Why do anti-environmentalists run away with a few points of contention in An Inconvenient Truth?

Question

When the film as a whole passed scrutiny.

""Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that.
""

Answer 1

The judge actually praised the film, and accepted that it's basically correct. The full decision is available here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/87ffb8db671bf175?

The plaintiffs asked that the film be banned. The judge denied them and said it could be shown provided that it was explained that SOME things in the film were political, something necessary because of strict English laws. He specifically found that:

"The following is clear: i) [the movie] is substantially founded upon scientific research"

"These propositions [that global warming is mostly due to man, is dangerous, and can be fixed by man], 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."

"It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils."

"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."

There were some relatively minor points the judge found inadequate proof for (not that they were wrong), but the full decision makes it clear he found the film basically correct. As do scientists.

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

Answer 2

The wattsupwiththat article asks which concept is in worry because of the fact of flat temperatures? the respond is the only that announces that climate is stimulated via in common terms one ingredient. Realists do no longer make such a declare approximately carbon dioxide, nonetheless denialists declare that on the subject of the solar. OM That feels like the emails the East Angia hackers released.

Answer 3

I am not a global warming theorist, but I won't wear your "anti-environmentalist" label. Nice try.

Why can't extremists stand scrutiny?

Answer 4

I am not an anti-environmentalist but think it is absurd to try to scare people into using less fossil fuels. Scientific "opinion" is just that opinion and you know what they say about opinions, don't you?..........