’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11168/Climate-Depot-Exclusive-Smearing-Skeptic-Scientists-What-did-Gore-know-and-when-did-he-know-it
Since there is really not a single piece of defensible science to support Al Gore’s global warming claims, it is not hard to criticize the movie. It’s just the intractable and blockading nature of the media, the simpleton trust by much of the public, the stubbornness of the blindly faithful, and the zero integrity of Al Gore and his cronies that makes the global warming scam difficult to fight.
In my high school environmental science class I usually end up the year playing Gore’s video- but then I follow it up with “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “Not Evil, Just Wrong.” And perhaps the Monckton video too (by this time they are usually complaining of global warming overload).
I’ve found that students are not so gullible when presented with both sides of an issue. I wish the MSM would do their job.
The only difference between Al Gore and Harold Camping is Gore is more wily. Camping put it all on the line by specifying a specific day, whereas Gore knew that to keep the momentum running he’d have to spread out the time-line and make sure nothing was provable.
Gore’s downfall was that after 5 years, too many of his proclamations have proven wrong. Polar bears, Kilimanjaro, the Hockey Stick, rising sea levels, and the other fallacies….
Camping’s math was wrong, so’s Gore’s, yet their respective net worths are mind numbing. If we could only make people see that both of them are jokes, and the joke’s on anyone who believes them.
Gore’s film turned everyone in this household into sceptics about AGW.
Actually, like the NPP, and Fahrenheit 9/11, it is not about anything other than propaganda. Both the film critics and the NPP Committee just wanted to make a statement – they did not care of the quality or impact of the work they were making the statement with.
BradProp1…Ditto, after watching the movie and doing a small amount of study, I no longer worried about AGW. Though it was replaced by an extreme fear of our collective gullibilty!
We Aussies still want our cyclone back – the one that Al Gore stole and placed off Florida.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-turns-to-photoshop.html
And while we’re about it, he can give back the one on his book cover too.
Sundance says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:53 am
I am going out on a limb (not too far) and predicting/projecting that “An Inconvenient Truth” will replace “Reefer Madness” as the classic alarmist movie that will become the laughingstock for many generations.
“Reefer madness”: Bad acting, good message.
“Inconvenient Truth”: Good acting, bad message.
Concerning his Nobel Peace Prize, I went to the Nobel museum in Stockholm which included a lecture or talk. In the question and answer session it was proudly stated that Al was fast tracked to the prize. It was also stated that over the years some individuals had been found unworthy of the Nobel Prize; to which I offered the comment that this would certainly apply in Al Gore’s case as he was a complete charletan. The lecturer was speechless; my wife stepped in to save me saying I was an chemical engineer and didn’t believe in AGW. This was in June 2008 when he was flavour of every month.
I didn’t click the comments box.
[Maybe hit Enter by accident? ~dbs]
Starting to see more anti-CAGW thoughts in engineering blogs. He makes the point that at least the preacher makes his predictions specific enough to be falsified.
http://www.pddnet.com/column-karl-stephan-global-warmings-judgement-day-052411/?et_cid=1581418&et_rid=45603233&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pddnet.com%2fcolumn-karl-stephan-global-warmings-judgement-day-052411%2f
OK, completely OT but there isn’t a suitable recent thread. I’ve just looked at the SOHO phot of the Sun on solarcycle24.com, and there’s just one sizeable spot (1105242130Z). Therefore, can anyone explain to me why the official sunspot number should not be 11 = 10 (for the group) + 1 (for the single spot)?
TIA to any experts out there,
Rich.
Heck, let’s make it two. I just visited Weatherbell.com – Joe Bastardi’s just gone behind a paywall. Only $160 a year to subscribe. Good luck with that, Joe. You know what, you used to be popular…
Ciao it’s the only weather blog you ain’t got today…
Rich.
It turns out that that rapture guy was right, except only one person cut the mustard. According to his father, he disappeared through the sunroof of his dad’s car into the sky on Saturday afternoon in Joplin, MO.
Good analysis, DJ, but let me help you create a more simply message.
Al Gore = Harold Camping
What has Al Gore got to do with llama dung? The connection is not immediately obvious but in Britain the Guardian newspaper has long functioned as a cheer leader for Al Gore and other global warming zelots. Therefore I was rather surprised to read a sentence about the benefits of global warming in the Guardian yesterday. It probably escaped the censors because it was in an article about llama dung.
Dung loaming: how llamas aided the Inca empire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/22/incas-llama-manure-crops?INTCMP=SRCH
The main thesis of the article was that Inca culture spread from Andes after manure from llama herds provided fertiliser for corn crops at high altitude. However the writer also pointed out that climate change was a factor.
“Climate change, in the form of warmer temperatures, also helped Inca society to evolve by making it easier to cultivate corn at high altitudes.”
Could climate models tell us how important temperature was compared with llama dung?
DJ says:
May 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Let them debate each other. Camping vs Gore.
climate change is “the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced”
You can certainly trust the guy that invented the internet for your facts. A case could be made that Al probably killed more people by growing tobacco than have ever been killed by AGW induced climate change. More people are killed by bathtubs than are killed by AGW.
How many people die in the bathtub each year?
Answer: Aprox. 40,000
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_in_the_bathtub_each_year
We should put a tax on bathing. Maybe a BTS – bath trading scheme – whereby we pay people in Africa and the Maldives to take baths for us, so that we won’t be exposed to the risk. Eventually as the tax on bathing gets high enough, people will stop bathing altogether and the death rate will plummet.
Jim Barker says:
Starting to see more anti-CAGW thoughts in engineering blogs. He makes the point that at least the preacher makes his predictions specific enough to be falsified.
Followed up, of course, by people spouting the typical talking points (i.e. he’s a physicist, so he’s not qualified to talk, etc.)
See – owe to Rich says:
May 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm
There were only 2 separate spots yesterday for 22, and one spot today for 11.
I cannot see anything on the satellite images that would justify more than that.
For nostalgia’s sake,
Proof: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)
Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
Errors:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore’s ‘alarmist’ climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Guides:
A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (154pgs) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
Appeal to authority seems to have been the single most successful tactic in this whole affair.
I can see that any subject, whether it be religion, population control, health, science or food. It is a successful and powerful strategy. In fact the health industry, and government for that matter have been using this strategy with good success for a very long time.
put them all in jail
Isn’t anyone else as offended as I am that he got a Nobel “peace?” Prize. What do you think Albert Schweitzer might say about that, or Martin Luther King, or Henry Kissinger, or the Red Cross or any of the other real recipients?
Journalists are no longer interested in journalism, they have devolved to being nothing more than propagandists. Quiet please social engineering at work.
Al Gore has plenty of serious errors in his movie. I dont know if we can say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is fully exhonerated from significant contribution to 20th century warming observations though, at least not yet. I think we can say that we dont fully understand all of the mechanisms of climate change and anyone who says they have all the answers when it comes to understanding climate change is a BS artist. Less hubris and more study is required.
jorgekafkazar says:
May 24, 2011 at 9:58 am
Mike McMillan says: “Asteroids the size of Texas are called planets.”
No. Dwarf planet or Kuiper belt object. Pluto is no longer called a planet.
At least until the next time a bunch of astronomers desperately need to get published or go on TV.
John Marshall says:
May 24, 2011 at 7:13 am
It would be good if the BBC had a code of ethics where CAGW were concerned.
Did anyone see BBC breakfast news this morning about 7.20am-ish? The BBc are doing reports every day about the drought in the south of the UK and although I haven’t heard them mentioned AGW, you know what they are getting at.
Today a reporter was on a fruit farm somewhere in the East of the country (didn’t hear where) and was stood in an orchard with trees with brown leaves and shrivelled plums (no rude jokes please 🙂 )
He was talking about the drought causing problems for farmers, food prices etc. Anyway he interviewed the farmer and asked him if this year was the worst in the 5 generations of farming there. The farmer basically said no there were worse years and it wasn’t the drought that was the problem, they could deal with that but it was the nightime frosts that were doing the damage. I had a wee chuckle to myself.
@Keith. Woollard: A lot of us are just as angry as you about the debasement of the Nobel prizes, peace in particular, but remember that it was debased long before Gore: once Kissinger had one, the prizes had already moved into being a parody of themselves. Sad, but indisputable.
I agree with the other commenters who thank Gore for the film, though: I’m another one who started wondering after seeing his obvious poppycock, and discovering the truth has reinforced both my faith in (real) science and my contempt for the political class.
Meanwhile, here in the UK, the Gore-inspired AGW drones drone on: f’rinstance the “good ole” Guardian is still asking a question long since answered (in the negative) here on WUWT:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/24/tornadoes-more-common-climate-change
– Keep it up, Mr. Jha, “science” correspondent. I used to buy your paper every day. Never again while there’s only this sort of tosh to read in it, though.
Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is purely in the realms of an infomercial for AGW, and as such any resemblance to facts or scientific content is purely coincidental.
People like to bring up the British court case, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education, and claim it discredits the Al Gore Oscar winning documentary film, “An Inconvient Truth”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ruling says,
“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.”
I wonder what percentage of news stories about the film mentioned the above?
James of the West says:
May 24, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Al Gore has plenty of serious errors in his movie. I dont know if we can say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is fully exhonerated from significant contribution to 20th century warming observations though, at least not yet.
Nor can we say categorically that anthropogenic CO2 is causing any significant contribution to 20th century warming observations, either.
“Significant” meaning “primary”, “detectable”, “theoretical”, “barely noticeable” or what?
The ruling in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education also says,
I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The ruling says as well,
“The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as “very likely” to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
Robert Stevenson . . .
. . .when I said he was a complete charletan.
Made me spill my coffee with this one. Would’ve loved to have been there.
The British court ruling found “An Inconvienent Truth” to be a valuable teaching tool which was accurate with the current science. None of the “errors” in the film call into question the major points of the film, but are instead outlayers, with which the court disagreed about the magnitude of the points, not the factual basis of the “errors”. At this point, “An Inconvienent Truth” has stood up to criticism and has been shown to be a good representation of some climate science. Mr. Gore has done a good service in speaking about climate change and has shown himself to be knowledgable about the issue.
Just go to http://www.generationim.com, look up the press announcements they made, and then try to convince yourself that the film had nothing to do with the 5 billion they managed to collect for their investment fund.
In a way Gore’s movie turned me into a skeptic as well. The biggest factor was his chart on temperature/CO2 correlation. When I saw that I wondered to myself how anyone could be skeptical of AGW. However, I knew smart people like Crichton were skeptical so I dug a little deeper. That was when I learned that the temperature rise always preceded the CO2 rise.
Now, that in itself would not necessarily have made me skeptical. But, the fact that this TRUTH was hidden and an obvious lie was being used to try and convince folks that AGW was true was more than enough to make me a skeptic.
When I see naive comments like those from “sceptical” above, it makes me realize there are many, many people that simply won’t take the time to understand the issues. We see them posting here regularly.
sceptical says:
“The British court ruling found ‘An Inconvienent Truth’ to be a valuable teaching tool which was accurate…”
…And down is up, white is black, and evil is good. The court in fact found numerous instances of pseudo-science. Handing a fig leaf to “consensus” doesn’t change the fact that Gore’s propaganda film was full of anti-science.
The proof is that many years later, the evidence shows that despite still rising CO2 – a harmless trace gas – global temperatures are trending downward.
So who are you gonna believe? Algore? Or the planet and your lying eyes?
Gores film is laden with errors that remain, yet Wegman is being hung out to dry for an undergrads “cut and paste”. The errors in Gore’s film render it useless as a teaching tool, and the “cut and paste” error affects the outcome of Wegman’s report not at all. Balance?
Courts are not competent to rule on science unless the they have scientific judges. Courts accept acreditted experts but unfortunately do not examine their qualification with enough accuracy. This is because courts are used to dealing with forensic scientists who have qualifications and experience in spades. When you speak with a climate ‘scientist’, you don’t know what private agenda he is supporting. Judges have to be more pro-active in assessing the worth of so called experts.
Meanwhile the courts in the UK are out of control making up law as they go along and even seeking to keep Members of Parliament under control. English Courts now have a ‘Supreme Court’ thanks to the liar, Tony Blair but in the constitution, Parliament is the supreme court.
The court found no instances of psuedo-science or anti-science in the award winning documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”. The court found the film to be an accurate representation of the science and condoned the use of the film as a teaching tool. Thanks to the award winning documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”, thousands of students have become more aware of the science involving a critical issue of our time. A thank you should be extended to Mr. Gore for the work he has done helping to shape the minds of thousands of students.
Rbateman at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/24/five-years-of-an-inconvenient-truth/#comment-667230 says the spotnumbers for 23rd and 24th should be 22 and 11. Well, NOAA has them at 37 and 23. How so?
Leif Svalgaard – are you there, to explain this?
Rich.
sceptical says:
May 25, 2011 at 10:01 am
The court found no instances of psuedo-science or anti-science in the award winning documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”.
They did find a bunch of glaring inaccuracies, exaggerations and errors though. And ran out of time to consider the additional two dozen laid before it.
See – owe to Rich says:
May 25, 2011 at 11:24 am
Rbateman at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/24/five-years-of-an-inconvenient-truth/#comment-667230 says the spotnumbers for 23rd and 24th should be 22 and 11. Well, NOAA has them at 37 and 23. How so?
Leif Svalgaard – are you there, to explain this?
Rich.
Yesterday upon the Sun
I saw a spot, that’s two not one
Today I saw a couple more
Write down quick “a group of four”
For a definitive analysis of the book An Inconvenient Truth read A Convenient Fabrication.
sceptical – I see it like this: The UK court was swayed by weight of expert opinion, as courts tend to be – they don’t try to be scientific experts themselves. They were nevertheless persuaded that there were serious errors in the film, and that it should not be presented in schools without guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. There is a natural bias in the court system, because plaintiffs are required to prove their case whereas defendants are not, so it could reasonably be argued that the errors were proven while the parts of the judgement that you cite were not, and that the court realised that the film was political in nature.
It is unreasonable to regard the parts of the judgement that you cite as some kind of scientific proof, because the judge said[*] that the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” and that the graphs of CO2 and temperature (the core scientific evidence in the film) “do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Rather than rely on the court judgement, the sensible thing to do is to continue to test the science, and to test predictions against subsequent events. The climate has not in any way gone outside its natural range, the sea level is pretty much where it was 140,000 years ago (it has moved ~120 metres down and up since then), the rate of sea rise has slowed to the equivalent of a few inches per century (way below the alarming predictions), the Arctic sea ice has stopped shrinking, the oceans have stopped warming, the tropical troposphere shows no relative warming (AGW predicts that it must), etc, etc. No mechanism has ever been presented for the IPCC’s claimed positive cloud feedbacks, and evidence has now been found for the cloud-GCR connection, which was explicitly ignored in the IPCC report. All the evidence is pointing to a climate ruled primarily by natural phenomena.
The public is now ahead of the politicians. They realise that they are being scammed, and are refusing to pay for expensive feel-good schemes with no chance of success.
[*] – I relied on reports of the judgement.
“Boy, when I was your age Pluto was a planet.” That’s an inconvenient truth.
There may be hope for MSNBC, believe it or not. The recent hiring of Steele may not have been the cynical ploy it seemed. The new owners are notorious Republicans.
Sorry Al Gore Shill, I mean “sceptical” but the errors in Al Gore’s science-fiction propaganda film are explicit,
Judge, “[b]some of the errors by Mr Gore in AIT do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.[/b]”
1. ERROR: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
Judge, “This is distinctly alarmist, It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia”
2. ERROR: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
Judge, “In scene 20, Mr Gore states ‘that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand’. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.”
3. ERROR: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.
Judge, “According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future”
4. ERROR: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.
Judge, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.”
5. ERROR: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
Judge, “it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.”
6. ERROR: Lake Chad.
Judge, “The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
7. ERROR: Hurricane Katrina.
Judge, “In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.”
8. ERROR: Death of polar bears.
Judge, “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. …it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description.”
9. ERROR: Coral reefs.
Judge, “separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.”
Once all the scientific errors are removed from Al Gore’s science-fiction propaganda film you are left with nothing that is alarming and thus a much different presentation that would not have had much if any serious impact. His propaganda requires lying about sea-level rise, lying about polar bears dying, lying about Hurricane Katrina ect… all with the intention to scare the hell out of ordinary people who don’t know any better.
“Sceptical”, please tell me what is scientific about lying and why do you support liars?
Proof: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)
as an aside … the youtube video on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/gore-entire-north-polar-ice-cap-will-be-gone-in-5-years/ has gone missing …
did anyone have the luminous idea of preserving a copy of the video ?
or, since it was on WDR’s “Heute”, can any of our German friends look up a copy on their site ?
tia
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is” – Al Gore, 2006
“some of the errors by Mr Gore in AIT do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” – British High Court Justice Michael Burton, 2007 Ruling
Comment by Eli Rabett — 21 May 2011 @ 7:13 PM at RC:
The magic flute had it right. Those of us who understand climate change have abandoned Al Gore when we should have supported him.
There is a group of people, ranging from Darryl Inhofe and his troll Marc Morano, to Roger Pielke Jr. who saw that Gore was effective and therefore vilified him. We have seen this tactic before with Nicholas Stern, and with Joe Romm, where any small mote was blown up into a huge controversy and we too easily folded in face of the onslaught.
It is become increasingly clear that there is no hiding and the opponents of necessary action on climate change have to be met head on and we have to stop abandoning our allies.
WHAHAHAHAHA what a jerk!
Poptech, you are confused, I never said I support you.
As far as your accusations against Mr. Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth”, you are off base. Mr. Justice Burton says in his ruling, “I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact…”
Poptech, why do you support lying about Mr. Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth”?
sceptical says:
May 27, 2011 at 7:07 am
Sceptical – why do you lie about what Poptech is saying? Lying in defense of the indefensible is no proof.
PhilJourdan, good response. You must have put a lot of thought into what you were going to say. Its refreshing to see an evidence based response supported by citation. Thank you.
Are you arguing with yourself? Since your last post appears to be directed at that. My citation is your post. Your citation is Poptech’s. Clearly you either are referring to the wrong person (in which case my post is pointless) or your last post is a refutation of your previous post.
Sceptical, I proved a verbatim quote from the judge to the 9 lies he ruled on in Gore’s science fiction propaganda film. I have not stated any lies about Mr. Gore. I have quite a bit of material on him,
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)
“Mr. Gore’s high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 “terrible,” St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 “He didn’t do too well in chemistry,” Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.
As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al “earned” a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named “Man’s Place in Nature.” That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.
At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited “Limits to Growth,” which formed much of the foundation for “Earth in the Balance.” It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.”
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2000)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Gore’s home energy use: more than 20 times the national average (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
poptech, the judge nowhere claimed any lies by Mr. Gore. Please take the time to read what you pasted. All of the “errors” the judge found in AIT were on the strength of evidence of causation. The judge never said the conclusions were wrong, only that the link wasn’t as concrete as some may take from AIT. Repeating lies about Mr. Gore lying is silly. poptech, you are being silly.
Just think of all of the impressionable young minds AIT has influenced because this judge decided that AIT was a useful teaching tool.
sceptical has cognitive dissonance, and he has it bad.
sceptical, I never said the judge used the word lies, I called them lies because that is what they are. They are lies used as propaganda because the truth is not alarming and AIT has been debunked in a court of law as the Judge explicitly stated,
“some of the errors by Mr Gore in AIT do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” – British High Court Justice Michael Burton, 2007 Ruling
The judge called them alarmist. AIT is an alarmist political propaganda film.
poptech, AIT was never debunked in a court of law. The judge actually said, ““The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC…”
The court found the film to be based on actual science. Your representation of the film is silly.
smokey, your silly. How am I being disharmonious? Is it because I do not agree with you?
Poptech
Makes you wonder why a senior was taking a freshman course. We had those in HS. They were in the Honor Society, but their course load consisted of TA, TA, TA, TA (and we are not talking anatomy). In other words, sounds like he was skating.
Funny how Sceptical only uses the quotes from the High Court British judges to support his own 1-sided totally biased view on the propaganda film so-called “An Inconvenient Truth” & doesn’t bother to even acknowledge the quotes from the judge that oppose his view. Mmmm… Sounds exactly like the arguments of these Pseudo-Science Zealots everywhere. Completely ignoring the facts disputing their “holy doctrine” AKA A Convenient LIE with their fingers shoved firmly in their ears, all the while shouting “LA LA LA LA!” at the top of their lungs. Its sounding more & more like a religion all the time.
Funny how anyone who tries to publicly debate or offer a different opinion on these so-called global warming “facts” is always ridiculed, spoken over or quickly ejected from the room. Yes… were all a bunch of filthy “Heretics” or “Liars” or “Skeptics” or as your buddy Al puts it: “Deniers” because we don’t believe in this new age Pseudo-Science Doomsday Religion you call “man-made global warming”. Furthermore there are claims that “skeptics” have all sold out to the oil companies who seek to discredit your hero “Honest Al” so they can continue making profits. So you better burn us at the stake Sceptical because we wont be changing our mind on this issue because WE KNOW THE TRUTH. That is that GW is all a money making Ponzi scheme invented by Al Gore & his beneficiaries to make a killing out of everyday gullible people like you Sceptical. Despite common misconception, Oil Companies & Big Polluters don’t stand to lose from “Honest Al’s” propaganda, they stand to gain astronomical profits from the completely ridiculous Carbon Tax (or Cap & Trade scheme depending on what country your from).
So how do these governments want to tackle the impending doom of Global warming related disasters huh? By Stopping deforestation? To cease illegal Toxic waste dumping? Stopping water & air pollution? No, but by implementing a “Carbon Tax” that will tax ordinary citizens & businesses alike on everything aspect of human activity that releases such “toxic gases” as Methane & Carbon Dioxide. From turning on your lights, to driving your car, to even… bizarrely enough: animals flatulence. Thats right folks animals FARTING WILL BE TAXED. What utter nonsense! Even if you believe that CO2 is toxic gas; even though we breath it out constantly & 0.039% of the earths atmosphere is made up of naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide (While 0.000179% of the atmosphere is methane). Answer me this question if you can. How on earth is paying a ludicrous carbon tax to a corrupt government going to stop global warming? How? Honestly it isn’t. Big Polluters wont lose out in the end, however low to middle income earners will. It will increase the cost of living to the point where many low-income earners will be forced out onto the street. Essentially making this a TAX ON THE POOR.
Honestly if this doesn’t expose this fraud for what it is, then nothing will & I’m sorry but you are a fool. For if you believe a conniving compulsive liar like Al Gore, who has gone on record “Claiming” he invented the internet (what a blatant lie) than you will believe anything.
Sceptical my representation is exact,
Did the judge say the following,
“some of the errors by Mr Gore in AIT do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”
Yes or No?