What do you have to say about this!!?

Question

Al Gore's movie has nine scientific errors in it!

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/10/british-judge-f.html

Answer 1

Makes sense to me.

Didn't he say he invented the internet!

The problem with the GW debate is all the political and economic agendas. GW is about politics and economics. Unfortuately it's not about science.

And it's not about data. That doesn't count.

What counts is where the money goes. The politicians want more taxes and gov't regs, the scientist want funding, and the liberals want it out of your pocket and into someone else's.

Answer 2

The judge actually though the movie was great.

This nonsense is circulating among far right websites.

READ THE FULL DECISION (link below).

The judge was asked to ban the movie. He refused, saying:

"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 following is clear...

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact....

'The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.'"

The spin on this has been shameless.

The judge did agree with the plaintiffs that nine details were not fully supported by science (he put the word "error" in quotes to indicate he was not saying if they were right or wrong).

But, the Plaintiffs still lost, and the movie won.

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

Answer 3

You gotta love some Brits!!! That judge finally made public what I've known all along!! That's why you should not have a politician giving out scientific evidence. The sad thing is, that this mockumentary is being played to kids across the world and especially in the USA. These kids are buying in to all of his false statements that have been deemed incorrect due to lack of evidence. Polar bears can swim man..lol.. for about 60miles or so without a break and their population is increasing!! This movie should be yanked from the shelves and stuffed up Al Gore's #$%!!! So he can go back home and cry while he uses up more electricity in two months than we can use in a YEAR!!!!!!!!

Everything that was deemed errors is b/c he blamed man-made global warming on certain events that we do not have proof of. We don't know that snow melting off the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro is accredited to human induced climate change!!! So if there are errors that should be accounted for and the documentary should be changed b/c they show little kids in school this film and they will believe everything!!

Answer 4

The judge ruled (correctly, I might ad) that the film is an "advocacy" work, not a scientific work. While the AGW advocates all claim that it had to be "abbreviated" for consumption, and that despite the rather serious flaws in its science it is the "correct message," the truth is that in the end, Gore is an eco-nut trying to hold the limelight to the pathetic end.

In his book "Earth in the Balance" he called the "internal combustion engine" the worst thing to ever happen to mankind (I guess feeding, clothing, and housing billions of people is bad....if you don't like people). The AGW scare is just another way for him to attack the industrialized world.

As for Bob's point about "adverse effects" of "Climate Change:"

You can't prove that the effects of a warmer world will be worse for mankind. We KNOW what an ice-age would look like - and that IT would be bad. A warmer world is an unknown to history (apart from the MWP - a period you reject because you HAVE to to make your silly little hockey-stick work) so to claim it will be "worse" for man is to assume an awful lot of facts not in evidence.

It IS generally demonstrable that a warmer world is a better fed world with more life.

Answer 5

What I have to say is - so what?

There were 9 minor errors out of the hundreds of points made in the film. And the judge also stated in the ruling that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

Big whoop.

Answer 6

You gotta love some Americans!!!

Of Course Global Warming is not happening,
Of course Darwin was an idiot and we are all personally descended from Adam & Eve.
Of course the US economy is much more important than the planet
.
Of course we can carry on being completely ignorant about the rest of the world.

America is no 1 and will be forever

God bless George W he is a really well respected, masterful, wonderful, President who has done a great job.
God bless America

Answer 7

Propaganda:
let me show you...
#5 the disappearance of snow on killimanjaro is due to global warming
Judge: it cannot be established that the recession of snow on mt killimanjaro is mainly due to human induced climate change

now if you look at that carefully, and think logically, you will notice that the claim is not refuted by the judges comment. it almost sounds like it does, but the statment in 5 has nothing to do with manmade situation at all. the judge is refuting something that isn't even said, but people who lack critical thinking skills will think that it does. The whole thing is chawked full of similar stuff, but i am not interested in writing you a book.

'This judge should stick to his own profession and leave science to people who have a PhD in science, unless he is going to approve of us telling him how to do his job.

believe what you want to believe, but how about we reduce toxic emission from our atmosphere, just for the heck of it??!

Answer 8

Simple: its BS

The so called "errors" are correct statements. That's all there is to it.

BTW--I did look at the accusations--all nine--that the "judge" made. None have any merit whatsoever.

Answer 9

Oh MY God!!! You sound like your a frantic little girl and I say what do you have to say about this!!!!?

WTF? Its some judge....BFD! I thought you were going to point out 9 factual scientific disagreements. Very disappointed in you little British feminate one.

Answer 10

Aha! I knew it! It completely discredits his entire life and once again exposes Global Warming as the gigantic hoax it is. Yes, thank goodness that we have the inerrant among us to show the way!