Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[GaryC 7]

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

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.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

[Jasman0717 9]

Well he has the peace prize even if his stuff was incorrect

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Well he has the peace prize even if his stuff was incorrect

maybe he is well qualified for government

[Jasman0717 9]

Well he has the peace prize even if his stuff was incorrect

maybe he is well qualified for government

Fits in perfectly

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Lying hypocrite.

[Fandango 1,440]

How in the world does something like this win so many awards and now the NOBEL PRIZE and it's full of bullsh!t? I mean are people THIS stupid?

Hang on a sec....nevermind, lol.

[DeadPoolX 9]

How in the world does something like this win so many awards and now the NOBEL PRIZE and it's full of bullsh!t? I mean are people THIS stupid?

Hang on a sec....nevermind, lol.

Lisa, we're talking about the same individuals who often mistake the CD/DVD tray for a "coffee cup holder." In other words, they probably won't qualify for MENSA anytime soon. So I think it's safe to say that, yes... they probably are that stupid.

It's a very scary thought, isn't it?

[Scott & Lai 12]

How in the world does something like this win so many awards and now the NOBEL PRIZE and it's full of bullsh!t? I mean are people THIS stupid?

Hang on a sec....nevermind, lol.

Saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "Losing faith in humanity, one person at a time."

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

How in the world does something like this win so many awards and now the NOBEL PRIZE and it's full of bullsh!t? I mean are people THIS stupid?

Hang on a sec....nevermind, lol.

Saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "Losing faith in humanity, one person at a time."

love it

[Empress of Groovy 373]

It seems ironic that in the same way that some people gobbled up An Inconvenient Truth as irrefutable, others dismiss nearly everything in it as propagandist nonsense and accuse Al Gore of constructing a pack of lies for personal and political gain. If AIT were largely inaccurate, the film never would have been made. Scientists in large numbers--not just the vocal few, typically courted by the right, who disagree with general scientific consensus--would have been outraged and debunked its ideas immediately. That the film has received so many accolades from the majority of the scientific community should be considered. That isn't to say that the film does not have an agenda or that all the information presented therein is proven fact. A lot of the information in the film is speculative or suggestive. It is absolutely emotive in tone and has a clear political (in the dictionary definition sense) aim. For that reason, I can see why the British judge ruled that the film cannot be shown in schools without "guidance notes."

It may be useful to read a bit about the New Party in the UK (whose member Stewart Dimmock sought the court order to ban the distribution of the film in British schools), which is considered a right-wing fringe group.

I hope this post doesn't sound like finger wagging, but I can't help but be annoyed when people who are getting their information from limited sources pontificate like PhD scientists. The real "idiots" are those who make sweeping judgments and accusations based on a lot of slanted viewpoints and little actual knowledge.

[GaryC 7]

It seems ironic that in the same way that some people gobbled up An Inconvenient Truth as irrefutable, others dismiss nearly everything in it as propagandist nonsense and accuse Al Gore of constructing a pack of lies for personal and political gain. If AIT were largely inaccurate, the film never would have been made. Scientists in large numbers--not just the vocal few, typically courted by the right, who disagree with general scientific consensus--would have been outraged and debunked its ideas immediately. That the film has received so many accolades from the majority of the scientific community should be considered. That isn't to say that the film does not have an agenda or that all the information presented therein is proven fact. A lot of the information in the film is speculative or suggestive. It is absolutely emotive in tone and has a clear political (in the dictionary definition sense) aim. For that reason, I can see why the British judge ruled that the film cannot be shown in schools without "guidance notes."

It may be useful to read a bit about the New Party in the UK (whose member Stewart Dimmock sought the court order to ban the distribution of the film in British schools), which is considered a right-wing fringe group.

I hope this post doesn't sound like finger wagging, but I can't help but be annoyed when people who are getting their information from limited sources pontificate like PhD scientists. The real "idiots" are those who make sweeping judgments and accusations based on a lot of slanted viewpoints and little actual knowledge.

A lot of what was in the movie has been discredited since the movie came out. Not just by "right wingers" but by reputable scientists. The point is that AlGore put this all out as settled fact when in reality it was just scientific opinions that were not shared by everyone. He was and is guilty of cherry picking some facts and using that to paint a picture that is wholly inaccurate. And for that he got the Nobel Prize. IMO the prize means nothing anymore.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

A lot of what was in the movie has been discredited since the movie came out. Not just by "right wingers" but by reputable scientists. The point is that AlGore put this all out as settled fact when in reality it was just scientific opinions that were not shared by everyone. He was and is guilty of cherry picking some facts and using that to paint a picture that is wholly inaccurate. And for that he got the Nobel Prize. IMO the prize means nothing anymore.

I'm not disagreeing that the film contains what very well may be exaggerations and/or inaccuracies, but you'd be hard pressed to find a position documentary that doesn't cherry-pick to support its conclusions. What Al Gore has done is take the majority scientific consensus--that human activities are a major contributor to climate change--and provide many frightening illustrations, some factual, some likely, some speculative. It is the speculative arguments that have been questioned by reputable scientists, and these are the examples that are being pounced on by Al Gore's detractors. These same detractors are conveniently ignoring (you might even say they're guilty of cherry-picking) much of the factual content in the film.

[GaryC 7]

A lot of what was in the movie has been discredited since the movie came out. Not just by "right wingers" but by reputable scientists. The point is that AlGore put this all out as settled fact when in reality it was just scientific opinions that were not shared by everyone. He was and is guilty of cherry picking some facts and using that to paint a picture that is wholly inaccurate. And for that he got the Nobel Prize. IMO the prize means nothing anymore.

I'm not disagreeing that the film contains what very well may be exaggerations and/or inaccuracies, but you'd be hard pressed to find a position documentary that doesn't cherry-pick to support its conclusions. What Al Gore has done is take the majority scientific consensus--that human activities are a major contributor to climate change--and provide many frightening illustrations, some factual, some likely, some speculative. It is the speculative arguments that have been questioned by reputable scientists, and these are the examples that are being pounced on by Al Gore's detractors. These same detractors are conveniently ignoring (you might even say they're guilty of cherry-picking) much of the factual content in the film.

The stuff that he put in there to get attention is what is being disputed. Such as the drastic rise in ocean levels. The idea that the polar ice caps are melting. The idea that the gulf stream will stop and plunge GB into an ice age. The list goes on and on. It was presented as something that will happen if we don't change our ways and it turns out most of it is very unlikely to happen regardless of our activities.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From Real Climate...

by Eric Steig

Al Gore’s movie

Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

...about Real Climate:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

[GaryC 7]

From Real Climate...

by Eric Steig

Al Gore’s movie

Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

...about Real Climate:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria. A lot of what was in that movie was meant to scare people without regard as to whether it was accurate or not. A lot of what was presented as fact has since be discredited. The movie was nothing more than just a GW scare tactic. It certainly didn't rise to the level of being worthy of a Oscar or a Nobel Prize. Thats the part that is partisan.