Hey Al Gore - We want a refund!

[Ironcat]

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. [Note to readers: A video debate between Al Gore and climatologists on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking here.]

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?

[Quakken]

I demand a refund for watching transformers- evil alien robots, as well as good alien robots cannot come here and fight on here planet.

The human race has recently found that it is a fictional production made to look real with computer graphics and "acting".

My lawyer and many other lawyers are in the process of bringing lawsuits against Dreamworks, Paramount and Hasbro pictures for cheating and lying to the american public and myself about said events.

[calumc]

I demand a refund for watching transformers- evil alien robots, as well as good alien robots cannot come here and fight on here planet.

The human race has recently found that it is a fictional production made to look real with computer graphics and "acting".

My lawyer and many other lawyers are in the process of bringing lawsuits against Dreamworks, Paramount and Hasbro pictures for cheating and lying to the american public and myself about said events.
Ah yes but you're forgetting that the Matrix is all around us.

[xRyokenx]

I had to watch that crap... ugh. But we have to kill Manbearpig and I'm being serial and nobody will believe me and I'm being serial. *Sad look on his face*

[Quakken]

But making anyone watch something on a controversial subject, and make them choose it is real shouldn't happen.

Unless it's the matrix. If they made us watch that in school, I would believe it on the basis that it's so full of asskickery.

[Omega]

The fact that Al Gore got ANY recognition for this is freakin' insane. He did not go out to the locations he talked about and gathered the research. He merely found and compiled it. Hell, I could do that. And with a few hundred thousand, I could make a movie that dispenses "facts" in between clips of me in a car or plane or something talking about my life. What he did was not hard, what he did was not legit, and what he did sure as **** does not warrant nearly as much recognition as it got.

[jdbnsn]

While I'd never argue with the fact that Gore doesn't have much credibility as a scientist, I would keep one thing in mind. Just because a court ruled that the film was misleading, doesn't mean that everything in it was false. A legal fact is an entirely different beast from a scientific fact. If I walk into a courtroom and motion that the moon is made of green cheese and no one successfully argues that I'm wrong then it becomes a legal fact that the moon is made of green cheese. I haven't seen more than clips from the movie and I don't know anything about who testified in the trial, but I would hesitate to jump to any conclusions about the outcome.

[XcOM]

this is always a sour subject, I think i saw it somewhere, that 1)In the last 200 yers we can produced 2% of the so called gasses that cause global warming.
2) the eartch started heating up before the indestrual revolution, before green house gasses were being produced

3) 1/3 of said gasses are produced by the likes of farm animals (Cows and the such) and other creatures such as plancton.

4)The world goes round in cycles of heating up and cooling down, i beleve we are due a cooling down period soon

4) (My personal theory) If these green house gasses are soo dence that there trapping heat in by bouncing it back down, why dosen't it bounce it away from the earth before it passes through it

as said in another thread, there is evidence for GW, and some against it. neither side can prove it 100%

Im not saying we didn't cause global warming, acctualy i am, we didn't cause it, we just speeded it up a little bit. But look at then Mount St Helens exploded, the earths temp dropped quite a bit.

Plus there is always something to moan about, once we get over the whole "Were all going to die unless we do this that and the other" drama, some sicentist or goverment body (For taxing) will come up with another disaster sitting round the corner to kill us all

[Quakken]

That is the idea- we are speeding it up. But, there are far too many factors to call any idea true. Without the ability to make an accurate model (there are too many variables) its impossible to say that if we release enough we could cause a
type of nuclear winter, because they start to reflect the sun.

But that al gore movie was just a bunch of hype and hubbub, that anyone with some video editing software and several pounds of stock footage could piece together. Every thing in it has a possible opposite also, and well founded evidence against and for it.

I still want my refund for watching transformers. Or maybe just a bluray player and it in HD, then i would be happy.

[jdbnsn]

4) (My personal theory) If these green house gasses are soo dence that there trapping heat in by bouncing it back down, why dosen't it bounce it away from the earth before it passes through it

as said in another thread, there is evidence for GW, and some against it. neither side can prove it 100%

The reason is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide is able to blanket or block (more like an insulator) for thermal energy in the form of heat. Light can pass through the CO2 with no effect. So light passes in, strikes the surface of the earth and is converted to heat, which cannot dissipate back through the C)2 blanket. It's why your car gets so hot in the summer when the windows are rolled up. The windows behave axactly like the greenhouse gases in that light enters the car, warms the dash board and such, then the heat cannot escape.

And you are right, there is lots of evidence of gloabl warming and the theories behind it are sound, but proof will only come with time if it is a fact.

[nil8]

I watched an Inconvenient Truth with a grain of salt, as I do all documentaries.
All documentaries have bias and get information wrong. Specifically ones that are dealing with systems as complex as GW. Conflicting information exists and can be presented for both sides.

Here's a crazy idea. How about instead of bickering & arguing over if Al Gore matters or not, we find new solutions and ways to deal with transportation & industry standards so we don't put ANYTHING into the atmosphere. That way we have a preventative measure in place, instead of 'oh ****, we broke it'.

[Quakken]

Nuclear energy.


We seriously need to use more of it. I'm pretty sure that there is hardly any reason to NOT be using nuclear energy. Clean. Abundant. Very little easy to deal with leftovers (several pounds of spent uranium versus several tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. It's really not that hard to put it inside that mountain in nevada.)


We should also be exploiting wind, tide, sun, and burning garbage also. (clean incinerators are actually pretty easy to make, and there is so much energy in garbage it's sad we're just burying it.)


There ya go. That and making fun, cool electric cars, and we're good. It's not that hard, George bush!

[xRyokenx]

Hey Mel Gibson! You're movie sucked, we want our $18 back! *They take said $18 and Mel Gibson chases them with a war bus*

Ahh, South Park, how you make me laugh, hahaha.

[jdbnsn]

Nuclear energy.


We seriously need to use more of it. I'm pretty sure that there is hardly any reason to NOT be using nuclear energy. Clean. Abundant. Very little easy to deal with leftovers (several pounds of spent uranium versus several tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. It's really not that hard to put it inside that mountain in nevada.)


We should also be exploiting wind, tide, sun, and burning garbage also. (clean incinerators are actually pretty easy to make, and there is so much energy in garbage it's sad we're just burying it.)


There ya go. That and making fun, cool electric cars, and we're good. It's not that hard, George bush!


Alot of those are being implemented more and more, even the garbage issue is being addressed. San Francisco is the only city doing this at the moment but they acutally are removing all organic waste from the garbage, grinding it up into slurry and transforming it into chemical energy (and probably selling it in protein shakes) :)
Nuclear energy has a very likely role in future society in my opinion, the only reason we don't use it is the people's widespread fear of safety due to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. But I believe that in the future when oil reserves are depleted and the world comes to the brink of war over the desperation, the benefits will outweight the fear and it will begin to be more welcomed by people as a whole. Plus we know much more about it now and safety can be improved. Hell, the country was building Nuc power stations all over the country and something like 75% of them closed down during the 3 mile isldand incident over the bad press.

[Durrthock]

I don't agree with him at all. But regardless I could use a little global warming up here its too dam cold.

[Ironcat]

San Francisco is the only city doing this at the moment but they acutally are removing all organic waste from the garbage, grinding it up into slurry and transforming it into chemical energy (and probably selling it in protein shakes)

Where did you get this? I'd like to do a little more research on it since
A: I think it would be oh, about 100% impossible to remove 100% of organic anything from garbage.
B: Latest results I can find from June show San Francisco's recycling rate at 68%, that's high but it's nowhere near having the capability to remove all organics from their garbage.

[jdbnsn]

No, it's probably no where near 100%. They just run the garbage on a conveyor belt into a tossing drum and pick out as much as they can and there is no claim that 100% is re-used. It's isn't related to recycling per se, more of an experimantal but in use energy conservation technique. But it shows promise. I'll try to find the info and post it.

[luciusad2004]

While i myself take ANY documentary made by someone trying to convey a political message with reservation, I must say i think it would be nice if we could move on to cleaner fuel sources. Even if what we believe about GW turns out to be completely false (not saying that is the case), cleaner, more economic fuel sources never hurt anyone. (other than big business)

I see the automotive front being slow to move away from gasoline. I just have a hard time believe that you are going to get some of these hold outs to ditch their gasoline powered automotive in favor of a clean, economical electric, or even a hybrid vehicle. Sure its nice to have a car that can go 200 down the freeway... but are you ever gonna really get the chance. Do you REALLY need that power. No. Odds are, most people will never have a real legal reason to go over 100MPH.

But the point is, people aren't going to give up their hotrods, lowriders, tuners, or whatever, for some lousy hybrid, or electric. Honestly I can see were they are coming from, I really do, I would love to have a high performance car, but i think there comes a time when we have to move on. It also wouldn't hurt if these green cars actually looked half decent...


And nuclear power... i want moar nuclear

[Quakken]

There really isn't any reason to not go nuclear. Three mile island was just a fluke and hardly any (if any) people died. Compared with millions global warming could (if it is true) kill and displace, a very low chance of meltdown sounds perfect for gobs of energy.

And the government killed cold fusion when it became run by oil conglomerates.

[jdbnsn]

There really isn't any reason to not go nuclear. Three mile island was just a fluke and hardly any (if any) people died. Compared with millions global warming could (if it is true) kill and displace, a very low chance of meltdown sounds perfect for gobs of energy.


It wasn't just a fluke, it was a near disaster and a demonstration of how unstable nuclear reactors can become with the slightest oversight. When they vented the reactor the citizens were exposed to the radioactive fallout from the generators and the amount of radiation they recieved was only about 1/20th of that from getting an x-ray. But the driving force behind the draw away from nuclear power was that it scared the living **** out of the country. And then Chernobyl happened confriming everyones fears. If that stigma ever goes away, nuc power has a chance.

[XcOM]

otherwise known as the china syndrome, but nowadays, safety is so good the chance of something going wrong is stupidly low.

That and the amount of backups on a nuke system nowadays is huge, the waste can be dealt with, France are building a bunker of sorts to store this waste, The energy from a nuke is huge, and more efficient than fuel's.

The problem being is the fear of if something did go wrong, its in everyones minds if a nuke reactor did go into meltdown, everyone within 500 miles would die, thats a myth, for starters there normally built away from population, second there nearly always built on the coast or by fast pased rivers to they can drown the reactor in an event that needed to be done so.

Make up your own minds, i am for Nuclear power

[calumc]

Dont you think this is what people were saying when they discovered oil?
Just remember that uranium, plutonium, etc. is still a finite resource and by no means a long term solution.
wind, wave and solar are our future whether we like it or not (well until the sun dies out anyway!)

[XcOM]

yea, but nuke will last for soo long that by time that this happens, we would have refined the other services to a state that thay can be used for 100% of the power demands at that time. at present they don't produce enough energy to be used to that extent.

[NightrainSrt4]

I don't know if I would go as far as to say that they will last so long. Not sure about plutonium and such, but Uranium is estimated to have a supply to last us about 85 years if were lucky.

Sure tech has come a long way in the last 85 years. Computers and such. But we are still relying on the same fuel source just as much as we were 85 years or so, and haven't found a usable replacement.

The thing that gets me going really, is that when someone comes up with a great idea that could work for an alternative fuel source, a big company comes along and buys them out. Or randomly you won't hear anything about it ever again. Sometimes its like information just disappears on the subject to.

Just frustrating how people are so damn greedy...shoot, Exxon-Mobile had there highest profit margin at the beginning of the year...that should say something.

[XcOM]

....
The thing that gets me going really, is that when someone comes up with a great idea that could work for an alternative fuel source, a big company comes along and buys them out....

thats the biggist problem nowadays, i am still sure that the nuke line will provide us with enough energy to lower the amount of fossil fuels we will burn, this increasing there life, and also we hopfuly will have enough tech then or have a new energy supply (H3 by anychance)

[Quakken]

Nuclear power is the way to go, sure we will run out of plutonium/uranium in a while, but while we have it we should TOTALLY use it.


Current nuclear is stupidly safe

Yes. Yes it is.

We should maybe switch from oil to more earth healthy alternatives, but i don't see a huge problem in burning up the remaining or extracting the hydrogen in them for use in our cars as a hydrogen battery.

And that is exactly what hydrogen is. A battery. It takes the same amount or more energy put it into it as it does that you can get out of it. It's a good battery though, and if you do think of it as a battery, it "charges" up much much faster (5 minutes to fill a tank rather than 5 hours to charge a battery), but its harder to transport and more dangerous to have in your car. The good thing is that it burns into water instead of CO2. If we can make it so that there isn't much more energy loss for making hydrogen then there is from just taking electricity directly into a battery from the power plant, it could be a very viable energy source.

[XcOM]

Nuclear power is the way to go, sure we will run out of plutonium/uranium in a while, but while we have it we should TOTALLY use it.


Amen, people always say "Don't, we can't use it, there will only be a supply for 80 odd years"

and to which my reply is normally
"Yea and, while its there, use it we will find something else later in life when nuke starts to run out."

[Omega]

Biodiesel.

That is all.

[Quakken]

Biodiesel? GET THAT CORN OUT OF MY FACE!


But yeah, i suppose we could go the brazil route of growing sugarcane and burning that in their cars. They use no gas from other countries, they're full biofuel specced.

The problem with biodiesel is the amount of corn alone that we would have to grow, although i DO think that it should be illegal to throw used frying oil away, it should all be converted in your local biodiesel reactor. It's energy down the drain (much like burying easily burnable trash). I think this tread has reached a consensus- lets use all the nuclear we want now, then think spend more time and money on fusion.

EDIT- Read below post. Not educating myself on brazil was such a bad idea...

[Ironcat]

But yeah, I suppose we could go the brazil route of growing sugarcane and burning that in their cars. They use no gas from other countries, they're full biofuel specced.

Do you guys just make stuff up or do you hear something once and play the telephone game in your head before you spout it out again?

Seriously, people need to do their research before they go making concrete statements like this... Why? Because the next person is going to see it, believe it (like you did), and tell it to someone else (like you did).

Brazil is nowhere near fully biofueled... Roughly 20% of Brazil is solidly ethanol fueled. The rest use the most common fuel in Brazil, E25, (that's 75% gas and 25% ethanol).

Brazil imports roughly 675,000 barrels of oil per day. Granted that's nowhere near us, but it's also nowhere near "no gas from other countries".

Is Brazil doing great and showing the world one of a dozen possible solutions? Yes, absolutely, but don't call them perfect when they aren't.

[XcOM]

bio fuel's Narr, read this:



Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists fou.....


Full page here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece)

[calumc]

Yes but the thing about that is that they are not as finite a resource as fossil fuels and you have to remember that they would be emitting a centain amount of greenhouse gases anyway (i.e. methane when they die and rot/get eaten)

[XcOM]

fuel from rapesead produced GHG thats 300 more potent, as such even if it breaks down 300 times faster the enviroment will still be worse off, i know oil can't last forever, but if we are all for reducing GHG, we shouldn't be released GHG's are are 300 times worse? should we?