Can you name one thing that is not true about Al Gore's movie?

Question

Well besides the fact that we still do not have any real idea of what the earths natural cycles are and most of the "facts" he uses are more half trueths and lies than scienticic fact.

Answer 1

The problem with how many people view these issues is that expect hard facts about stuff that is theoretical. Guess what, gravity is not a hard fact, but merely a well supported theory. If you want to wait until every concept in the movie is a fact, we will all be dead. Not from global warming, but from old age.

I don't get the Republican resistance to environmental measures. If we follow a few of these ideas, we would reduce or dependency (not eliminate but reduce) on foreign oil. Who is NOT for that in this country?

Oh, and to answer your question, here is one thing that is NOT true about "An Inconvenient Truth" : George Bush really loved it!

Answer 2

It is disturbing how people can conveniently dismiss the possibility that humans might be having an adverse affect on the environment. The truth is, the vast majority of scientists agree that we are, in fact, the primary cause of a recent trend in global warming that threatens our existence. To acknowledge that is difficult for a lot of people, probably because the implications of such a trend are as frightening as this crisis is real.

It's also too easy to find baseless opinions online that seek to debunk the "myth" of global warming. Most of these opinions can be easily refuted, and are done so quite expertly in Al Gore's superb documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." The fact is, there is no disagreement in the scientific community. The numbers don't lie - there are significant, unprecedented spikes in a number of key indicators revealing a warming trend that will soon become irreversible. And if you haven't seen the film, you are not qualified to speak on its content.

And yet the spin continues from the other side, without any scientific proof whatsoever - just the same propaganda about climate cycles being responsible. Climate cycles are real, to be certain. But this latest trend has nothing to do with them. If you browse a handful of the 400+ peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warming, you will begin to uncover an unsettling reality:

They all concur that human activity has altered the global climate. This is not just one side of an argument - this is the indisputable truth according to every single peer-reviewed article on the subject.

So go ahead and listen to the politicians who claim the whole thing is a hoax, or the oil lobby whose interests demand public ambivalence so that they can continue to post record profits. Meanwhile, Greenland continues to melt.

Sad how the truly uninformed continue to cling to this naive belief that scientists somehow have more to gain from lying about this subject than governments and corporations do. If it is easier for people to deny that we are the cause global warming, I support their right to an opinion. But for the sake of those working to save the planet, stop spreading your gospel of ignorance.

Answer 3

I haven't seen the movie, but most reports indicate that the scientific community has applauded it for being very accurate and a realistic prediction of things that could happen if we don't begin to address global warming and other environmental issues. Sure, global warming is part of a natural cycle, but I don't think there's any denying that we've helped to speed up the process by dumping all kinds of pollutants into the seas and into our air. Why do so many people fail to see the significance of this vital issue?
If you have a bucket filled with water and ice, and the ice begins to melt, the bucket will overflow and water will spill all over your kitchen floor! Why is it so difficult to understand that - on a much larger scale - that's exactly what's happening to the Earth? As the polar ice caps melt, the sea level is raised, and cities on both coasts of both major oceans will be devastated by horrendous hurricanes, flash flooding, and all kinds of other natural disasters. What's so hard to understand? If we don't do something about it, as part of a collective worldwide effort, it's highly likely that millions of people in a future generation will DIE.

Then there's the morons who say, "Whatdya mean the Earth's temperature's heating up? It was six below zero yesterday!" That kind of immature response is inexcusable, and shows complete ignorance about a subject that deserves serious dialogue.

Nature (or God, or 'intelligent designers' or the process of evolution) gave us this Earth, expecting that we care for it, nurture it, and tend to the delicate ecological balance between huamn beings, plants, and all other animals. To destroy it just for our own self-gratification and disinterest, is a terribly irresponsible thing to do. We should, instead, WANT ot leave this planet in better shape than it was. We should revere the fact that we were supposed to be stewards of the Earth and all its resources. Instead, we laugh it off and make jokes about it, or - if we're a CEO of a large corporation - we rape and pillage as much as we can from the Earth in the name of enhanced profitability for our shareholders. That's pathetic.

It's easy to say, "Well, I'll be dead before it affects me, so why should I care?" Because, dufus, you'll be leaving a world behind where your children's children and their children's children will then have to deal with the severe consequences of it all, just because our generation was too lazy, obtuse, and ignorant to try and correct the problem. -RKO-

Answer 4

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 5

Considering that major scientists endorsed the movie and said yes, his movie presents a completely accurate picture of global warming, i would say that you are completely misinformed in your statement that Gore uses half truths and lies. Read this headline (or the entire article if you're not afraid of THE TRUTH) "The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy".

Dare i say you're afraid of or ignorant of, the truth?

Answer 6

all of it. global warming is nothing more than a shift. there has never been a "snowball earth" ice age. there has always been extreme hot, and extreme cold on earth, it is one of the natural healing features of the earth. we just happen to be in the path of the heat.

Data shows that while yes, it is getting hotter in certain areas, overall, the temperature of the earth, is the same, or varying slightly as it is expected due to natural environmental shifts.

Answer 7

Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Yankee Oscar Uniform

Answer 8

Well, Al Gore said gravity will stop. That's simple nonsense. Gravity has nothing to do with global warming. Gravity is based on two things, mass and distance.

Answer 9

If Al Gore has a movie it will probably just as infactual as Farrenheight 911

Answer 10

Al Gore has a movie what is it about