[dynachrome]

Steelyourfaith, I believe you can assist here.

[Eagles2003]

Look for the story about the judge in the UK who pointed out the ten big lies in the movie and ordered the movie not be shown in schools without pointing out the lies.

I don’t have a link.

[umgud]

algore doesn’t have a “non-fiction movie.”

[the invisib1e hand]

wtf, they show that crap in schools?

[steelyourfaith]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

See ya later.

[aliquando]

Pops to fellow educator.I teach environmental science in H.S.. The Junkscience website is good. Also try to find the research done by a couple of PhD’s out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Their stuff is great about global warming crap! I am not familiar with a specific movie. Good luck to you and your daughter. P.S. It really pisses of the liberals that I work with that a conservative is teaching environmental science! Heh!

[steelyourfaith]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWM1MjM2NmQzN2Q2MzkxOTQ2ZTAyNGZhMjk4YmZhODg=

One last for now. 8^)

[plain talk]

I like this one - its on Youtube. It is in multiple parts. It interviews scientists and is compelling at least to me

Pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8
Pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7u8e5A0DnA
Pt 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZULyCGPgvk&feature=related
etc

There are more parts

[roaddog727]

Here are some good links from FR

Best refutation of the Enviro-whacko global warming/ anthropogenic cause of greenhouse gas production bunch to date:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

Here’s another very conceise refutation of Dr. Al and the hypsters:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835915/posts

Another great piece on the refutation of the “Global Warming” Dogma:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839271/posts

And yet another.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853623/posts

[Skooz]

Anyone have the picture from the film that allegedly shows a melting glacier but is actually a still from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow?”

That just came to light last week.

[cake_crumb]

Firstly, the movie is not a work of non-fiction.

From that point of view, it's easy to refute. According to a UK ruling over this work of propaganda, it contains 11 "innaccuracies" (some of which are outright lies). Newsbusters has a full list

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. (I personally doubt Gore misread anything; he has an established history of blatantly lying)
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The judge laid out guidlines teachers in Britain must follow before showing the film. If they don't follow these guidlines, "may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination."

We need a ruling like that in THIS country.

[Eagles6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

Clips from The Great Global Warming Swindle and gore's movie.

[the_Watchman]

Here is a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle which was produced in the U.K.

It includes interviews of Lord Monkton who served under Margaret Thatcher. He explains how global warming got a political foothold due to Thatcher wanting to put pressure on OPEC.

It also includes footage of one of the founders of Greenpeace. He states that the environmental movement was hijacked in the early nineties by leftists when the USSR collapsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I’m not aware of a movie that counters AlGore’s, but the teacher will likely question the source of almost anything you find that debunks the manmade global warming theory. Therefore, you might want to consider the following link to the Washington Post. At least it’s from the mainstream media:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

[Polybius]

Have your daughter site examples of climate change prior to the Industrial Revolution. Correlate that with cycles in solar output.

Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

******

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. .... During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The physical link between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures has not been established, but the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age is suggestive of such a connection.[23] The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period near the beginning of the Little Ice Age.

******

The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

*******

Solar variation

[A.A. Cunningham]

Why won’t Al Gore won’t debate Lord Monckton?

Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming Facts

[muir_redwoods]

Ask, If the earth “has a fever” what is it’s normal temperature and how does anyone know? The average temperature has been much higher and much lower than it is now. If the “Doctor” diagnosed a fever, he must know the normal temperature. What is it and why?

[goodnesswins]

15-Year-Old Byrnes Outsmarts NASA’s Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen
NewsBusters ^ | June 7, 2007 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on 06/07/2007 3:03:17 PM PDT by PJ-Comix PRINTED
On May 18, NewsBusters introduced you to Kristen Byrnes, the fabulous fifteen-year-old from Maine who had torn apart many of the myths purported by the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, in his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Now, the Precocious Ponderer from Portland is taking on the scientist that Gore relied on for much of his misinformation, James Hansen of NASA.
In her recent report entitled “Houston, We Have a Problem,” Byrnes identified a serious concern with this so-called scientist that many anthropogenic global warming skeptics have been addressing for years (emphasis added throughout):
James Hansen seems to have a busy life for someone from Iowa. But the real question seems to be is whether or not Hansen is too busy to realize what he is actually saying to the pubic.
As Hansen attempts to seduce, exaggerate, and alarm the public, some people (like me) attempt to inform the public of the reality of global warming, its impacts, and now, the truth behind James Hansen.
Next, Byrnes took on the myth Hansen likes to purport that he is politically independent:
Hansen claims that he is an “independent”, but he seems to be the only person who believes it. Readers may already be aware of this, but if not… James Hansen was granted a quarter of a million dollars from the Heinz Environment Award a.k.a. U. S. Senator and former Presidential Candidate John Kerry’s wife’s foundation. You know the old saying; “nothing in politics is free.” So my first question is: what did he do to get the quarter of a million dollars? Was it the price for switching his political standing from “independent” to democratic when he later endorsed John Kerry for President? Was it payment for interpreting his department’s data in a way that would benefit his political friends?
More evidence of his connections to the Democratic Party was his endorsement of Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000. James Hansen was also a science advisor to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.
As kids say these days, “Oh SNAP!”
Marvelously, she was just getting warmed up:
James Hansen is a scientist who admittedly uses scare tactics to convince the public that global warming will be “potentially disastrous”. Consider this statement from Hansen in his own document called “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?” [published in the journal Natural Science] in August of 2003.
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
Fascinating, wouldn’t you agree? What Hansen wrote in 2003 was that he used to advocate lying to the public and policy makers to get them to act. Yet, we should believe his prognostications now because he’s decided it’s suddenly important to be truthful.
Right.
To demonstrate how Hansen clearly is still operating from his prior modus operandi regarding the need to exaggerate to impact the debate, Byrnes pointed out the following deliciously inconvenient truth:
It is important to understand that global warming has been measured in tenths of degrees, .77 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. Rural stations are intended to represent the cool breezy countryside, small towns, farms, trees and grass.
In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel.
How delicious. And, here’s the excruciatingly painful punch line:
The photos of these temperature stations are not just a few of many; they are the first few dozen that have been visited. About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems. This brings up some more questions: How many tenths of a degree will temperatures rise when the thermometer is near the hot exhaust of an AC unit? Or how about when it is located above gravel or near a paved road or driveway? How many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the thermometer is above pavement and surrounded by buildings (no wind)? And in one case, as documented by the photograph below, how many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the caretaker of the facility burns trash in a metal barrel just 5 feet away from the temperature station?

For those interested, more pictures of these stations can be found here.
Now, putting this is some perspective, given the position and location of some of these stations, wouldn’t this be a fabulous thing for investigative journalists to be reporting? Can’t you just imagine a segment about this on “60 Minutes,” “20/20,” or “Dateline?” Why do you think that hasn’t happened?
Or, is it the job of fifteen-year-olds to point out that which adults find too inconvenient?
Brava, Kris. Brava!

________________________________________
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: convenientfiction; convenientlie; globalwarming; inconvenientreality; jameshansen; kristenbyrnes; temperature; Click to Add Keyword
________________________________________
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
________________________________________
If ever a high school student deserved a college scholarship, Kristen Byrnes sure does.

1 posted on 06/07/2007 3:03:20 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[anglian]

The Great Global Warming Swindle” aired in Britain Channel 4 in March, 2007. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[HardStarboard]

There is a great DVD, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is available from several web outlets.

I got mine from "Demand Debate". Link....

http://store.demanddebate.com/great-global-warming-swindle-dvd.html