do the people that keep attacking gore by saying he had 9 innacuracies in his film know . . .?

Question

that they were not lies, but rather simply not proven. and do they know that the judge ruled that the movie was not a political work. and lastly, do they know that the 99% rest of the movie was deemed ok. this isn't good news for the AGW deniers, it's bad news.

Answer 1

The people with these lists of "errors" (BTW--you're behind the times-now the skeptics have it up to 35) don't understand science.

In the first place, they don't know a hypothesis from a theory or proven fact.

More important, they don't understand that they can argue as long as they like and it will make no difference. Scintific facts are not decided by opinions, they simply are. The physical world simply does not respond to their wishes.

Answer 2

In science, it is imposible to be completely proven and sure about anything. But understanding this concept is the first step to APPROACHING truth, though we may not actually attain it.

Yet politicians can never get this through their heads. "I'm always right. So teach in a science class.", even though most of them know very little anything about what they insist to meddle in. Especially science.

Just pick up any Scientific American (SA) or Discover magazine and you'll see the some of general views of the scientific community.
A) Many of the SA writers doesn't like the Bush administration.

B) I have yet to read an article in either magazine that disproves AGW. Though the past few months my subscription has been irregular (we've moved an they STILL keep sending them to the old house)

Answer 3

The British court actually said Gore's movie was great. The British judge was asked to ban the film from public schools. He refused because it was proven that the film is basically based on science and correct.

READ THE FULL DECISION, here:

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

"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

"These propositions [global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and one we can solve], 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."

The spin about this decision has been shameless.

Answer 4

Did you know Al pissed on patented overabundant pollution free electric power? Good ole pass the buck Al! Godd ole I can't do dog S Al!

T H E V I C E P R E S I D E
W A S H I N G T O N
July 30, 1993
Mr. Mark S. B i n f o r d
Permanent Energy I n c .
P.O. Box 440004
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Dear Mr. Binford:
Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts and ideas about
energy. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome your
views. As you know, environmental protection and a responsible energy policy are among my top p r i o r i t i e s . I am pleased to know that others are making an effort to help achieve these goaIs.
Your proposal is an innovative one, and warrants proper
review. The Department of Energy rnay be interested in evaluating your suggestions. I hope that you will take the time to send your proposal to the department that specifically handles such ideas. The appropriate office for your proposal i s :
Department of Energy
Inventions and Innovation Division
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
Please feel free to contact this agency directly. I wish
you the best of luck with your research. Thank you again for
your e f f o r t s .

Sorry but copying a picture dosn't paste well!

The DOE said send it to NIST. NIST said 3-5 years before they might recomend the power plant to the DOE and another 3-5 years to see if the DOE would do any funding. If the DOE did decide to offer funding that would be $40,000. With a giant pile of paperwork for a spit in the bucket.
It takes $2.5 billion to build my power plant today. Plant Vogtle our last Nuclear reactor cost $10 billion 30 tears ago. My power plant makes no pollution and needs no fuel. Vogtle has a giant cancer zone around it and 25,000 year storage problem for the spent fuel rods.

Did you know Al has a major polluter right on his land? Al has kept them from paying $250 million in fines for polluting.

Al is such a liar he couldn't tell what the truth was if it french kissed him! Al's only goal is to line his pocket with any dispicable thing he can or has to do!

Answer 5

As for our esteemed former Vice President Gore, I'd like to see someone ask him about the 7 homes he currently owns, why they are fully staffed (year round), air conditioned or heated (year round), and some of them used for 1 week a year. That's a lot of energy and water at the very least to maintain those homes. Practice what you preach savior of the world.

Tell me that our pollution is messing up our air quality and causing health problems, and I'll agree with you 100%. Tell me mankind is responsible for the weather change and I'll tell you there is as much evidence that proves as disproves your case. See link below.

The Earth's weather has always been in a state of flux. Guess the little Ice Age in the 16th-19th centuries were caused by all the pollution caused by the the massive industrial pollution caused during the 14th and 15th centuries.

Love how we've swung from mankind and CO2 is leading us into the next ice age to, CO2 is now leading us into a warmer climate and will cause catastrophic climate change caused my mankind. Solar activity has been stronger over the past 30-60 years than it has been in the last 1000 years.

If you disagree with the mainstream propoganda, you are called a heretic, discreditied, and driven into seclusion.

I'll even agree that we humans might have some small influence on the Earth's temperature of a couple degrees, but I haven't seen enough evidence to fully prove one side or the other. I'm more concerned about the increase in respiratory problems caused by pollution than I am about a theory about pollution causing the Earth to warm. I'm all for going green to breathe cleaner air, refuse to jump on the global warming bandwagon.

If the CO2 theory is correct, maybe we'll be lucky enough to kill ourselves off that way before find another, quicker way to do it (nuclear war.)

Answer 6

I'm answering this purely so that Think1st won't be annoyed anymore (he doesn't accept emails). You can get the mistakes in Talladega Nights at http://www.moviemistakes.com/film6088 Having said that I suppose I should make an attempt to answer the actual question. Shoot, I really can't. There are so many assumptions implicit in the question that it doesn't apply to me. But I assume that the people you're targeting with this question don't know.

Answer 7

actually there were eleven inacuracies cited.The controversy is about the contrary information that was left out.IE:polar ice cap melting at north pole but growing substantialy at south pole.When north gets warm south gets colder.This rebutes claims of major flooding and mass kaos because what is melting is refreezing elsewhere.Also,did you know that bovine (cows)outnumber autos 10 to 0ne and emitt 100 times the greenhouse gasses of cars?Besides the majority of the atmosphere is made up of co2 at the upper levels and what we emitt is miniscule in comparison to this.Excess co2 would reflect the sun and cause cooling and not heating.Also look into tectonic activity that has been warming the pacific noticibly along the ring of fire.all this and more was left out.check scientific american for details.

Answer 8

The product of inter- familial relations would have the capacity to know Gore's version of temperature rise is only a calculated invention.

Answer 9

Climate change is real, and nobody has questioned that. The argument is whether it is attributable to human activity. In the last analysis, why does that matter? It is probably not solely attributable to what we are doing, but can anyone doubt that we are contributing to the problem?

Answer 10

Maybe not a political work, but definitely propaganda meant to advance his point of view. There are other opposing views that should be respected as well.