22 thoughts on “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth’s movie shredded by Andrew Bolt, and others”

1. I’ll suggest two more reviews, one of them mine:
   Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
   and the exhaustive
   A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth by Marlo Lewis, Jr., of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

2. It is naturally wise to investigate inaccuracies when confronted with what appears to be terrifying “facts” in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
   But on balance, I applaud this movie, because it does point to an inescapable truth: that global warming is occurring, and that humankind is in the main responsible for it.
   It saddens me that some critics cannot see the benefits this film has: of driving home an inescapable truth.
   I see Gore as the best friend our scientists have right now.

3. I have seen many statements by scientists acknowledging (to varying degrees) that Gore misleads/lies in his movie/book/talks, but then letting him off the hook because they believe in his cause. What is this cause, that it need be based on something other than the facts? It is particularly disturbing that scientists should accept sloppiness with the truth to attain a policy goal. Such a position erodes the very credibility of their approach to the subject matter, that of a dispassionate recorder of the scientific facts. Regardless of which point of view they have on the global warming hypothesis, scientists should be in agreement in condemning such misleading claims as Gore’s.

   On the contrary, I believe Gore has established himself as an enemy of scientists by politicizing their work.

4. The cause is the replacement of traditional Judeo Christian based Western civilization with one based on Gaia worship / Druidism / Paganism, and significantly, where the supposed “patriarchy” has been overturned in favor of the matriarchy (but one that is not oriented toward a traditional monogamous, heterosexual family structure – the orientation is “open” to nearly anything). Also, whereas, for 10000 years, all Humankind has been growth oriented, this new civilization which is sought would be reduction oriented.

5. The cause is the replacement of traditional Judeo Christian based Western civilization with one based on Gaia worship / Druidism / Paganism, and significantly, where the supposed “patriarchy” has been overturned in favor of the matriarchy (but one that is not oriented toward a traditional monogamous, heterosexual family structure – the orientation is “open” to nearly anything). Also, whereas, for 10000 years, all Humankind has been growth oriented, this new civilization which is sought would be reduction oriented.

6. Steve, the last I heard Al Gore was a devout Christian. It is only with capitalism in the last two or three centuries that societies have become growth oriented. Christianity had been a been a major obstacle to growth through its support for feudalism and opposition to science. Only after the religion had been rejigged and partly abandoned from the 16th century on was society able to move forward. Oh, and the movement of women into the workforce has no doubt done wonders for economic growth.

7. The review at Spiked is also a good read.

   Daniel Ben-Ami
   Global warming: time for a heated debate
   Al Gore’s dogmatic documentary An Inconvenient Truth embodies the worst possible response to climate change.

   www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1675/

8. “It is only with capitalism in the last two or three centuries that societies have become growth oriented.”

   David, There was a culture based in Italy a couple of thousand years ago that was purely growth orientated, it was called the Roman Empire – wiki it and expand yourself.

   Around that time there was also one (sorry, several) in India, before that China further back again. Go back 7000 and you have another along the banks of the Nile River in what is now called Egypt.

   1100 years ago were the Vikings, the Normans, the Caliphates. History is written by the expansionist winners.

   I thought this stuff was common knowledge.

9. Hmmm,

   Capitalism was only a recent human innovation – and has really nothing to do with economic growth though if one knows nothing about capitalism, apart from the fact that it is proscribed by the various collective political sects, then I suppose any unintended consequence of collectivist policy has to be due to ‘capitalism’ as we are told ad nauseum in step with global warming which is also caused by capitalism when reduced to the ridiculous.

10. Pingback: “An Uncomfortable Truth” no. 1 « chrislang

11. I just searched for an inconvenient truth, and was stunned to discover “A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth” by Marlo Lewis, Jr., of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which I should add is what brought me to this page as well.I don’t think it would be possible to overstate what a hideously evil organisation the CEI are, so please for anyone who reads Robert Johnston’s comment on this page, also read the Wikipedia page about who the CEI really are.Hopefully this doesn’t offend anyone, I just feel an organisation that never ceases to lie to the public about how they are killing us and our children to attempt to limit the damage to their profit margins, should always be highlighted. Even to suggest they are in anyway different to Exxon’s marketing dept is also frankly quite ridiculous, and to reference one of their ‘research’ papers where (and I speak as an English graduate and long-time science student here) the writing in some parts is indecipherable, and rarely strays into the regions of truth – as can be seen by where they have lied and severely distorted their sources to the point that it is rare for any of their sources to admit any association.

12. Thom – why would any corporation knowingly kill potential customers? That notion is sheer idiocy. Granted, corporations in the past polluted excessively, back when society in general was ignorant of environmental issues. However, today, other than endangerment of workers and the odd consumer safety risk, the typical multinational would not care to quite literally kill its future market. Why do so many ecological radicals espouse anti capitalist slogans? Are you also Communists as well?

13. Thom – why would any corporation knowingly kill potential customers? That notion is sheer idiocy. Granted, corporations in the past polluted excessively, back when society in general was ignorant of environmental issues. However, today, other than endangerment of workers and the odd consumer safety risk, the typical multinational would not care to quite literally kill its future market. Why do so many ecological radicals espouse anti capitalist slogans? Are you also Communists as well?

14. crank up that air conditioning and shovel away that 24 inches of snow.
    watch other species of animals die while we sit in climate controlled homes.
    continue to use more and more energy and create more and more carbon dioxide. remove more and more trees that suck up that carbon dioxide.
    move towards the heartland when the sea levels rise dramatically over the next 20 years.

    scientists used to tell us that the earth was flat… they can also tell you that everything is fine… burn more coal and use more oil. It’s all good. Nothing to see here folks… go back home and watch some tv and “go shopping”.

15. Steve Sadlov – companies are still killing us. You just choose to look the other way.

    When major corporations like Ford and GM have entire departments of anaylsts to determine the “cost-benefit” ratios that might result from NOT recalling defective products – products that WILL kill some people – then it is time to acknowledge that corporations DO INDEED kill their customers. Anyone with a brain, even right-wing nutjobs, must acknowledge that if a company has knowledge that there is a defect in one of their products that is killing people, then it is MORALLY and ETHICALLY required to recall that product. It amazes me how so many people of your ilk will claim to be representing the moral truth of our society, and yet you act in such shamefully immoral ways.

16. Cam – OK, you’re right. Overthrow the evil capitalists. Bring on the dicatatorship of the prolitariat! / sarc

17. Anytime I see Andrew Bolt used as a credible source I shake my head. The man churns out the worst form of biased, ill-informed, sensationalistic “journalism” you can imagine. Any Australian that isn’t a (not to point at political camps) far-right fanatic knows this man is only hired by the paper to stir up controversy.

    “Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth” as suggested by the first poster sure does pick apart Gore’s statements, but fails to do so in any real way, nor in any way that underlines his overall message. To take his point to the broadest audience possible in the most clear and concise way Gore is forced to make strong statements. These can be semantically undermined if one wants to argue with his opinion, but what he says still cannot be credibly and completely dismissed. Several other articles mentioned here do try to undermine him for the same reasons, but the still fail to do so in any triumphant way.

    Gore may have his inaccuracies, but the thrust of his argument is sound and I can’t believe anyone can argue against it with a clear conscience. This is not to say one should ignore mistakes, but to dismiss an issue this big over semantics is preposterous. There is plenty of evidence out the supporting cyclical environmental changes, however, there is just as much – if not more – supporting the drastic changes that have occurred since industrialisation

18. Pingback: Al Gore krijgt de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede « Bloggers Anonymous

19. I can’t believe the anti-corporate mania on display and the sheeple who believe Gore after his film has been exposed time and time again to be full of lies. Gore himself admits that he feels it is acceptable to lie to people to motivate them to join his causes. As noted here by other wiser folk than the ones who admit Gore lies (or don’t) but say his basic thesis is sound (it isn’t, that’s the point) the plain facts are if Gore can’t motivate us by telling us the truth that in itself is a real red flag anyone with half the wits of a normal person should be able to recognize. Sadly some apparently don’t even qualify as half-wits here as evidenced by their Gore-supporting posts.

    I see someone here is too ready to believe in Fight Club and doesn’t have the time to really pull their head out of the sand and see the world as it is.

20. This thread is 1½ years old, but it seems to be still alive. So, for those interested, I want to inform that on the web site www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Goreallegederrors.htm I have made a survey of more than 100 alleged errors in “An inconvenient truth”. I find that most error claims do not hold, but that a few of them do.
    Kåre Fog

21. David McMullen Says:
    October 2nd, 2006 at 2:23 am get your facts staight concerning christianity and science.If it wasn’t for christians you wouldn’t have modern science,check out the following scientists that were christians:leonardo da vinvi,johann kepler,francis bacon,blaise pascal,robert boyle.john ray ,nicolaus steno,thomas burnet,michael faraday,john herchel amuel miller etc…etc.etc..

22. Stuart:
    wrong. The Muslim scholars are the ones who deserve enormous credit for saving science. As the Muslim faith spread, militarily, the scholars salvaged a lot of early work by the Greeks and Romans and others and collated and perpetuated scientific methods. Mathematics is but one example.
    The early Christians were total regressives, (early greens??). Later on they had to become the centres for learning as Kings and Princes’s had no time for an educated farm hand.
    Modern science is in debt to the Early Greeks, Aristotle etc, and the Muslims.
    regards