Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[Fandango 1,440]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

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

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

But all those people really are idiots!

But how about all the people on the right that have been smeared? I could easily make a list just as long. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed for that?

[Jenn! 918]

Well, I think it's silly that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, though other recipients have been equally silly. However, none of that has anything to do with whether or not global warming is "true".

[GaryC 7]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millons raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, LIveEarth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

So raising awareness is now the standard for getting a Nobel Prize for Peace? That bar got lowered pretty low there!

But the point is this, work on global warming is out of the realm of a peace prize. It is not what the prize was intended for. AlGore may have single handedly saved us from frying (not!) but that isn't what the original standard for awarding the prize is for!! And I also strongly disagree that he has done jack sh!t except spread fearmongering. All he has really done is to cherry pick work from others and regurgitate it. He hasn't done anything original.

[Ladylethal 12]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

[GaryC 7]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

[Jenn! 918]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

I have to agree that it's not a basis for the NPP. But that has nothing to do with whether GW is true, or whether the facts that AG presents are shady or hypocritical. I just fail to understand the context in which environmentalism is working towards "fraternity between nations.", even if AG were the greenest guy on the planet and everything he says about GW were irrefutably true.

[Ladylethal 12]

Gary, I disagree, I think in these days raising awareness is a valid point. By doing so people might open their eyes to such as things as why hasn't US signed that treaty about emission of nocive gases, when US is one of the major contribuent to that problem, why won't Brazil's government be more strict in the issue of farmers burning down the Amazon (and here I am still talking about global warming since the Amazon is daily burning and emitting nocive gases into the athmosphere), etc.

[Caladan 19]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

[GaryC 7]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

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

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

But all those people really are idiots!

But how about all the people on the right that have been smeared? I could easily make a list just as long. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed for that?

Even fools are capable of saying something wise. I think we can separate poking fun of public figures from totally dismissing anything that comes out of their mouths. There is a difference, Gary. It just gets old when as soon as someone like Al Gore is in the news, it's a sh!t fest of the same ol' rhetoric - he's a bloody hypocrite, he said he invented the internet...yada, yada, yada. If Ted Kennedy speaks out on child healthcare, it gets reduced down to jokes about his alleged murder/drowning of a woman. I get that you don't like their politics, but honestly, try to actually argue about the merits of what they've said rather than attack the integrity of character. Obviously people are flawed...some of them to the core...but like it has been said, even a fool is capable of saying something wise. Try to remember that.

[GaryC 7]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

Why?

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that a person can discover something by accident, or that has application beyond their initial sphere of expertise. What is wrong with that?

In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use electronic mail to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was "John Nash" and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.

Nash's recent work involves ventures in advanced game theory including partial agency which show that, as in his early career, he prefers to select his own path and problems. Between 1945 and 1996, he published twenty-three scientific studies.