How do we know if the inaccuracies in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" are really inaccurate?

Question

Supposedly 9 inaccuracies were found in his movie.

Here's a link:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do

But just these supposedly inaccuracies I have read and viewed in many other documentaries. I personnally can't believe that all these people are lying.

Any opinions on this?

Answer 1

Since this is the law forum, do what a lawyer would:

READ THE FULL DECISION, not a biased newspaper article. 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

I also have questions about Al Gore's movie. The 9 inaccuracies listed on the website seem to be those of drawing the most negative conclusion possible from current data. This may be because if Gore stated things as less of a major crisis, no one would care. If he says the worst, someone may take interest.

I really would like to see world experts tackle these issues and see which ones should be fixed and how we go about fixing these. But the disgusting politicians have made this such a republican/democrat issue that it has gone from something about social good to political bs.

So far the only opponents of Gore's movie in the US are those who want to politicize this whole issue. I have had enough of all the lying politicians who fight with each other not because of what is right but because of who they have taken money from and what party they belong to.

Answer 3

as long as human beings have faith the "carbon credit" scam, they could have faith that the 1st abode has an generic footprint equivalent to the 1st. Couple that with believing that when you consider that Al spends all his time telling human beings the thank you to maintain the planet from the doom he blames on Bush, there is not something "inconvenient" approximately those truths. you're suitable on the data, yet once you think of they matter to the severe scientists of Hollywood, you're flawed.

Answer 4

I am always amazed at how SCIENCE is made a partisan issue. Whether Gore's presentation is inaccurate, unsubstantiated, or dumbed down for the populace, I cannot give creedence to any attack on a scientific study (i.e. Judge's article) that essentially says "Nuh-uh!"

Evidence to the contrary will be considered. Until then, Mr. Gore and the scientific community that raises concern over global warming needs to be heard, the issues properly addressed, and the populace educated.

Answer 5

Manmade green house gases only account for 0.28%. All the rest is natural, and mostly water vapor. In other words, if you spit in the wind you have more effect than all the man made sources of green house gases. I get the sneaking suspicion this is leading to a global UN tax somehow, perhaps a SAVE the PLANET tax or something like it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Answer 6

I think it's an outrage that he actually won the Nobel Prize, and that he is nothing more than a paranoid freak. He shouldn't even care about this issue. He'll be dead by the time it happens, and if you ask me, these (lousy) environmentalists should quit trying to play God, and start working for a better cause that will actually matters like poverty, etc. I didn't even read the nine things yet, and I already don't agree with that (crap).
[edit]-
I know a lot of people who deserve that award way more than him! Don't you? It's pathetic!

Answer 7

I don't believe that these people are lying I think they believe others lies and pass them off as fact.
Some of Al Gores Claims are kind of ludicrous.
Next he'll tell us that due to Global Warming Santa's workshop sank into the Arctic sea.

Global warming is the result of a cycle the planet has been going through for millions of years.
It's quite arrogant of us to think we can influence these changes one way or the other.

Answer 8

As another Y-A poster stated - "An Inconvenient Truth" is "An Incovenient Joke"!

Answer 9

If you cannot tell if they are inaccurate.... How could you tell if they were accurate to begin with........