The Cato Institute debunks 'An inconvenient truth' by Al Gore. Is that possible?

Answer 1

Consider the source. Right wing spin doctors funded by big oil.

Answer 2

The funding of the Cato Institute...

2006 - ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
2004 - ExxonMobil Foundation
2003 - ExxonMobil Foundation
2002 - ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
2002 - ExxonMobil Foundation
2001 - ExxonMobil Foundation

Quote "Financial firms now contributing generously to Cato include [list of financial and chemical companies] Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation..." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CATO_Institute

Originally the Cato Institute refuted global warming was even happening, then changed to saying it was entirely natural and then again they changed and are now saying it's not entirely natural but it's a good thing.

Answer 3

No. The Cato Institute is a political think tank, not a scientific institution. And there is nothing in any of their publications that debunks any climate science.
http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=27&ra_id=4

In fact, Cato Institute agrees that global warming is happening, and that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause. But they just think global warming is a good thing.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/michaels.pdf

Answer 4

The alleged inconvenient fact is that our burning fossil fuels is increasing the result known by means of fact the greenhouse result. the subsequent assertion is that the ice cores in antarctica and Greenland point out that as temperatures bypass up we se larger CO2 ranges interior the ice. next, is is inconvenient to make certain that our user-friendly worldwide temperatures are growing to be slightly. With that growing to be temperature we are seeing greater effective length and intensity of drought, greater effective frequency and severity of flooding, greater effective intensity of wind storms. from greater effective volumes of water vapor over eh oceans. Now for this reason some distance each and all the above is obviously demonstrable. it is merely observational. What would be greater controvertible is the quantity to which fossil gasoline burning contributes to growing to be CO2 ranges, and the quantity to which we ought to consistently characteristic pronounced worldwide warming to the two the upward push in CO2 or the source of CO2, fossil gasoline. that's obvious that earth has had worldwide warming and worldwide cooling till now without a lot human intervention. Mr Gore does depart an effect without saying it, that we are able to quit worldwide warming by way of combating CO2 emissions. that's not, although offered as an inconvenient fact. what's an inconvenient fact in his narrative is that we ought to consistently prepare for important climate adjustments, and we are in part inflicting the subject. Mr Gore does call for honoring Kyoto commitments, yet would not bypass so some distance as to declare that Kyoto objectives could be adequate to alter the process world warming. (Kyoto objectives have been set at a point that ought to enable oceanic sequestration to maintain up with new emissions, yet not yet decrease CO2 concentrations interior the ambience. by way of inference, they could save CO2 concentrations severe adequate to make particular that worldwide warming could proceed because it have been as much as 1990.)

Answer 5

Personally, I don't care.

Al Gore has nothing to do with the science that says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

But, if you care, a British lawsuit involved a "skeptic" who wanted the movie banned from British schools. He lost. The judge in Britain found the movie right in it's main points (real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, able to be fixed by us), although he found a few points unproven (note that he did NOT say they were wrong). Read the full decision here.

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

Scientists generally feel exactly the same way.

"Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie on global warming"

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

You do know the Cato Institute is a right wing think tank, not an objective source?

Answer 6

Gore's movie was a very good example of "bad science" and done for commercial reasons as his associates have admitted. Fact is, there's really no solid evidence of global warming let alone that man is causing it. Personally, I'm still considering everything.
Regardless, "going green" is just a good idea. Do you really need a catastrophe to save energy?

Answer 7

A court found so many errors in Algores movie that a disclaimer must be read before it's shown.

It's clear that Algore missed the mark on this one.

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

No, it is not possible. Man-made global warming is a proven fact. The "Cato Institute" isn't a scientific organization, anyway. its merely a right-wing propaganda mill. No one listens to them except the other right-wing extremists.

Answer 10

Yes, considering it is a movie full of lies.