Is "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore a reliable source?

Question

I'm working on a pamphlet about global warming to hand out at my school and i was going to use some of the facts in that book, but then someone told me that it wasn't a reliable source.

The only part i'm going to use is where at the back of the book it has "10 common misconceptions about global warming"

Answer 1

When you consider the data, remember that Al Gore is a politician NOT a scientist or a climatologist or even a very good movie producer. He is just a greedy politician who wants to severely limit everyone's freedoms (except his own), send our country back to the age before motor vehicles (except for himself), and to grab as much money as he can.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a poorly made movie which definitely has an agenda, which agenda is to further the sale of 'carbon offsets'.

If you want to know about climate cycles, talk to a real climatologist, not a politician.

Here's some truth about climatic cycles:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY. As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.
Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.


BTW, science is NOT a consensus activity. Science deals with data. ALL the available data not just those which further someone's agenda.
Carbon credits, carbon footprints, and AlGore's anthroprogenic global warming are all scams designed to frighten people into giving up their freedoms and money, in that order.
Plus, 10 points to remember:

1. Science is not a consensus activity
2. _All_ scientists do NOT agree
3. Even the socialistic EU "scientists" are
backpedalling on their GW stance
4. Global warming, like global cooling is part of the
natural climatic cycle.
5. There have been many such cycles in Earth's
history.
6. Earth is presently in the last stages of an ice
age and was considerably warmer for most of its
history.
7. Floating ice occupies the same volume as would the
liquid water that comprises it.
8. Even if the ocean levels rise the alarmist 28
feet, just move away from the beach.
9. Warmer climate means more crop growing area.
10. Water is not going anywhere. Except for what we
have shot into space with rockets, there is the same
amount as there always was.

Answer 2

I suspect that you need to find out for yourself whether Gore's presentation was completely accurate. Because he has been a controversial political figure, those that would oppose him will look for, and most likely find, evidence of inaccuracies in his movie. However, in the scientific world, there are often controversies between the scientists themselves that would be challenging in terms of terminology and fact versus theory. Does this mean that everything is inaccurate? No! Gore's documentary is a passionate, and reasonably fact based, plea to educate human beings about a very real problem. The fact that I have heard more about this in the past 20 years leads me to believe that global warming exists and is indeed a real threat. 25 years ago, the scientists that tried to present evidence to this effect were "poo-pooed" and dismissed. They weren't wrong. I believe that Mr. Gore worked closely with consultants in the scientific field to come up with the material in his movie. Draw your own conclusions by researching the facts from a number of sources.

Answer 3

As long as people believe the "carbon credits" scam, they can believe that the first house has an overall footprint equal to the first. Couple that with believing that since Al spends all his time telling people how to save the planet from the doom he blames on Bush, there's nothing "inconvenient" about these truths. You're right on the facts, but if you think they matter to the brilliant scientists of Hollywood, you are mistaken.

Answer 4

The underlying message is sound enough but there are some inaccuracies. It would really depend which parts you wanted to use as to whether it was a reliable source.

To verify that your pamphlet is correct you could cross reference against reputable websites - not the junk websites that are peddling opinion based as fact but the credible scientific ones.

How about producing a draft version of your pamphlet and posting it on here for comments? If you want you can e-mail me a copy, as a climatologist I can tell you if you've included any of the inaccurate parts from the book.

Answer 5

Strictly speaking, it's a secondary source. Well actually it's a primary source to Al Gore's experience with global warming, but with respect to global warming itself, it's secondary source. So it shouldn't be used as a source. If you are citing a quote from Al Gore, it's great. If you're citing a study or finding that was cited in the book, you should locate that study or source directly, then cite the source study after reviewing it.

Answer 6

The movie-- and Gore's other public education efforts--are reliable. But (especially in view of all the misinformation and falshoods put out by special interests) you really should have more than that.

The best way to do this would be to find some of the (legitimate) science sites on the web (you can get a teacher to help you do this if you aren't sure how to tell the real ones from the fakes). You can also ask them--or better yet call a local university climatology/meterology department--and include a bibliography (or link to one on the web).

The reason I say this is not because Al Gore's information is suspect (being a grad student and trained to check EVERYTHING--I did jsut that--and Gore presents information accurately). But for your readers, it will be more effective if you provide tem with other sources as well--especially actual scientific papers/organizations/reports.

Answer 7

I wouldn't suggest that you base your project entirely on the book. Even as a global warming activist, I do have to say that there are some inaccuracies and information which is more of opinion then fact.

Answer 8

If you remember some of the wild claims that he made while campaigning for president, such as the claim that he invented the internet, then you would treat the movie/book with its proper respect: ignore the book/movie and use reliable sources.

Answer 9

Look up the answers yourself, but be ready to find a political firestorm.

1) Ignore Al's Glacier work, it's been debunked by new data.
2) If he says "IF" before a statement, he's trying to scare you.
3) If you see a Hockey Stick - RUN AWAY. Everyone now knows the Hockey Stick is Crap too.

Answer 10

The book/movie get the basic science right:

"The nation's top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

but it does exaggerate things a little bit, and there are better sources out there. A better source is the IPCC report because it's written by the best climate scientists on the planet:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf