Skip to comments.A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (Scientific Rebuttal to Gore's Fantasy Film)
Posted on 02/03/2007 4:40:01 PM PST by CedarDave
An Inconvenient Truth ( AIT ), Vice President Al Gore's book on The planetary emergency of global warming and what can be done about it, purports to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science and moral common-sense. In reality, AIT is a colorfully illustrated lawyer's brief for global warming alarmism and energy rationing. It is a J'Accuse hurled at fossil-energy-based civilization, especially the USA, and above all the Bush Administration and its allies in the U.S. oil and auto industries.
We do not expect lawyers to argue both for and against their clients, nor do we expect balance from party men. However, although Gore reminds us (in the film version of AIT ) that he used to be the next President of the United States, and concludes the book and movie with a call for political action, he presents AIT as the work of a long-time student of climate science, a product of meditation on what matters. He thus asks us to expect more from him than the mere cleverness that can sway juries or win elections.
This reasonable expectation is unmet. In AIT , the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, Gore distorts the evidence he cites.
The present paper, a running commentary on AIT , finds that nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong. An extensive summary of AIT's distortions is provided in Appendix A. Below is a list of 25 of egregious examples.
(Excerpt) Read more at cei.org ...
The present paper, a running commentary on AIT , finds that nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong.
"Al Gore: Incontinent Boob"
The real inconvenient truth is that the whole film is BS.
Is it true that CO2 increases followed warming periods, not the other way around?
So it appears.
1986 and 2007.
Don't know why this rebuttal and link was not previously posted. I did a search on a couple of key words in the title and nothing came up. It's a good reference thread.
Thanks. Why would this be?
And that same lying, snot-nosed idiot is a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.... As if we already had zero confidence in that "award"...
In reality, global temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 levels by hundreds to thousands of years. The causality is very nearly the opposite of what Gore insinuates. When ocean temperatures fall, seawater retains more dissolved CO2, and the expansion of polar sea ice further limits sea-to-air CO2 flux. Conversely, when the oceans warm, more dissolved CO2 outgases into the air. At most, changes in the airs CO2 content had an amplificatory effect on climate changes already under way.
"Al Gore: Incontinent Boob"
Al Gore: Incontinent Twit
This film is gospel to my co-workers and supervisor. They go all gaw-gaw when talking about it.Nothing will dissuade them.
Thank you. I am not a scientist, as you can tell. What other event(s) would cause the earth to warm? Obviously, we emerge from ice ages for reasons unrelated to CO2. But in the late Paleozoic and late Cretaceous flood volcanic activity for thousands of years pumped huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which did cause warming.
That "executive summary" is only part of a tremendous article debunking algore's film and that whole global warming crowd.
Here's another one about "An Inconvenient Truth".
The True Believers refer to non-believers as Cynics.