Is former vice president gore film on global warming truly accurate?

Question

Is former vice president gore film on global warming truly accurate?

Answer 1

Its not inaccurate however it does not give the other side of the issue. Being a manager and rating and evulating a production environment I can tell you this. I know how to make accurate data make me look good or make some one else look bad.  It is accurate, however it doesn't give the full picture and that is the problem with the movie.   Those who speak about the scientific community saying it is accurate are correct the data was manipulated to reach the conclusion is accurate.  However there  are others that could have taken that data and with some manipulation drew another conclusion and it would have been accurate also.  The problem was that their was an agenda here to reach a conclusion meant to draw emotional reaction.  It succeeded.

Answer 2

No, there are too many brainwashing tactics in his movie.

He plays with your emotions:

He shows that polar bear animation thing.

He has depressing music on.

He starts out with a flashback of a car hitting his son.

He talks about his own emotions.

I will try to find a youtube link to this.

Here is the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&f...

While showing a graph that goes back a half a million years, he said CO2 was driving the temperature while actually the opposite  was happening.

He said Katrina is a result of global warming.

Answer 3

He should stick with hunting for manbearpig, I'm cerial!!!

Answer 4

No, he was very selective about the data he used.

The temperature vs CO2 graph he used, he said showed CO2 going up then the temperature. It was infact the other way around, temperature drives CO2 levels. The temperature of the sea effects how much dissolved gasses it can hold, basic chemistry folks.

Answer 5

Yep.

Answer 6

I think no would be a good answer to this.

If you believe 1981, then were all dead, but he sounds more like 1984 to me.

On a planet where time is measured in BILLIONS of years, what is the norm ?  Frozen ?  Boiling ?  Who knows, not me and not them.

What I see here in Michigan is glaciers carved out the great lakes, then they melted and filled them with water.  So when did GW start ?

Answer 7

Not one bit.

Answer 8

Every single part of it is true. People who disagree are ignorant people who are blindfolded and can't see reality. Polar bears and penguins are slowly dieing and other species to are dieing. We have to do something about it.

Answer 9

It depends on your definition of "truly accurate".  There are errors in virtually ever documentary or paper.

The movie gets the basics right.  CO2 is going up.  Human activity (e.g. deforestation, fossil fuel use, etc.) is causing that.  Higher CO2 levels will result in warmer temperatures.  And warmer temperatures will likely increase various climate related problems around the world (e.g. droughts).

Some of his imagery is clearly an effort to reach people emotionally (every documentary does that).

If you want a less politically charged (only because Gore is hated by political opponents) introduction to the subject of AGW, I'd recommend the following sites:

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...



Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...



NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...



The Discovery of Global Warming (great history site)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

The Scientific Basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...



Or for some good videos:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Answer 10

You don't have to listen to Al gore very long to figure out he is full of c**p.  He is making a ton of money on the global warming scare.

Answer 11

The overall message is absolutely accurate. There are a few points which are debatable that some people pick out to try to undermine the credibility of the entire film because they have an antiGW agenda. But a judge has ruled that the film is good and fits with established mainstream scientific opinion.

Answer 12

No it is a scam to make more money.

Answer 13

i find it amusing that a well-researched documentary hailed as highly accurate by much of the scientific community is pooh-poohed by non-believers.

Yet these same people will believe George W. Bush when he says we've fought an illegal, unconstitutional immoral war for honorable purposes other than financial gain for the oil companies.        -RKO-  04/06/08

Answer 14

No, his graph shows the increase in CO2 with heat, but if you look closely, the CO2 actually lags the heat by about 800 years.  His hockey stick graph doesn't exist any longer, except when you overlap two different graphs of totally different tests.  Then you got that 20 foot sea rise thing....  As we all know, the IPCC themselves only tout about 7 to 23 inches at the end of 2100.  

I could go on and on but I will leave it up to this site, if you want to know the truth.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...

Answer 15

Yes.  A British judge reviewed the film and found a few minor errors, but ruled the film was "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007101700...

And climate scientists have confirmed the accuracy of the basic science in the film.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/200...

Answer 16

It's a propaganda film, meant to advance a point of view.

The basic facts are correct.  We're producing CO2, CO2 levels are increasing, CO2 does warm the atmosphere.

However there are the facts that are ignored.  the atmosphere naturally fluctuates and what we see today is well within normal.  There is nothing to indicate that we'll cause a runaway heating of the atmosphere, it's a conclusion reached by models developed to produce just such a conclusion.  

The most egregious claims are those of widespread environmental disasters.  Realistically the oceans may rise one to two feet in a century, most of which they would do anyways.  Storms, droughts, glacial advance and retreat are normal features of the climate.  

There is a concerted effort to silence further inquiry into the subject.  That should be the most damning evidence.  If the science will prove out global warming, then people like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen should welcome and encourage it, rather than seek to stifle it.  They know they don't have good facts and fear the loss of their reputation if what they say is repudiated.

Their prescription of a widespread transfer of wealth and power away from individuals to a small self-appointed elite is very dangerous.  This has been a common theme throughout history, a scare story to convince people to blindly follow leaders without questioning if what is said is true or if those leaders really have our best interest at heart.  

Then there is the notion that what they predict is really bad.  Warming periods are generally prosperous, whereas cooling periods are when the problems occur.  A warmer wetter earth with more CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to allow us to produce more food cheaply, which will help humans not hurt us.

Worst of all are these mass scale boondoggles, carbon sequestering, carbon trading, et al.  They are a gargantuan waste of resources and an abridgment of people's liberties.  If the oceans rise, people can freely make their own decisions to move, they don't need to be herded by some overlord government.  And they really don't need the resources they could use to move squandered in wasteful projects that accomplish nothing.

I expect this from people like Al Gore, he is a thug in a nice suit who wishes to lord over us.  What is appalling are the number of alleged scientists who follow this, some out of a lack of real scientific ability, some because the just follow the herd, and quite a few because they have a vested interest into scaring the rest of us into coughing up our hard earned money so that they can do research on a problem whose conclusion they have already reached.

We face real environmental problems.  Soil and water degradation are probably the most serious challenges facing humanity.  We're going to need real solutions mostly using sophisticated technology we don't yet possess.  Industry and advanced economies have made our lives so much better.  To shut them down in the face of what is largely a manufactured scare is downright criminal.

Did you like the animated polar bears.  That's a cartoon, which is about the respect that movie deserves, it's a cartoon.

Answer 17

No. Here is a comprehensive analysis of AlGore's misleading and factually incorrect movie:

An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? Part II: http://tinyurl.com/63cfq2

Also, it would do you well to watch this movie:

The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp

and this one:

Global Warming Hysteria Debunked - Scientists Ignored: http://tinyurl.com/366dbf

Answer 18

It has the basics right.

Global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, capable of being fixed by us.  Scientists (and a British court) agree.

Some of the minor details, like snow on Kilimanjaro, are questionable.

"temperature drives CO2 levels. The temperature of the sea effects how much dissolved gasses it can hold, basic chemistry folks."

CO2 can also cause warming (basic physics).  In the distant past, CO2 rise lagged behind temperature, because it was mostly an effect.  This time, THERE IS NO LAG.  Because CO2 is mostly a cause.

Answer 19

not at all, global warming is a complete lie, its not a fact. All the scientists are just looking for way to get more money. That movie was not true. There is no global warming.

Answer 20

No, for true accuracy you have to look at the Bush administration's arguments for the war in Iraq.