Albert Gore wins Oscar

[75center]

As I said, I haven't seen it, but now I definitely plan to.

 

So, what are the fallicies in the film? Which facts are irrevocably neutralized by their exaggeration?

 

Here's one man's take on it but note he has his own agenda just like everyone else in this controversy:

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=

[Gunner11]

The sun goes through seasonal variations that may span hundreds of years, resulting in variations in the average surface temperature of the earth of a few degrees one way or the other. These are far beyond the control or influence of man.

 

One large volcano can spew more greenhouse gasses and pollutants into the atmosphere in one week than mankind has generated in our entire history upon the earth. We have yet to figure out how to predict a volcanic eruption, much less to prevent one or even to harness some of its power.

 

I’ve just watched hours of programming on the History Channel detailing the Little Ice Age that occurred during from the 1500s through the mid-1800s. At its peak, the average temperature of the earth dropped only about 4 degrees F (or 1 degree C,) and yet, the entire Northern Hemisphere suffered bitterly cold winters and reduced growing seasons in summer. New York harbor regularly froze solid, allowing residents to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Washington’s famous crossing of the Delaware took nine hours through snow and ice, when the same trip could be managed in no more than 30 minutes otherwise.

 

Activists at the first Earth Day protests in the 1970’s were warning of “Global Cooling” and the return to another Ice Age if we didn’t clean up our act. Now, many of the same interests are spreading fear of global warming.

 

I could go on, but for now to summarize, yes, the climate is fluctuating… that’s what it does and has done for millennia. Yes, there are some things mankind can and should do to clean our nest and keep it clean. I will not contest that at all, but mankind hasn’t had a whole heck of a lot to do with affecting global warming for 99% of our existence on this planet, and it is unlikely we have a whole lot to do with what we’re observing now.

 

For Gore to be the front man in a film stating that we’re the cause of global warming is erroneous at best, and political grandstanding at its worst.

 

 

:thumb: In the early lead for best post of 2007.

[HHSDad]

As I said, I haven't seen it, but now I definitely plan to.

 

So, what are the fallicies in the film? Which facts are irrevocably neutralized by their exaggeration?

I find your use of the phrase "irrevocably neutralized" disturbing. It seems to express doubt that Al could be wrong. Nevertheless...

 

Of the various graphs and other data Gore presents, some of it is misrepresented. Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies. The broader claim is questioned by many scientists as well--much research suggests that temperatures around 1100-1300 AD were about as warm as today--as well as the methodology used to support such claims. Gore uses another set of ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide concentrations have driven global temperatures for the last 600,000 years. He admits the actual relationship is "complicated", which is as close as he comes to admitting the fact that the temperature changes came first, and probably helped drive the carbon dioxide changes.

 

Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community. Most research indicates that such melting, even if it could occur, would take 1,000 to 5,000 years; the minimum timescale described by any researcher for such melting is still centuries. Even the United Nations' IPCC, source of the "consensus" analysis which still overestimates future warming, only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8 meters (4 to 30 inches) in the next 100 years.

 

Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate. Even in the case of malaria, a disease with a stronger link to climate, health experts cite the management of human infrastructure and health systems as far more important factors. In other cases Gore neglects the strong influence of human resource management, as with linking occurrence of wildfires or pest outbreaks to global warming. He also claims global warming is causing a "significant" number of polar bear drownings, based on a report of four drowned polar bears; however, other researchers report the polar bear population is generally unchanged. Melting of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in Glacier National Park are cited as consequences of global warming, but in both cases these glaciers have been melting since the 1800s, when the Earth emerged from a period of global cooling.

 

Gore says the United States is particularly to blame for the claimed global warming crisis, but doesn't give a fair view of the issues. He makes misleading comparisons of fuel economy standards in the U.S. and other countries; also, he criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. He also understates the economic adjustments required to attain the goals he sets.

 

Need more?

[rockmom]

HHS, all I meant by irrevocably neutralized is that whatever factual basis may have been there was negated by the exaggeration of the truth for the sake of making a point.

 

I have no opinion of Gore either way, really.

 

I am interested in the topic of the documentary, though.

 

All I'm asking is for information from those who've seen it and felt it wasn't a true documentary. I'll take that info, see the documentary, and then figure out for myself what I think about it.

[HHSDad]

HHS, all I meant by irrevocably neutralized is that whatever factual basis may have been there was negated by the exaggeration of the truth for the sake of making a point.

 

I have no opinion of Gore either way, really.

 

I am interested in the topic of the documentary, though.

 

All I'm asking is for information from those who've seen it and felt it wasn't a true documentary. I'll take that info, see the documentary, and then figure out for myself what I think about it.

As far as both a recruiting tool for global warming and Al Gore, it does a great job. However, many global warming scientists won't even touch it because the "evidence" is so badly used.

[scooterbob]

I would say that the percentage of viewers of the Gore documentary among BGPers far exceeds the percentage of viewers from those "academy members" who voted for it.

 

Rockmom, my statement about Mother Teresa and the Nobel Peace Prize was based upon the fact that the National Organization for Women, among others, voiced displeasure at her selection because, according to them, Mother Teresa was not "representative" of present day women. Actually, from a review of the typical NOW membership list, I guess I would have to agree.

[Birdsfan]

I haven't seen the documentary, but from what I hear from people who have, it's actually worthy of merit in it's own right. Some I've spoken with have mentioned that they feel it would have been more widely accepted had Gore not been involved, but feel the documentary itself was credible and worthy of note.

This is a good point. I think the documentaries higher purpose would have been better served without Al Gore's involvement. It made the issue, a potlitical one -- more than it needed to be. His involvement turned people away who might otherwise gotten something from the message.

 

I don't want to turn this into a global warming debate; but the film had real value and made real points. Sure, it can be argues that the problems were over-stated; but they do exist and we do have to do something about them. We live in a bubble, and it's getting kind of smokey in here. :creepy:

[Birdsfan]

For Gore to so inextricably link himself politically to spreading panic over what more and more scientists are coming to realize are merely natural variations in our long term climate causes him to come off as Chicken Little to anyone with any genuine depth of understanding of the issues.

I think I have a genuine understanding of the issue and to say that the scientific community is just passing this off as simple "natural variation" is, quite simply, wrong.

 

Anyone who wants to buy into the "volcano theory" or any of the other nonsense, is just sticking their head in the sand and pretending their's no problem around them. Yes, there is natural variation; but the evidence shows that we are effecting our climate in a negative way.

 

Pretending it's God's will, or a force of nature will only doom us to unimaginable consequenses. Franky, there may be little we can do. But something, is a heck of a lot better than nothing. And pretending...is nothing.

[HHSDad]

Evidence may indicate that we are effecting our climate in a negative way, however, it doesn't agree to what degree. Therein lies the whole problem with Gore's blame America documentary.

 

I would think the Greenpeace and Sierra Club groupies would be in favor of global warming. After all, it most negatively effects humans which would allow other flora and fauna to recover lost ground.

[scooterbob]

Evidence may indicate that we are effecting our climate in a negative way, however, it doesn't agree to what degree. Therein lies the whole problem with Gore's blame America documentary.

 

I would think the Greenpeace and Sierra Club groupies would be in favor of global warming. After all, it most negatively effects humans which would allow other flora and fauna to recover lost ground.

 

And you didn't even mention that it does wonders for their fundraising.

[Fastbreak]

I think I have a genuine understanding of the issue and to say that the scientific community is just passing this off as simple "natural variation" is, quite simply, wrong.

Had I made such a statement, I would agree with you that it is wrong. I did not however, say that the “scientific community is just passing this off as simple natural variation." I said that, “more and more scientists are coming to realize (these climatic events) are merely natural variations in our long term climate” a subtle, but significant difference. Many of these same scientific sources were predicting global cooling just 30 years ago. Nothing has been confirmed. I think it is fair to say that the jury is still out awaiting further evidence. For Gore so state it so conclusively as fact is misleading at best.

 

I do not question that you possess a “genuine understanding of the issue.” I would presume that your understanding is well above average. I was imprecise in wording my statement, “to anyone with any genuine depth of understanding of the issues.” I should have substituted “the issues” with “all known scientific facts.” I am confident that if you were to review “all known scientific facts” not just those reported in most media and popular scientific publications, you would reach a similar conclusion to mine.

 

The bottom line is that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not seeing the light of day, and Gore’s hysterical rhetoric is not helping things. That my friend is the “Inconvenient Truth” behind this issue.

 

Anyone who wants to buy into the "volcano theory" or any of the other nonsense, is just sticking their head in the sand and pretending their's no problem around them. Yes, there is natural variation; but the evidence shows that we are effecting our climate in a negative way.

I do not doubt that we are influencing our environment via pollution. I do not question that at all, but I am not convinced that our impact upon the climate is all that significant… especially compared with nature’s ability to wreak havoc with wind and rain and snow and heat and cold. The vast majority of scientists are split on this as well. I am also impressed with nature’s ability to heal and recover.

 

I find it amusing that you reference the “volcano theory” when this is one of the few areas of science upon which there is some consensus of agreement... simply because these events have been observed and recorded time and time again. Observation of current and historical volcanic events reveals that volcanoes do indeed flood the atmosphere with untold tons of ash, gasses and pollution that lingers in the upper atmosphere interfering with normal penetration, reflection and emission of solar radiation. Time after time, volcanic events have caused significant immediate and measurable effects that go far beyond theory. They are actual facts.

 

I have not ever said in any post that there is no problem. I am not attempting to suggest that no problem exists. I simply do not agree with the panicked forecasts and explanations of cause forwarded by Mr. Gore and company. I also submit that there is much more evidence than is being presented. It falls outside of a very narrow predetermined message and conclusion, therefore, it is not presented objectively.

I find it amusing that conservatives and fundamentalists are labeled as being shallow and narrow-minded, and yet it is fundamentalist conservatives like me that are suggesting that we look at all the facts, not just those that fit our desired goals. If that constitutes “sticking my head in the sand,” then I have a very different understanding of the phrase than you apparently do. :lol:

 

Pretending it's God's will, or a force of nature will only doom us to unimaginable consequenses. Franky, there may be little we can do. But something, is a heck of a lot better than nothing. And pretending...is nothing.

Apart from God, we are doomed “to unimaginable consequenses” but I sincerely doubt that the climate will be our biggest concern, or even a concern at all for that matter.

 

I’m all for developing alternative fuels, and reducing our emission of pollutants into our environment. That makes complete and total sense. We should be going after this 100 times more aggressively than we are right now. I simply do not think the emergency is so great that we should surrender the greatness that is America, and subject ourselves to the whims of third world tin-pot dictators and world government, as the Kyoto Treaty and Al Gore apparently are seeking to establish.

 

If Manhattan floods 8 to 10 years from now, and Al Gore is proven correct, I will buy you the biggest and best steak (or whatever meal you enjoy) you have ever seen in your life… that is if of course contingent upon the assumption that the world has not ended and we’re all still alive. If not, you owe me a, “You know Fastbreak, you’re not as dumb as you look.” :lol:

 

Deal? :thumb:

[the mathemagician]

I have seen it Mom, and to put it gently, it is based upon and filled with scientific proofs and conclusions that are questionable at best. For Gore to so inextricably link himself politically to spreading panic over what more and more scientists are coming to realize are merely natural variations in our long term climate causes him to come off as Chicken Little to anyone with any genuine depth of understanding of the issues.

 

Gore has forever stained himself as an hysterically inclined fear-mongering attention hound.

 

If this vital film received an award for technical merit, or artistic interpretation, I can buy it. But there is no way it should have received much more than a yawn for the accuracy of its scientific content.

 

ScooterBob, although blunt, is right on the money in regard to this being an award based upon a popular political cause more so than an innovative presentation of prescient facts.

 

 

And even if that were true(questionable, at best) , Gore would still have been incredibly better than what we have in the White House now.

[Habib]

And even if that were true(questionable, at best) , Gore would still have been incredibly better than what we have in the White House now.

 

I guess that would be a good point if we weren't debating the merits of Al Gore's film on global warming. Pretty soon we are going to be talking about Ryle and Trinity in here.

[Birdsfan]

If Manhattan floods 8 to 10 years from now, and Al Gore is proven correct, I will buy you the biggest and best steak (or whatever meal you enjoy) you have ever seen in your life… that is if of course contingent upon the assumption that the world has not ended and we’re all still alive. If not, you owe me a, “You know Fastbreak, you’re not as dumb as you look.” :lol:

 

Deal? :thumb:

We might have to settle for fish.

 

Oh, that's right -- due to over-fishing and water pollution -- there won't be any!

 

 

But seriously, I agree that the jury is still out. I'm simply saying (or trying to) that we need to be open to all of the possibilities, and strive to do the right thing, even though it may or may not to be a life and death proposition.

 

I just felt like you (and not just you) were painting anyone who felt concern about the situation as reactionaries and/or Gore supporters (which I'm definitely not)...or just looneys.

[Fastbreak]

We might have to settle for fish.

 

Oh, that's right -- due to over-fishing and water pollution -- there won't be any!

 

 

But seriously, I agree that the jury is still out. I'm simply saying (or trying to) that we need to be open to all of the possibilities, and strive to do the right thing, even though it may or may not to be a life and death proposition.

 

I just felt like you (and not just you) were painting anyone who felt concern about the situation as reactionaries and/or Gore supporters (which I'm definitely not)...or just looneys.

An elegantly worded response… :lol: :thumb:

 

I would not paint EVERYone with concern about our climate and environment as reactionaries, loonies or worst of all… Al Gore supporters... :eek: :lol:

 

I too am concerned about these things. I simply believe in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth… inconvenient or not. We can do something positive with actual facts. Half-truths and politically motivated spin are terribly destructive, and that is what I object to in Mr. Gore’s magnum opus.