I've been watching the movie, An Inconvient Truth. While I think Mr. Gore presents some scientific evidence to suggest that global warming is connected to human activity, I am confused as to why he includes material that is not at all relevant to the topic.
Is he still bitter about the 2000 presidential election results? What about the situation with his son at age 6?
Yes, I am a skeptic about much of this global warming talk. I am watching the movie to become more educated about the different views. I would like to know where he obtained the scientific evidence that is presented in the film.
Given who is presenting this material, I think that Mr. Gore is using this as a political platform. For those of you who have watched the film, what do you think?
2007-10-01 03:22:49 · 19 answers · asked by Cooper 5 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
"Truth" is a propaganda film, something Gobbles would be proud of.
Gore had to use cute animated polar bears because the real ones are doing just fine, and he had Hurricane Katrina enlarged by 20% while claiming that it was caused by man. Like how dishonest can a person be?
No "Thuth" was just a film that believes would hold as real and important, and us who know the SUn is the cause of all warming see the film for what it is - pablum for the followers.
2007-10-01 08:59:46 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I didn't see the movie but did read the book. There were parts of the book that seemed to be more of a biography than anything relevant to the subject that he was trying to get across. I found that the evidence was lacking. This could be due to two possibilities: either the evidence is sketchy or he was "dumbing it down" for his audience. He presented a lot of graphs without any explanation of where the evidence came from. (NOAA as a reference is not sufficient.) The graphs also seem to include a lot of assumptions. Many showed the past as having up and down cycles but the future went straight up at an unprecidented rate. If the environment always has corrected in the past, why assume that it not only won't correct in the future but will escalate exponentially. This doesn't make sense without some explanations which weren't ever given.
There are reasons to be skeptical about global warming hype.
Many of those that are "preaching" the message are not "living" the message.
Buying carbon credits is simply a way for rich people/companies to do what they want and put the burden on others and it seems that those who are making the most noise are the ones that stand to profit the most from selling carbon credits.
Only one viewpoint is being allowed to be heard. There may be a consensus among scientists but those who do not agree are not given a chance to refute the "evidence" that is being presented. They are even being called "dirty" names like Republican or Capitalist. Scientific consensus have been wrong in the past so instead of silencing the opposition there should be a healthy logical debate on the issues.
There are also reasons to accept the idea. The biggest of which is that the result of being wrong is catastophic and being more "green" will always be better for the environment.
2007-10-01 13:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by Truth is elusive 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, he is a politician so that's how he's going to approach things. I think the extra material is an effort to soften the message, add some context so it's not just a dry recitation of the facts. Environmental scientists have been hitting people over the head with this for 45 years and for whatever reason, just giving the facts has not been enough to get through.
If he's not bitter he must be a saint.
The information is from the IPCC. Do some research and find the studies from the individual labs that contributed to the summary. I find good information from reputable sources like Scientific American, Nature, NOAA, NASA, realclimate.org.
The man has been an environmentalist since his college days. There are people who just want to do good for the sake of being good. You know, since the beginning of the modern environmental movement, reactionary forces have tried to paint environmentalists as flakes, alarmists, only having a political agenda, and part of a socialist/communist conspiracy. Why is that?
2007-10-01 14:16:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Since you’re watching the movie to become more educated about the different views (an admirable approach) I thought you might like to see a list of the problems with An Inconvenient Truth.
Have a look at this… http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf
It lists 26 one-sided, 15 misleading, 8 exaggerated, 26 speculative and 18 plain wrong statements from both the film and the book.
As a Brit who lives in the capital, my personal favourite is a graph showing the number of times that London’s Thames Barrier has had to be closed due to rising tides.
The problem? The graph runs from 1930 showing no closures until recent decades.
Still not spotted the problem? The Thames barrier wasn’t built until the 1980s.
But, according to Global Warming Alarmists like dana, above, he “got the basics right”. So, it’s okay that most of the rest of the film/book is a pack of lies, then, is it?
To answer your question, I think he did it for the old fashioned reason: money. You notice he doesn’t give it away free to “educate the masses”. So, he doesn’t think global warming is *that* important then?
As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.
2007-10-01 15:23:48 · answer #4 · answered by amancalledchuda 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't recall the material which you refer to as not relevant to the topic, so I can't really address that.
However, it doesn't make sense for Gore to be making a political ad, because he's not a politician anymore.
Furthermore, the basic science in the film was accurate.
"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
He obtained the scientific evidence in the film from climate scientists. The science presented in the film is simply the evidence which has convinced virtually all climate scientsts that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.
Granted there were a few minor errors in the film, and Gore focused too much on the worst possible scenarios, but at least he got the basics right.
2007-10-01 12:03:45 · answer #5 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 7⤊ 5⤋
It sure was,it has untrue statements and half truths and is not a reliable source of any information but he got wealthy and lots of press from it.Of course I am sure he needed it to keep his 3 houses going and his jet.And of course all this talk about the earth keeps us from looking at other important issues such as a war that may have turned into an occupation.Wonder how much pollution that is causeing,what with the burning of oil wells and dust from all the bombings,and buildings hummmmmmmmmm?
2007-10-02 04:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by peppersham 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
That's nothing but the truth. Yeah sure it might be political advertisment. This is something that should be brought up and a topic that we should choose our leaders based on what actions they will take to minimize our effect on the enviroment.
2007-10-01 17:17:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree to an extent as Gore doesn’t live up to everything he recommends. But at least it can be used as an eye opener to the global warming doubters out there. I can’t believe that some people deny the existence of it.
2007-10-01 10:35:23 · answer #8 · answered by mathieulefrancois 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No.
Hes already ran for president and for pretty much his whole life he has been devoted to spreading the news about Global Warming, so how could you even say that if you have WATCHED the movie?
2007-10-01 15:02:50 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Pompey and The Red Devils! 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's been said that he's using this "global warming" hoax in order to invest in his election attempts as well as to get name recognition in order to run for office.
Sadly it shows how partisan and uneducated he is. Almost everything he said in the movie has been disproven and most of the graphs he uses were altered and distorted to get his agenda across.
He even traumatized children on purpose with his animation about polar bears drowning. I think it's despicable to lie to children. Us adults can see the truth, but the children believe his lies and that's terrible.
I doubt we can get him to apologize for lying, but he should.
Gore is still bitter about losing in 2000. He tried to cheat on the election and managed to repress the military vote, but after 5 attempts to distort the election results, he still lost. I guess that makes him a 6 time loser.
He's like a bad rash; he just won't go away.
2007-10-01 13:49:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋