Why is it that so many that hailed al gore's movie are now distancing themselves?

Question

Many of the AGW proponents that worshiped uncle al when the movie came out are now poo pooing it. Do they finally realize they were duped. How long will it take before they realize they are being duped by all the other preachers of the environmentalism/global warming religion?

Answer 1

"Crichton graduated summa *** laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He has taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT."

Wow, and not one course on the subject that you claim he is an expect on.

I think you need to answer how an opinion piece that he wrote on a subject which you now admit he knows nothing was a response to a well-researched and accurate science documentary produced three years later.

Why did you deliberately make a false claim that you now admit being unable to back up? Why did you attempt to hide that fact by a link which doesn't in any way support your false claims? Why do you keep repeating similar lies under multiple accounts?

Answer 2

Algore is a liability.  He went too high profile with totally exaggerated and wild claims that could never come true even if co2 tripled.

Now the believers who once supported him are throwing him under the bus.

After all, it's the cause above principal.

Answer 3

"The nation's top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."

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

Hmm let me think, should I believe the review of a climate science documentary by climate scientists or the opinions of a science fiction writer?  Gee, tough call.

Gore's film got a few details wrong, but got the basic science right.  It's a good basic introduction which the public can understand.  For more detail you need to read the scientific literature.

That's about all there is to it.  When somebody starts talking trash about Gore, it's a red flag that he hasn't done any research on the subject.

Answer 4

I think if you talk about Al Gore in public you're not playing with a full deck.  There is no surer way to prove you know nothing about climate than to mention his name.  I didn't realize he was a relation of yours though.  He's sort of the thinking man's Crichton.

Answer 5

What does the link to a 2003 speech, by an author, have to do with your question?

Are you claiming that the 2003 speech was to distance the author from a movie that was released in 2006?  (Do you believe that Michael Crighton has a time machine?)

Are you claiming that we should recognize an author of fiction as a climatologist?

Here are some comments by a climatologist on Michael Crighton's accuracy in some his representations regarding global warming:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-...

Novels

THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, Knopf, 1969

THE TERMINAL MAN, Knopf, 1972

THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, Knopf, 1975

EATERS OF THE DEAD, Knopf, 1976

CONGO, Knopf, 1980

SPHERE, Knopf, 1987

JURASSIC PARK, Knopf, 1990

RISING SUN, Knopf, 1992

DISCLOSURE, Knopf, 1994

THE LOST WORLD, Knopf, 1995

AIRFRAME, Knopf, 1996

TIMELINE, Knopf, 1999

PREY, Harper Collins, 2002

STATE OF FEAR, Harper Collins, 2004

NEXT, Harper Collins, 2006

http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmi...

Don't get me wrong, I like Michael's books and movies.  I just wouldn't allow him perform brain surgery on me, nor would I consult him for an expert opinion on climate.

The "official" Michael Crichton site opens his biography with this sentence:

"Michael Crichton is a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of ER."

http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmi...

Oh, well, if he's the creator of ER... maybe we should listen to what he has to say on climatology?

Answer 6

What does Crichton have to do with "so many that hailed al gores ..."?  Crichton never hailed Al Gore's movie.

And FYI, Crichton is just a fiction writer.  He's got no more qualifications for commenting on climate science than my Dentist or former English Literature professor.  An MD degree means he probably never took a single science course even remotely related to climatology or atmospheric physics.

Edit:

LMAO :-)  I'm a little too thick skinned (as well as aware of my own level of intelligence, including the limitations) to be bothered by ad hominem attacks.  If there's something inaccurate with my answer, please point it out ;-)

Maybe the following will help you understand your logical fallacy.

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

   1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

   2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.

   3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Answer 7

Who's distancing themself? I think Gore's film is a perfectly respectable overview of current scientific opinion on the subject. I also think there are one or two errors in the film, and that's it's far too simplisitic to provide a meaningful look at climate change for anyone who's seriously interested in the science behind the subject.

And yes, shocking as it may sound, Crichton is not an authority on climate science. He has never published any work in the field (or any other field, so far as I know), and has never done a bit of original research on climate change. Thus his opinion on the issue means precisely zip. (Yes, just like Al Gore's.)

Answer 8

I guess being an movie producer makes him an expert on science. He must be right because he says that smoking is not harmfull, unless you actually hold the cigarette and that the Sahara is shrinking dispite the fact that each year it gets larger. Is says that the world's scientists are all wrong and that Antarctica is getting larger.

But he must be right because he is a movie producer and claims that he could provide evidence to back up his views, but can't be bothered.

Don't you know the difference between evidence and uninformed opinion? Are Republicans that uneducated?