DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Hey Al Gore, We Want a Refund!

Hey Al Gore, We Want a Refund!
Friday, October 19, 2007
By Steven Milloy

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" must be warned of the film's factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore's "truth" if these errors and their progeny were excised?

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore's presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy — whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film "do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts," this inconvenient untruth also needs to go.

After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn't supported by the scientific evidence.

More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm.

On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute "explanation" of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility.

Two minutes of ominous footage — casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a creepy light and expressing Gore's frustration with getting his alarmist message out — precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut.

In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn't be linked with global warming.

Based on the judge's ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What's left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don't help his or his film's credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been "cured," implying that we can cure "global warming." While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no "cure" for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that "more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand," he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General's 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film's errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

link

Gore just bought a home on the ocean shore in San Fransisco.

Yeah ... he really believes his own rhetoric about the glaciers melting and flooding the coasts ....

The guy is a joke.

His family still owns their spread up in Carthage, Tn....but he knows the people of Tennessee rejected him long ago.

People make jokes about Tennesseans, but they are pretty much down home folks who know a pile of BS when they see it and aren't afraid to tell you.....either my mouth or the end of a shotgun.

Al Gore cares about the planet like a fly cares for a pile of dung. For Gore it's "can I make money", and for a fly it's "can I eat it"?

Gore thinks he's onto a money maker. That's as far as his interests go. Look at his life style, that should be proof enough.

The word on the street is the Democrats wanted Gore to run if he won the Nobel, lets see how that turns out.

Honestly, I could see him beating Clinton and Obama.

If nothing else it at least gets people talking about the environment and maybe..just maybe someone will start treating the world a little better because of this film. Is the messenger offensive to some ? Looks like it . Is the story factual ? Looks like maybe a little fact checking could have been done. Does this mean that we don't have to do anything other than what we have been doing because competeing groups of egghead scientists get their panties in a bunch and debate whether or not humans play a role in global warming ? All you have to do is look around to see the impact we make on this planet and it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that we could make our planet a better place to live if we just gave a little effort . Just my take on it.