A judge in the United Kingdom has deemed that there are eleven mistakes in Albert Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. Such as:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* 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.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* 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.

* 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.


Source.
Source.
Source.
Source.

I sure hope that this judge is right. I get scared when people talk about bad stuff concerning global warming like the sea level stuff

A 'leading UK scientist' heavily involved in government environmental research suggested recently that the potentially misleading term Global Warming, adopted by the media as the pet phrase of the 21st century, be replaced by the more accurate phrase "climate extremes", as all this pollution and CO2 build up was not necessarily leading to a general warming, but intoducing greater instabilities than previously encountered.
I feel sorry for the polar bears.

I'm uncertain as to what is causing global warming, and if it is really such a big deal. Anyway I suppose I better go and obtain a copy

It's impossible for scientists to be wrong! They are all impartial!

Oh wait, they don't all agree...

So we read someone has provided evidence to counter the films claims; and that is supposed to convince us? Without having access to that evidence to make up our own minds? Poor argument. No better really than Mr. Gore's claims. They are both as bad as eachother.

All of the quoted sources are coming from right wing parties or organisations tied with right wing parties or corporations interested in the maintenance of the status quo. They are far from having a neutral point of view, just like Gore. On top of that, a final decision is still to be made.

Digging some info about the sources is interesting, though. They seem just as dodgy as Gore's truth.

Anyway inaccuracies in a movie shouldn't be interpreted as a reason to ignore possible dangers. If there really was such a potential risk for the planet I'd do my best to investigate it and try to avoid it, not to dismiss it as a result of partisanship.

Edit: and mind you, the planet doesn't give a damn about global warming or whatever the hell you could call it. It will survive our possible stupidity. Probably mankind or many other species could die, but who cares as long as I get paid by my boss. I probably won't have children, so why should I have to worry, then?

With the fossil energies lobby's interest at stake truth have taken a very long vacation. We are throwing a lot of gas we wouldn't want to breath into the atmosphere, depleting the seas of all life, ****ing forests, putting nuclear waste whoever knows where, exterminating entire species by making them kind of homeless but everything's fine. It's a crazy scientists conspiracy to get money for their research. Don't worry your uber-consumption style of life is actually balancing the planet.

Hell, you know nothing, scientists remain the least paid per brain cell of anyone on the planet - they love science, hate commercialism!
Listen to all the half baked activists. Leave your car at home. Stop using electricity and gas. everyone is so free to criticise but no-one has a plausible alternative. And that includes the (actually very poorly paid) scientists.

I honestly don't care about Global Warming - rather, totally aside from my personal opinions about it I don't care for the massive hype around it, or for the the biased arguments for and against it by various people, many of whom either have a vested material interest in denying climate change or in ramping up the fear factor about it. Really, I don't. Here's why:

If we humans are indeed responsible for the various extremes of climate that seem to be on the rise at the moment, it will have presumably taken decades of our wastefulness to produce such extremes and the effects cannot be mitigated in a human lifetime. We cannot do anything immediate (in human terms) about it - if anything it will take a concerted, decades-long effort by the entire species to reduce our wasteful, planet-disrespecting habits. Most of us would be dead by the time anything positive that could be ascribed to our actions even happened (which would, of course, not even be close to a good reason to do nothing).

If we're not responsible for climate changes and it's more a natural function of century or millenia-long weather cycles that we have yet to fully understand but our actions are provably exaggerating climate extremes, see my first answer! It would have taken the better part of two centuries to get to this point we are and it will not be solved in a short human timespan. It still doesn't mean that going along in a normal wasteful pattern is acceptable.

If climate change is completely natural and we're not affecting the climate at all (which seems quite unlikely considering the crap we spew into the air by the billions of tonnes) we should still start acting like this is the only planet in the universe that can support us, because it bloody well is and a change in how humans produce, consume and dispose of waste is many, many decades overdue.

So screw the hype and don't listen to the talking heads from either side (yes, even scientists can take sides). Change your ways if only to save yourself some cash. Just turn off your freakin lights when you're not in a room! Don't paint a stupid sign, bang a drum and "March Against Climate Change" and get on telly chanting slogans (ridiculous, marching against a global climatic phenomenon, as if anyone actually has the power to "stop" it like it's some half-baked government policy), just walk to work or take a train. Lead by example and encourage others to be a bit more careful. Suck your pride in and leave your car at home if you don't really need it, even if it's just one or two days a week. Sheesh, just use less everything because you know you can afford to. Many millions of people get along with a tenth of the resources we well-off Western Hemisphere/Euro-descended people deal with.

Screw Al Gore's movie and whatever holes people want to pick in it. Do something because you know it's right, not because someone told you to (that includes me - if you think I'm wrong about any of this, tell me to stick it while you inhale some aerosol cheese and drive your Hummer to pick up your 120" energy-sucking plasma tv).

well said sir. Still a bit worried about your plans for the squid though.

Thanks! It may end up being a robot squid, btw ... we'll see how the prototypes go.

..we'll see.

Back on topic, I thought I'd pull this link up, which I found months ago. Going by the graph and the info on that page, the general trend is that CO2 is seen to be decreasing over millions of years.

Quote :

long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

Going by all that, Earth can obviously deal with much much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Should we be worried? I guess the safest bet is to be alert rather than alarmed. (I'm guessing) A steep rise should surely have a more pronounced and detrimental effect on species than a slower, larger trend happening over millions of years.

PS, I'm with Hank on this.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

Going by all that, Earth can obviously deal with much much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

wrong conclusion
star physics tell us that a stars radiative power increases over time and with the size of the sun it results that it had ~70% of its present radiative power 4 billion years ago (ie when evolution started)
those 500 million years are 1/8th of the time in which the suns power increased by ~40%
as the suns power constantly grew the co2 level constantly decreased (as you can tell from that graph you linked to) to keep the average surface temps roughly constant

I was told (and it certainly seemed to make good sense to me) that the atmospheric CO2 and SO2 levels were far higher in the industrial revolution period (1780-1840 and on) when smog and coal power really caused far more problems than now (we are actually very clean now, no-one seems to remember).
During this period there was no trend in temperature rise, so it shows that there is no direct and linear link between global temperature and CO2 level. New scientist also stated that only 2% of the earths atmospheric CO2 comes from human sources so I am morelikely to believe this climate change has less to do with our pollution and more to do with a combination of natural climate cycles.

Quote from al heeley :

I was told (and it certainly seemed to make good sense to me) that the atmospheric CO2 and SO2 levels were far higher in the industrial revolution period (1780-1840 and on) when smog and coal power really caused far more problems than now (we are actually very clean now, no-one seems to remember).
During this period there was no trend in temperature rise, so it shows that there is no direct and linear link between global temperature and CO2 level. New scientist also stated that only 2% of the earths atmospheric CO2 comes from human sources so I am morelikely to believe this climate change has less to do with our pollution and more to do with a combination of natural climate cycles.

Don't forget that during the industrial revolution where lots of dirty energy was used tons and tons of coal dust was thrown into the atmosphere, now we know that if you chuck enough dust into the atmosphere it causes global dimming and doesn't warm the planet up as much (If they are right).

The 2% of CO2 from human population seems to be very low. I do read New scientist but i just cant help to find that figure way too low. Just look at the number of barrel of oil we go through daily, all that is burned or processed in some other way which usually produces CO2.. then add coal and gas burning on top of that. Volcanoes are said to be huge CO2 producers as well as dieing algae oh and farting cows + 6 billion humans

The GW band wagon is in town though and I hate the way are using it. Mind you, increasing efficiency and cleaning up our lives can only be a good thing as long as the government doesn't use it as an excuse to tax people more.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

..we'll see.

Back on topic, I thought I'd pull this link up, which I found months ago. Going by the graph and the info on that page, the general trend is that CO2 is seen to be decreasing over millions of years.

Overlay your graph with the trend of the produced biomass in these specific years and the graph about the O2 Level in the atmospehere and you'll get a clue why the CO2 level decreased.
A lot of that CO2 which was saved with bio-mass fixation is now let free with the burning of fossil fuels.

The line stops in pre-inudstrial age. If we would draw the line at present date then it would go up again, so tell me thats natural?

The earth can deal with much more CO2 in the atmosphere. But you cause an innatural fast degree of change. That means 6 Billion humans will not be able to deal with that and a lot of species.

Most of us can be happy, because we had the "luck of birth" and are living in some nice/wealthy, moderate climate, industrial countries and are the least affected people.

Quote from al heeley :

So we read someone has provided evidence to counter the films claims; and that is supposed to convince us? Without having access to that evidence to make up our own minds? Poor argument. No better really than Mr. Gore's claims. They are both as bad as eachother.

The whole case was around some guy not wanting the film to be shown in schools. The rulings of the judge is that it can only be shown in schools if both sides of the argument are shown, as one sided teaching is illegal here.

Quote from al heeley :

they love science, hate commercialism!

They are starting to get slightly more commercial now though. They started a campaign at the start of the year which is basically "Celebrities talk total bollocks, and we're going to prove them wrong because they are dicks", comically it still hasn't stopped celebs talking total bollocks. Now when they do talk bollocks you'll see a little article in Science Weekly making a mockery of everything they said.

I like the answer many people say : I don`t care as long as it`s something that won`t affect ME"

I *am* with Hankstar on the ecology aspects of cleaner/more efficient living. What I'm against is repression through lies. I am opposed to being taxed in excess based on false or faulty facts and I am opposed to political indoctrination (and the wilful spread of global warming lies by governments, as in this specific legal case, IS political indoctrination).

I don't need convincing that we live dirtily and that we need clean and efficient power resources.. but if we want these ideologies to spread, the ideologies need to be beyond reproach. They need to be clean, themselves, and not the stuff of Hollywood-style horror-movies. The demonstrated lies in this film are not limited to this film at all.. many of the film's exposed lies are still purported as facts by the popular green movement. Credibility is paramount, and increasingly lacking.. and this is doing nothing to help the genuine green cause we all should believe in.

Quote from SamH :

I *am* with Hankstar on the ecology aspects of cleaner/more efficient living. What I'm against is repression through lies.

Hear hear.

On the one hand we have 'the resistance' (essentially a bunch of faith-addled millenarians who, consciously or not, are camouflaging a parsimonious, small-minded nationalism with appeals for economic austerity, moral living etc), and on the other 'the establishment', who have always taken any opportunity to chastise the working class for its immorality and wastefulness, while protecting its own extravagant interests.

Its the bane of the era in which we live: the dominant conflicts are always between two or more brands of oppressive conservatism. The rest of us are left with the sole option of standing back, watching them eat other, and picking through the detritus to remake our world once 'they' are gone.

Quote from al heeley :

So we read someone has provided evidence to counter the films claims; and that is supposed to convince us? Without having access to that evidence to make up our own minds? Poor argument. No better really than Mr. Gore's claims. They are both as bad as eachother.

Actually, I think what's more significant here is that, of the claims that have been made in respect of humans on catastrophic climate change, several key/pivotal "given facts" - broadly accepted truths have no evidence to support them. Not that alternative studies have resulted in contrary evidence, but that the original claim is wholly unsupported by any evidence.

This is the equivalent of a rumour based entirely on fictional circumstances being, not disproven, dispelled. There never was any evidence to support the claim in the first instance. In other words, scientists making things up. Scientists are being caught with no more to prove their story than bible bashers who want Creationism in the curriculum. Talk about an own goal.. way to go, Science.

Quote from SamH :

I don't need convincing that we live dirtily and that we need clean and efficient power resources.. but if we want these ideologies to spread, the ideologies need to be beyond reproach.

Though I personally agree with you, others might argue that the majority does need convincing. And it seems like Gores propaganda has raised public awareness about environmental issues to heights that all the left-wing / alternative / green activists in the world could never achieve. OK, so Al told some white lies (not surprising, as he's been VP of the country that brought us spin-doctoring). But do the ends justify the means?

Quote from nihil :

Its the bane of the era in which we live: the dominant conflicts are always between two or more brands of oppressive conservatism. The rest of us are left with the sole option of standing back, watching them eat other, and picking through the detritus to remake our world once 'they' are gone.

As the saying goes: when two elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers most.

Quote from wsinda :

And it seems like Gores propaganda has raised public awareness about environmental issues to heights that all the left-wing / alternative / green activists in the world could never achieve.

It's raised awareness, but at what cost? Now the lies are being exposed, and the cause is going to suffer greater harm. People don't WANT to believe that they need to change their ways.. and the lies have contaminated the entire cause. Now, anyone can say "yeah, right.. who says?" and it is a legitimate retort.

Quote from wsinda :

OK, so Al told some white lies

Inexcusible lies. If you want me to believe you, don't tell me a lie.

Not saying it's related, but:

http://www.ajc.com/services/co ... &cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

Sucks.