What scary predictions would be left in "Inconvenient Truth" movie if all of the errors were removed?

Question

The UK judge ruled that the Al Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth" had nine errors. Actually, the judge did not look at the science but the UK government did not attempt to defend nine of the statements. Another study has just been released claiming the movie had 35 errors or exaggerations. If all of these errors were removed, what are the scariest predictions left?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Yes, I am looking for details. The paper I cited names 35 errors. If those are removed, what is the scariest prediction the movie makes that can be supported by science? Feel free to name more than one.

Trevor, you did not attempt to answer the question. The UK government admitted it could not defend the nine statements scientifically. The Monckton study found 35 statements that are at least scientifically debatable. Just for the sake of argument, if those statements are removed, what is left?

Bob, thank you for providing the text of the judge's ruling. Perhaps you can convince Trevor to read it. Professor Carter is the science expert for the claimant and Dr. Stott is the science expert for the government. The judge writes: "All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott." In other words, these nine errors are undisputed errors. Monckton has put forward another 24 exaggerations that are scientifically debatable. While some opinions have been expressed here, no one has answered the specific question I posed: What scary predictions are left if these errors had been removed from the movie? Trevor claims hundreds. I just want someone to name one or two or three. Can anyone do that?

Amancalledchuda, I understand what you are saying. I know William Connolley.

Answer 1

A very good question. I would argue “very little”, but without the film here to check, I can’t say. I’m considering renting it again to find out.

I believe that the case of An Inconvenient Truth is one of the many examples that demonstrate how dodgy the whole global warming scare-fest is.

There’s simply no doubt about it; An Inconvenient Truth is basically an hour and a half of exaggerated, alarmist scaremongering, and no sensible person would recommend it – especially as a tool to teach our children. It would be like teaching our children about the Islamic faith by showing them an Al Qaeda recruiting video: it may get the basic facts about Islam correct, but do you think it would be in any way unbiased? And would you want your children to see it?

The fact that the global warming alarmists continue to support An Inconvenient Truth and continue to claim that it is suitable to be used in schools, simply shows how desperate they are. Why can’t they just be honest and admit that it’s rubbish? They claim that there’s a scientific consensus that they’re correct in their claims, so why not use that consensus to teach our children?

I would suggest that the only honest answer to this question is that An Inconvenient Truth is very good at scaring people onto the global warming bandwagon – especially young and impressionable children – so they are turning a blind eye to how bad it is in an effort to brainwash a generation of children.

This is immoral.

Well done for finding Christopher Monckton’s take on the film. I find Monckton’s work makes a lot of sense. I also find it very interesting that the global warming alarmists almost invariably resort to ad hominem attacks when they attempt to counter his work. Take Trevor on this question…

“Here in the UK he's seen as something of a laughing stock and scant regard is paid to anything he says.”

Hmmm? How’s *that* for attacking the man rather than refuting what he has to say? (Which Trevor makes absolutely no attempt to do, I note) And Trevor is also wrong, of course. Monckton was a government advisor for many years – advising on scientific scams – I would argue that it’s unlikely you’d get chosen to be a government advisor if you’re a laughing stock that no one pays any regard to.

But Trevor is not alone in this deplorable and unscientific behaviour. The awful website realclimate.org indulges in it too: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science
You’d have thought, since this was Monckton’s first piece on global warming, that they might have cut him some slack and given him a respectful response. Alas, no, they ridicule him in an appalling way.

I would argue that the reason for this is that most lay-people reading the above link won’t understand the science and will simply form their opinion based on the tone of the writing; which is clearly saying “This guy is *such* an idiot I can barley understand what he’s on about, but because I’m so wonderful, I’ll show him where he’s gone wrong.”

The same is true of this piece: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/monckton_curious_take_on_the_s.php but this one’s interesting because here Monckton is not talking about something scientific that might be open to debate. He’s talking about what is written, in black and white, in the summaries of the last two IPCC reports. Anyone who wants to check can read the reports for themselves and will discover that Monckton is pretty much correct. So this William M. Connolley guy is either an idiot, or he’s lying. But, again, notice the tone of the piece: “This guy’s an idiot! I can barely understand what he’s going on about. Where on Earth is he getting his figures from?” etc. I don’t consider myself to be overly intelligent, but I can see what Monckton was saying - and he was largely correct.

BTW, Monckton responded to the above attacks, but in a much more professional way. (See… http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuckit_schmidt.pdf ) To my knowledge, Gavin Schmidt has not found the time to answer him. I wonder why?


Going back to Trevor, he disingenuously says…

“In short, of all the evidence that the Court examined, none was rejected as being inaccurate.”

Oh, so we’ll conveniently forget about the nine ‘errors’, shall we? Or that the judge labelled the film alarmist and exaggerated?

Trevor finishes his answer with…

“Ignore the movie, which is very one sided and presented by an ex-politician and concentrate on the science instead.”

Indeed Trevor, I couldn’t agree more. So why risk your credibility by supporting it at all? In one of your answers recently you became my hero by having the honesty to rate the film 0 out of 10. So why now lose that respect by vainly defending it?

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

You've more or less answered your own question "the UK government did not attempt to defend nine of the statements", if they're not defended then under UK law the Judge automatically finds in favour of the plaintiff. You could bring a case to court that a day is 48 hours long, if no one defends it then the Judge will rule that a day is indeed, 48 hours long.

Of the evidence that the Judge did look at, he rejected the plaintiffs claim, refused to ban the movie and concluded that it was fundementally correct. In short, of all the evidence that the Court examined, none was rejected as being inaccurate.

The 'study' you claim has found 35 errors is complete nonesense. It's the work of Viscount Monckton, he's a politician not a scientist and is well known for his unsupported and controverisial views. For example, for long enough he claimed that AIDS didn't exist, faced with overwhelming evidence he now concedes that it does and that every person should be compulsorily tested each month and anyone showing any symptoms should be quarantined for life. Here in the UK he's seen as something of a laughing stock and scant regard is paid to anything he says.

The above isn't to say that the movie is error free - it's not. But if you want to know what the errors are it makes sense to ask a scientist and not a Judge or a politician.

The movie is by and large correct and no-one has been able to produce any evidence to the contrary, excepting that there are some serious exaggerations, perhaps the most notable is the rate at which sea levels will rise. Ignore the movie, which is very one sided and presented by an ex-politician and concentrate on the science instead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

1) The UK government didn't admit it couldn't defend the nine statements. I advise the UK government on climatological matters so I have a pretty good idea what thay do and don't say.

2) The Monkcton study found 35 statements that he finds debateable, very different from being scientifically debateable. And as per my previous answer, Monckton is a politician not a scientist, and not a very credible one either (he was deslected by his peers in the very first round of voting for a seat in the House of Lords to which his response was to describe the electoral procedure as a "a bizarre constitutional abortion").

3) If just those 35 statements are removed then there are still hundreds that remain. All that Monckton has been able to do is to pick out a few random statements. But then, he doesn't understand climate so it would be very difficult for him to address issues about which he has little or no knowledge.

If you apply the principle of removing all the evidence then everything and anything can be disproven, it's a pointless exercise.

Not many people are saying that we should get our facts from Al Gore. If you go back through some of my previous answers you'll see that I recommend people not to watch it because it's one sided and does have errors in it. However, with or without the 35 statements (or 9 statements), it remains fundementally accurate.

To be quite honest, I, like many other climatologists, was horrified by the movie. Had Gore run his script by an expert then many of the errors could have been corrected. More importantly than that, because there are errors it gives those who know very little about the climate (e.g. Viscount Monckton) a platform from which to launch seemingly credible counter arguments. But... if they had any real arguments they would be discrediting the science behind global warming instead, such as disproving that greenhouse gases retain thermal radiation within Earth's atmosphere. This is the very basis upon which global warming occurs and no skeptic has ever been able to deny it.

Answer 3

Two of Monckton's supposed errors are absurd, the rest are, in as far as I know, mostly correct.

I agree with the judge's ruling on Al Gore's film as well, the tone of AIT was alarmist, and was mostly a political statement.

So if you were to remove the errors from Gore's film, there wouldn't be much of a film left. Although it's crucial to note that this would have no effect on anthropogenic global warming theory in general.

Also, AManCalledChuda, you oughtn't rake on Trevor for doing something then turn around and do the exact same thing yourself. It's just bad form.

Answer 4

Two points.

The judge actually said that the main points of Gore's movie were correct and well supported by science. He denied the Plaintiff's request to ban it. The spin on this has been shameless. READ THE FULL DECISION.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

"These propositions, 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."

The propositions were: global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and one that man's actions can address.

"it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion"

"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."

Second, the movie is not as important as the science (which it basically gets right). Here's what hundreds of scientists from all around the world think:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

That's at least as "scary". It's also reality.

EDIT - The nine things are not "undisputed errors". The judge even put "errors" in quotes to show this. He only found that they were not backed up by solid scientific evidence. He made no judgement as to whether they were true or false. READ THE FULL DECISION. In discussing the "errors" phrases like this: "separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult." are common.

Answer 5

You can infer a lot without actually saying anything, and quote the findings of others (out of context if you like) without vouching for thier accuracy. This is the language of politics and used car salesmen. If you're dealing with children you can lead them to a conclusion without actually telling them directly.

All Gore went further than that by deliberately claiming things that were false.

The faithful will still believe what they want to believe and sceptics will want to see some proof.

If you took the lies out of the movie, you might be left with something like the IPCC report. Believers claim the conclusions of IPCC report were watered down for political reasons because they can't accept any other explanation.

Answer 6

Some species will dissapear, but this is inevitable as man has very little effect on global warming anyway, and global warming is a GOOD thing, as what happened a thousand years ago, when the Earth was warmer and it was a century of great progress and abundance as more of the Earth was farmed.

Answer 7

The problem is not Gore, or his film, or his command of the facts. Take off the rose-colored glasses, read an unbiased version of what the judge ruled, see the film, if you haven't already, and do some supplemental research from reputable scientific sources.

You'll discover that the co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize pretty much knows what he's talking about.

Don't shoot the messenger. Tackle the problem. It's a much better use of your time.

Answer 8

It's scary to me that so many people are looking to disprove the movie's content. Think about who has more to gain by misrepresenting the science of global warming...scientists paid by manufacturers or scientists paid by universities.

Answer 9

What is scary is the hundreds of things that are NOT wrong

Answer 10

That most of those who believed it before would still believe it.