Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Similar To The 1968 "The Population Bomb" book?

Question

Both were widely successful at scaring people with few sound facts.

Temperatures Dropped For Decades While CO2 Was Increasing.

This is the August 2007 chart of the NASA corrections. From the high point of 1934 (yellow line with black dot), temperatures fell for decades while CO2 was increasing. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_1.gif

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvbKBhxzVvvyPZ93NPZPrEbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071016023638AACM6ke

In August, NASA announced a correction to historic temperature data for the 1900's. (The mistake was discovered by a Canadian scientist) The warmest year on record is now 1934, not 1998. That means CO2 is not causing the rise in temperatures because temperatures dropped in the middle of the 1900's while CO2 levels were increasing.

There are many links to websites and NASA data in the link below.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AopqLo1dwbJqEOdCG4bxjS3ty6IX?qid=20070815194816AAHukeS
" The 'CO2' Global Warming Theory Officially Proven Wrong. When Will Liberals Announce The Corrections? "

Also, USA Today recently printed an article about Japan's record temperature was in 1933. NASA's corrected data shows the greatest temperature was in the U.S. was in 1934. Japan's records are separate from NASA's records and both have similar figures.

Answer 1

You might be right especially when he already admits he did put some lies and exaggerations in the movie.

Answer 2

First of all, no. The Population Bomb was not based on much scientific evidence. It was simply Ehrlich applying some formulas to the numbers out there, and coming to his own conclusion. The fact that he seems to have used the wrong formulas is what made his book wrong. An Inconvenient Truth, however, is backed by the scientific research of virtually every scientist in the relevant fields.

As to your NASA data, two things. One, do you notice the chart title, saying "U.S." on it? Are you aware that the U.S. is not the entire planet? Two, NASA made it quite clear when industry hacks started saying this proved there was no human component to climate change that the data still shows quite clearly that there is. Do you also notice that, despite the dips, the chart is still going up at a much faster rate than it had been? Even with climate change, you're not going to see a chart that has no downturns. Your evidence simply doesn't support your contentions.

Answer 3

Nope.


Because An Incoveniant truth was based in fact. Sorry, I know your favorite think tank and oil industry front groups will find lovely little reasons for inaction, reasons why you can deny it for now, reasons why you can shove your cognitive dissonance to the back of your mind and not have to worry about it.

When we are all scrapping over clean and drinkable water, when the sea levels rise, and storms become more and more severe, and less and less frequent, well...I'm sure you'll be able to look back and blame somebody else because you chose not to engage your own brain, and simply waited for the appropriate expert to tell you what to think.

Answer 4

lol, peacedev. Keep being a good little sheeple. The Goracle will love you for it. Yes, the ideas behind the book and movie are similar.