What is exagerated or false in "an inconvienant truth"?

Answer 1

This guy does a decent job of it, although I wouldn't necessarily stand behind every point he makes.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411

Answer 2

well, I know what is omitted: the Clinton Administration had eight years to get things done. The made some lame attempts at working with the Kyoto protocol and other than that, they did little to nothing. However, once Gore was out of a position of power where he could have legitimately affected legislation, he decides to create a movement to finally get involved. It seems like if he was so concerned about environmental issues, he wouldn't have waited until he was out of office. His lack of action is "an inconvienent truth" that is noticeably missing from the "documentary".

Answer 3

The movie and book are based largely on the scientific work of others. This work is the culmination of many years research and study by hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists from around the world. By and large what he said is reasonably accurate but there will always be a case made against him by those who do not support his viewpoint. Primarily this case doesn't address the issues raised but often manifests itself more as a personal attack on Gore himself. The only conclusion that can be derived from this is that the message is sound so go for the messenger instead.

There are some parts which may be exaggerated, only time will tell for sure. There are also some parts which are somewhat over dramatised concentrating more on sensationalism than sound science. However, the facts which underpin his message are by and large well documented and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

One aspect which sometimes gets mentioned is the so called 'hockey stick graph'. This depicts historical temperature changes and the accusation centres on it the prominence of the periods known as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age being misrepresented. This is a fair accusation as they are not as accurately shown on his graphs as they should be. However, the important message about the graphs isn't what the climate was like 400 or 900 years ago but how dramatically it's changed in the last 200 years and in this respect the graph is accurate.

Answer 4

Possible exaggerations:

The speed at which things he says might happen is at the higher end of scientists estimates.

The connection between individual storms and global warming is tenuous. But it is a fact that heat is the fuel of storms, and so global warming will certainly make storms in general, worse.

Possible falsehoods:

None. The vast majority of scientists agree he has the basics right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

Most of it.

Here are the main points…

- Gore promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart for the past 1,000 years in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted to debunk the significance of the mediaeval warm period and little ice age.

- Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.

- Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer.

- Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

- Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing.

- Gore erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit, and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession.

- Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

- Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

- Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame.

- Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled.

- Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, in 2004.

Here’s a link (http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf ) that lists far more mistakes. To give you an idea, this report lists; 26 one sided, 15 misleading, 8 exaggerated, 26 speculative and 18 wrong statements that Al Gore makes.

An Inconvenient Truth is a great piece of propaganda though, so it’s hardly surprising that the “faithful” support it…

Trevor, above says:

“By and large what he said is reasonably accurate”

Plainly the link I posted above suggests otherwise.

Trevor then says:

“…there will always be a case made against him by those who do not support his viewpoint. Primarily this case doesn't address the issues raised but often manifests itself more as a personal attack on Gore himself. The only conclusion that can be derived from this is that the message is sound so go for the messenger instead.”

However, this is far more commonly a tactic used by the Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) to attack the sceptics. A recent example was the case of Michael Griffin, the boss of NASA (who holds a PhD in aerospace engineering, as well as five masters degrees – he’s a clever man!), who said of climate change…

“I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change”

Using Trevor’s theory, we must assume that this message is sound, because the GWAs went for the messenger instead. They said he is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." His own employee, GWA James Hansen called him “ignorant”.

Trevor then goes onto talk about the Mann, et al, “hockey-stick” graph, and admits that it deleted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, but then says:

“However, the important message about the graphs isn't what the climate was like 400 or 900 years ago but how dramatically it's changed in the last 200 years and in this respect the graph is accurate.”

Except that it isn’t. An analysis of the model used to create the graph showed that it would produce a “hockey-stick” result, even if you put completely random data into it. So, it only showed a sharp rise in temperature in recent times because the model was designed from the start to do exactly that! (See page 9 of this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=O0BQ0AZHQCIB3QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0 for an example of several runs with random data alongside the “real” data. Can you spot the “real” one?)

Let’s move on to Bob’s comments…

He says:

“The speed at which things he says might happen is at the higher end of scientists estimates.”

Are they really? The IPCC’s latest report suggests that, even in their worst case scenario, sea levels are only likely to rise by about 17 inches by 2100, 24 inches at the extreme high end of that scenario. What does good old Al say? 20 feet!!! That’s not at the “higher end of scientists estimates” that’s *ten times* the absolute highest estimate of the IPCC.

He also say:

“Possible falsehoods:

None. The vast majority of scientists agree he has the basics right.”

So Bob’s refusing to accept that it’s even “possible” that Gore could have been wrong about absolutely anything. My link above seems to suggest that he may be mistaken.

Ultimately, An Inconvenient Truth is simply propaganda. It’s certainly no better as a piece of science than The Great Global Warming Swindle. Both films simply presented the evidence in a way that supported their point of view, leaving out inconvenient details that might have disagreed with it. Yet, hypocritically, the Trevors and Bobs of this world attack TGGWS relentlessly while supporting AIT as basically correct. Mmmm? Sounds slightly biased to me.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 6

Well to bad that the truth you speak of isn't fact only a theory, and just because its a theory doesn't make it true :(, plus at the same time there is a theory to disprove that humans are the cause of Global Warming.........I will admit that the Earth is warming up but not because of humans.................

Answer 7

You need to contribute more to Al Gore. If I were you I would sell my house and my polluting car and give it all to Al Gore. Time is running out! Act fast. Don't fall for the convieniant lie the conservatives will no doubt tell you!

Answer 8

Nothing. He speaks only the truth. All Hail mighty Al Gore.

Answer 9

He used animated polar bears to make the claim that the polar ice is melting. It isn't, and there aren't any bears in trouble.

Answer 10

All the statements that come from Al Gore's mouth.