35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

The judge in England said there were 9 errors now there seem to be 35 errors. Probably more to come???

35 Errors in Al Gore Film

Also look at this site they seem to collect together articles etc about Global Warming.

Climate science

SPPI Report Vindicates UK High Court

Said Monckton, “Each of Gore’s 35 errors distorts or exaggerates in one direction only – toward unjustifiable alarmism. The likelihood that all 35 would fall one way by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. Gore’s movie is not only inaccurate but prejudiced. The movie is unsuitable for children. It should not be shown in schools.”

The more people start to educate themselves about climate change the more they learn the truth.

There are 3 truths, your truth, my truth and the real truth.

Having seen the movie I do agree that it is not suitable to viewed by children in school. Gore does engage in distorting the facts and has a definite bias. That is the truth. Children may not come away with this information because they are CHILDREN. Easily impressionable and the future of the world (barring 2012).

This is a movie that should only be shown in high school where it can be given the couching it needs to be viewed in a critical eye by teenagers and young adults. Showing this movie to children is just brainwashing them.

Originally posted by greenfruit
SPPI Report Vindicates UK High Court

Said Monckton, “Each of Gore’s 35 errors distorts or exaggerates in one direction only – toward unjustifiable alarmism. The likelihood that all 35 would fall one way by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. Gore’s movie is not only inaccurate but prejudiced. The movie is unsuitable for children. It should not be shown in schools.”

The more people start to educate themselves about climate change the more they learn the truth.
There are 3 truths, your truth, my truth and the real truth.

Bravo!!!
More:

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

I guess we can only hope that the phonied-up 'nobel peace prize' gore received was actually made of chocolate, and that he accidently puts it by one of his many fireplaces....

Al and co. (clitons) always were, and always will be, frauds.

The judge was focusing on 'errors', there's a subtle difference that is lost on many.

Anyway, an assessment of the case from some cambridge climate scientists:

Press reports have mostly presented the High Court judgementiii of 10 October 2007 as a defeat for Al Gore. However, the judge stated that (in his opinion) the film was "broadly accurate", and decided that the film could continue to be shown in schools "in the context of... discussions facilitated by the guidance note" provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (of which an updated version is already availableiv). He also identifies a number of deficiencies which he refers to as "nine scientific errors", and which have been seized on by the media: these are discussed below. In fact the judgement systematically refers to “errors” (using inverted commas, which the media have generally ignored), and has some wise words to say on the distinction between presenting and promoting partisan views, and the balanced presentation of controversial issues (which he decides does not require equal “air-time” for views which are held only by small minorities). However, in his analysis of the “errors” the judge has also expressed unwarranted confidence on several issues which are still the subject of considerable uncertainty among the scientific community. It would be fair to say that Al Gore presents the more extreme (concerned) end of the range of scientific opinion on several issues, and implies stronger evidence than is fair on several others. However, overall the film still achieves an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy, and it is regrettable that the judge has triggered a media storm by the injudicious use of the term “errors”. Lawyers know not to rely on ordinary commas to make their meaning clear; now judges must learn not to rely on inverted commas either.

linky

They assess each of the 'errors' in their piece. As many appear to have completely missed, Dimmock (and Monckton, as he was involved) lost the case and the judge accpeted the film was 'broadly accurate' (note the inverted commas, heh)

Also, the 35 errors obviously is BS. If you want to use the nine 'errors' as having a degree of validity due to being focused on in court, then that suggests the judge dismissed the rest. Be consistent at least.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by melatonin]

I remember visiting my girlfriend.
Her daughter just came home from school and she was all excited.
Her class had just watched Mr. Gore's documentary.
If it should even be called that.
I remember when documentaries didn't have an agenda.
Can you say PowerPoint?
Al Gore also created the internet(s).
What is it about this man that people like?
Granted, all of this is just my opinion.
But I had to be the one to tell my soon to be step daughter to do more research, to formulate her OWN opinion of what is or isn't going on. That this should in no way be taken as gospel. But then again, repeat a lie often enough. . .
Why is there no common sense? Or can't we use this words?
We, as humans, as a society; or me as my country, didn't "create" or "cause" global warming. We may contribute or slightly speed it up a bit.
Then again, to some, I am sure this sounds preposterous.

Originally posted by melatonin
The judge was focusing on 'errors', there's a subtle difference that is lost on many.

Anyway, an assessment of the case from some cambridge climate scientists:

Press reports have mostly presented the High Court judgementiii of 10 October 2007 as a defeat for Al Gore. ....... the distinction between presenting and promoting partisan views, and the balanced presentation of controversial issues............ It would be fair to say that Al Gore presents the more extreme end of the range of scientific opinion on (the)issues, and implies [states as fact] stronger evidence than is fair on several others. .

linky


Also, the 35 errors obviously is BS.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by melatonin]

1-why would the 'extreme end' of the range of scientific opinion' (NOT FACT) be presented as fact to undiscerning children?
Brainwashing maybe?
2-'promoting partisan views' means politics. Not science. Read more carefully.

3-"Also, the 35 errors obviously is BS."
Care to enlighten us point by point, which, or all are BS, as you put it?

Get this into the schools as a counter to his brainwashing BS. Quickly. This guy and his quackery are going to affect the young, all to the betterment of Al Gore and his carbon credit trading scam. Stop him, before they basically take over the economy.

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.

I guess we can only hope that the phonied-up 'nobel peace prize' gore received was actually made of chocolate, and that he accidently puts it by one of his many fireplaces....

I don't get it!! Why has he even been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize He has done nothing for peace. This is the definition and purpose for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish and Norwegian: Nobels fredspris) is the name of one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

Has Al Gore done anything to stand down armies?

Al Gore reminds me of Stephen Greer

He's out to make all the money he can by telling lies and deceiving the American people.

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Solarskye]

Originally posted by Solarskye

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.

I guess we can only hope that the phonied-up 'nobel peace prize' gore received was actually made of chocolate, and that he accidently puts it by one of his many fireplaces....

I don't get it!! Why has he even been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

He has done nothing for peace. This is the definition and purpose for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish and Norwegian: Nobels fredspris) is the name of one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

Has Al Gore done anything to stand down armies?

See. There you go making perfect sense.

This is frowned upon by socialists, grade school teachers, the NEA, and the DNC.
Hence my comment "I guess we can only hope that the phonied-up 'nobel peace prize' gore received was actually made of chocolate..."

Ever have Swiss chocolate?
It melts in your mouth.... Hmmm...Chocolate...

It's all part of the dumbing down of the world.

Dumbing down. It's not just for America anymore...

Don't worry. Nobody who can actually think gets it either, so you're not alone.....

I hear ya Alexander. I read this today and it was also on a radio talk show. It's written by a senior Justin Jones ( East Coweda High School ). He couldn't have said it any better.

For a millennium, the world has been plagued with stupid people corrupting society and bastardizing the value of life for all of mankind.

East Coweta High School Newspaper

No wonder people will believe anything they read or hear. I think there's probably more than 35 errors in Al Gores Inconvenient Truth. Alot of those weather sensors that reports the temperature were in horrible locations. Next to heat sources and on sides of buildings that blow out heat from thier exhaust, etc..

Sorry for all the editing. should of held off on my first post until I was through thinking.



[edit on 10/23/2007 by Solarskye]

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Solarskye]

Originally posted by bobafett1972
I remember when documentaries didn't have an agenda.

Really, when was that?

Originally posted by bobafett1972
...had just watched Mr. Gore's documentary.
If it should even be called that.

Can we assume from your tone that you haven't watched it?

In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit now that I am yet to see it. That admission is relevant only to discussing the script of the documentary, not the judgement of the UK courts or climate change science in general.

On which point, just exactly how many of the naysayers, about the documentary, are basing their skepticism on the fact that a)it's Gore, b)Bush is a skeptic and, you know, he's got, like, scientific advisors and all (including a former Oil lobbyist), c) Paris hasn't spoken about it yet, d) the evidence-less rantings of fellow skeptics or e) a combination of any and/or all of the above

and

how many have based their skepticism on a thorough researching of the issue, including the report (and drafts, if you can get them) of the IPCC and a possible veiwing of Gore's film?

Try watching The Great Global Warming Swindle. It puts forth exactly the opposite side to An Inconvenient Truth. It runs about 70 minutes long and is a free download from many websites. It used to be on You Tube but has since been removed. It is quite interesting and worth the time.

In my opinion, scientists should focus on the easy questions first.
Example: Are eggs good or bad for humans to eat?
The Great Egg Debate has been raging for 15 years that i can remember, and yet there is still no definitive answer. Perhaps when they give us a yes or no to the egg question, they will be ready to move on a tackle something a little more challenging like global warming.

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
1-why would the 'extreme end' of the range of scientific opinion' (NOT FACT) be presented as fact to undiscerning children?
Brainwashing maybe?

The judge found 9 parts of the film which significantly departed from the IPCC. Out of a whole 2 hours is it? He presented the extreme position on maybe, at most, 9 points.

2-'promoting partisan views' means politics. Not science. Read more carefully.

Yeah, he was a politician. But it appears you have not read the judges summary of the case, he agreed that the term partisan should not just be restricted to politics, but also to a polarised view. He decided that showing the film, with guidance in the classroom, would not be the promotion of partisan views.

But, again, only in 9 places did the film apparently depart from the IPCC position. Which is based on the science. The film was judged 'broadly accurate'.

Which is more than can be said for the swindle mockumentary.

3-"Also, the 35 errors obviously is BS."
Care to enlighten us point by point, which, or all are BS, as you put it?

Not really. I have better stuff to do. If you want to accept the judgment of someone like Lord Monckton over the informed judgment of the case and its experts, go for it. The nine strongest points of contention are in the scientists assessment I posted earlier.

If you actually read the judges statement, you would know that Dimmock and Monckton presented lots of 'errors' (probably the 35). He found 9 worthy of assessment, but ultimately dismissed the case.

So, in the OP, it was stated that - the judge said 9, but now 35.

When it's more a case of - Dimmock and Monckton said 35, the judge said 9 'errors' were worth clarifying for the classroom.

On these issues the Gore departs from the more moderate generally accepted position of the IPCC. But these are generally areas of high uncertainty.

I do think he overstated the case in numerous positions, possibly using some bad examples. But he was no more misleading than the reporting of this case, and also this thread.

cheers

[edit on 24-10-2007 by melatonin]

If Gore was a Republican, I wonder how many of the people in this thread that are currently criticising him wouldn't be?

I keep saying this in all of these types of threads, and no one has ever come back with a decent answer, so I'll try again.

The basic message of the film (and I'm talking real basics here, without the scientific bicker fest, or lifestyle analysis) is that if we all live a little greener, recycle more, use renewable and sustainable energy resources and look after the environment, the world we live in might just be a better place.

Now tell me, someone - anyone - whats so damn wrong with that? And whats wrong with kids learning that?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Can we assume from your tone that you haven't watched it?

In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit now that I am yet to see it. That admission is relevant only to discussing the script of the documentary, not the judgement of the UK courts or climate change science in general.

On which point, just exactly how many of the naysayers, about the documentary, are basing their skepticism on the fact that a)it's Gore, b)Bush is a skeptic and, you know, he's got, like, scientific advisors and all (including a former Oil lobbyist), c) Paris hasn't spoken about it yet, d) the evidence-less rantings of fellow skeptics or e) a combination of any and/or all of the above

and

how many have based their skepticism on a thorough researching of the issue, including the report (and drafts, if you can get them) of the IPCC and a possible veiwing of Gore's film?

Yes, I have seen the film. A number of times. Why? I like to know my enemy. Sorry, a real documentary takes an unbiased stance and shows facts and information from BOTH sides. Not slanted propaganda, one-sided views. Then to go on and force said view down the ENTIRE planets throats. I am not saying that there isn't a problem but there is also a def. issue of using said problem for ones own selfish agenda.
I went into this with an open mind as I do with most things. Al Gore, Al Franken, Lewis Black, who ever could have done the film and I would still feel the same way. It is a biased, slanted, one sided, my way or the highway film.

All you have to do is look and see for yourself. There are people actually saying that the current wild fires in California are GLOBAL WARMING INDUCED!!! Thats just insane. Sorry, since I was a child these things have been going on. Then to go and teach this to schools kids as gospel?

Paris? The city? Or the trailer trash wanna be super star? What does her opinion have to do with anything?

Originally posted by bobafett1972

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Can we assume from your tone that you haven't watched it?


In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit now that I am yet to see it. That admission is relevant only to discussing the script of the documentary, not the judgement of the UK courts or climate change science in general.

On which point, just exactly how many of the naysayers, about the documentary, are basing their skepticism on the fact that a)it's Gore, b)Bush is a skeptic and, you know, he's got, like, scientific advisors and all (including a former Oil lobbyist), c) Paris hasn't spoken about it yet, d) the evidence-less rantings of fellow skeptics or e) a combination of any and/or all of the above

and

how many have based their skepticism on a thorough researching of the issue, including the report (and drafts, if you can get them) of the IPCC and a possible veiwing of Gore's film?

Yes, I have seen the film. A number of times. Why? I like to know my enemy. Sorry, a real documentary takes an unbiased stance and shows facts and information from BOTH sides. Not slanted propaganda, one-sided views. Then to go on and force said view down the ENTIRE planets throats. I am not saying that there isn't a problem but there is also a def. issue of using said problem for ones own selfish agenda.
I went into this with an open mind as I do with most things. Al Gore, Al Franken, Lewis Black, who ever could have done the film and I would still feel the same way. It is a biased, slanted, one sided, my way or the highway film.

All you have to do is look and see for yourself. There are people actually saying that the current wild fires in California are GLOBAL WARMING INDUCED!!! Thats just insane. Sorry, since I was a child these things have been going on. Then to go and teach this to schools kids as gospel?

Paris? The city? Or the trailer trash wanna be super star? What does her opinion have to do with anything?

Just more emotional drivel from a MSM brainwashed socialist.
Why even respond?
I don't think I saw one coherent point in all that verbiage.

Ah well.
Bliss.
Here check out even more science that does not support the AGW CO2 Nazi's:
www.climateaudit.org...

Steve Mcintyre is the guy who showed Jim Hansen at nasa a thing or two about data collection and interpretation. In other words, he showed Hansen for the fraud that he is, and recently forced Nasa to retract their ficticious 1998 "hottest year on record" proclimations. He made them change their propaganda to show the true hottst year on record: 1934.
This sorta blows the AGW theory just by itself. IPCC uses NASA data in it's 'reports. The data is false.
This is well documented. I'll bet the little missy above just had no idea!

Here's another link already posted with dissenting opinions:
www.climatescience.org.nz...

Add to all this the courts in britain forcing a DISCLAIMER on the Gore propagandistic movie forced on kids in school (it is not a documentary by any stretch) and you start to see the cracks in the theory. And it is still only a THEORY. Not fact. Not worth taxing yourselves into oblivion over. The courts beg to differ.
Another tax, carbon credit, carbon tax, socialist wealth redistribution scheme is all it is.
And it is failing.
Actual science is coming out now.
And it's not a good thing for the AGW Alarmists.

The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

I'm pretty sure that the Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. I think that is what it says above????

The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

I guess the judge was pretty serious about the 9 errors???

the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors.

The judge does explain why only nine of the 35 errors were looked at. Time was the issuse

Hey there, the not-terrible,

Exactly which "little missy" were you referring to?

I ask only because, when I'm condescending, I do it in reference to people's statements, opinions and positions. I choose to assume my intelligence is higher based on what is written here, not gender or race...

ps, if it's me, take the beer goggles off 'cause up close and personal I'm a whole lot less physically attractive than the ST:E star in my avatar...also somewhat more hirsute and with an ever-so-slightly deeper voice...

Anyway, when it comes to global warming, I'm happy to back up the readings and pronouncements of doom with the anecdotal evidence of my own life. When I was a child 38 degrees was an unbearably hot day in Australia. Now it's practically the summer average. Australia has gone through the worst El Nino drought in recorded history. In Cambodia the old people remark that even in the early mornings during the cold season your breath no longer vapourises. Oh, and glaciers and polar ice caps are shrinking...

You could probably add this to your cause as well. I think Al Gore is unjustly glorified for this very reason alone.

Al "F it" Gore