Have you seen the Gore movie?

Question

For those in the AGW concensus, have you seen the Gore movie, and how highly do you rate it as an influence?

Answer 1

Al Gore's movie is SCIENCE FICTION, he is a politician, and I guess people really trust politicians if they think the movie is truthful... hahaha...

Here are few "errors" (or I may say LIES)...

# Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennial"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven meters might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

# The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

# The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

# Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".

# Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

# The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."

# Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".

# Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".

# Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Answer 2

First of all, Andrew mentioned that Al Gore was not qualified to make the movie about global warming because he is a politician, but I'm wondering what makes a judge any more qualified than Al Gore to determine whether or not global warming is real. A judge is more or less a politician too. Scientists everywhere are citing overwhelming evidence attributing global warming to anthropogenic causes, and any politician--including a judge--who says otherwise needs to wake up and smell reality.

Anyway, to answer your question, I do not rate the movie very highly as an influence on me, because I have been concerned about global warming since long before this movie came out. On a societal level, however, I feel that the movie has had a significant impact on how people think about global warming and energy use. I have noticed a growing number of people and organizations expressing concern about the effects of global warming, and I believe Al Gore's movie has had a lot to do with that.

Answer 3

Andrew - nice selective quotes. But the judge also said this:

"The following is clear: [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

Of course I've seen it. I like it for raising awareness, even though some of the details are speculative. Note though that many of the "errors" were just due to the state of the science at that point.

I'd like it a whole lot better if people would spend the time to read and understand global warming science, like from the IPCC. But they're not going to do that. They'll go see a famous guy in a flashy movie, however. That isn't the movies fault. And it has implications for how the movie should be crafted.

Answer 4

I might go to laugh at it. For those who believe in GW it will be like preaching to the choir, it will reinforce their views. The problem is that Hansen and others have changed historical data to make their theory work and have relied heavily on other data sources that have been shown to be inaccurate. So that even the IPCC studies are flawed.

The political Left has a reason for supporting GW and the idea that it is all Man' fault and that it can be stopped. That reason is power. They can make regulations which would control the economy and pass taxes that would allow them to buy votes with government giveaway programs.

The Democrats oppose photo Id's for voting, because with good Id's they could not commit so much vote fraud. In the case of Gore in Florida, the Democrats there chose the method of voting that caused the problems. Gore lost the election in his home district, showing that the people who knew him best did not support him. I think the Democrats tried so much fraud in that election, that when they lost they simply assumed that the Republicans had cheated more and it made the Dems even more angry.

I do not dispute the fact that the Earth has been warming since the coldest part of the medieval Little Ice Age. That is a natural warming which began prior to the industrial period. It is not the warmest it has been since the end of the Ice Age 10,500 years ago. [see the avg temps for the Holocene] Climate Change is a natural occurrence. Ice cores have shown more atmospheric CO2 after a warm period than before a warm period, showing that it may not be a proximate cause of warming, but a result of warming. The causes of Climate Change in the past are likely to be the same causes today.

I truly despair of getting anyone in the hysterical panic, impending disaster mindset to become rational and questioning of GW, giving credence to studies which show GW might be wrong in any way. They are sheep in stampede mode. I only ask that some of you who read this do some real critical thinking about the politics, the treatment of those having opposing views and the facts presented by all scientists without regard to the numbers who echo each other due to political pressure. When opposing scientists are derided, called stupid, non-scientists, accused of being unethical, are refused grants, are said to be unfit to teach [be professors], are not allowed to publish and are generally persecuted for their opinions, many scientists will support the political line in order to work. In Stalinist Russia it worked that way, so why shouldn't the Left try it again?

Answer 5

Have I seen the movie - yes.

How high do I rate it's influence - personally 0/10, generally 6/10

I watched it because so many people were asking questions about it, I didn't watch it to learn anything.

There are errors in the movie but overall it's pretty accurate although it is one sided. At the end of the day Gore is an ex-politician and not a scientist, like any documentary maker he chose the evidence that supported his side of the argument whilst leaving out anything he didn't like. Basically what you get with the movie is a biased, second hand presentation of selected facts. If people want to know the truth about global warming they should ignore the media, movie makers, websites and all other second hand sources and get their facts straight from source.

By and large the movie is accurate despite what Andrew (above) says. The info he quotes comes from Mr Justice Burton, a High Court Judge in the UK who was aksed to ban the movie from being shown in schools. The Judge refused stating that the movie was "substantially founded upon scientific research" and that "global warming is mostly due to man, is dangerous, can be fixed by man [and] are all supported by a vast quantity of research" Here's the full High Court ruling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Answer 6

Because Al Gore is a fool. Plain and simple. Why would he want to waste his time seeing a bunch of junk that is simply false science? Liberals claim that warm trends prove global warning, but cold trends do as well. This is plainly the philosophy of a fool. It is thought that global warming would begin at the poles and melt at the ice caps, and the oceans would rise. Recently, scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues did research and took actual temperature readings, finding that the temperature in Antartica has been getting colder (not warmer) for the last thirty years. Not only that, but another research conducted by Ian R. Joughin, an engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, with Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, found that the West Antartic Ice Sheet was growing thicker and was far from melting.

Answer 7

I saw it and was even more profoundly concerned about the environment of the planet than before, since it clearly supported the consistent announcements which have been regularly publicized accompanied by increasingly more alarming warnings of impending disaster by the International Scientists over the past 20 or so years.

However, I still have difficulty understanding why it was Gore who (after acceding to the apparently hijacked state of the presidency - instead of honoring all his supporters and continuing to refuse to accept it) presided over the requests for hearings farce which was perpetrated on the citizens of Florida who attempted to protest legally the interference in their voting rights (as presented in Michael Moore's first film - Columbine) during the Bush-Gore election battle.

In any case - I'd rate it as extremely influential.

Answer 8

Sadly Al Gore has exagerrated and misstated many of the results reported in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)reports.

Unfortunately that damages Al Gore's credibility and the credibility of the people working in this field.

Al Gore's movie detracts from and overshadows the IPCC reports.

For accurate information, people must go to the IPCC reports directly and not rely on Al Gore's movie or the rest of the popular media for their information on the topic of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Answer 9

I thought the movie was well done. It made me aware (more in detail) of the issue. I don't believe it is extremely serious right now, but we should try to limit our pollution for the future. I liked the way gore presented and the movie was interesting.

Answer 10

No, I have not seen it because I have heard from many people that it has too many flaws to be a reliable source. Many supporters of global warming say it is not a political issue when many of the people who support it have a strong association with a political party particularly the Democratic party.