This is an incredibly intriguing article that shows 35 factual errors with the facts presented in Al Gore's global warming documentary. Earlier this month there was a court case in London, England where a man named Christopher Monckton claimed he found nine errors within the movie and ended up winning the case. Just read it with an open mind, you may change your mind.
-
35 Factual Errors in Inconvenient Truth
-
Never saw the movie, but I don't need a movie to tell me that the planet's going to hell.Five days ago, it was like 90 degrees and it's late October. And, according to the news, it's going to be summer again this weekend.
-
READ THE ARTICLE! THE PLANET IS NOT GOING TO HELL!!!
urghhh
-
Pfft, tell that to us who live in California...
-
Originally Posted By: cooldawgREAD THE ARTICLE! THE PLANET IS NOT GOING TO HELL!!! urghhh Tell that to Europe!!
-
I can GUARANTEE you that the high temperature you speak of is not the record high. I can also guarantee you that the record high was not recent, 1990 to be exact.Since I don't know what city you live in, I'll pick Los Angeles where there's a lot of smog. The record high for October in L.A. is 108 degrees Fahrenheit. Sounds reaaal hot doesn't it. But do you know when this was? It wasn't in the past 10 years. Global warming eh? I say it's a myth. If you dispute me, please do read the article.
-
Please back up your "guarantee"s.
And no thanks. Like I said, don't need a movie or an article or anything to tell me that the planet's dying. And yes, it's our fault.
Nevermind, I'm bored. I looked it up myself.
According to this page, it's been exactly ten years since the last record high for October. Records are nice, but I'm also a believer in the here and now. This month's weather's been up and down within a 24-48 hour time span. Today's cold but this weekend is supposed to be summer. And don't get me started on the recent wildfires.
Go ahead and play conspiracy theory all you want, I don't care. Just don't tell me what you want me to believe in.
-
I have read your article and let me tell you, Global Warming is not a myth. Global Warming is a well recorded, documented and scientifically backed event that is happening right now. You will find few scientists who will disagree. Al Gore may exaggerate but lets face it, despite his newly received Nobel Prize, he's still only a politician.Global Warming is not under any conflict in the scientific world, its happening, everyone knows it. What is being debated is whether humans are accelerating it.Now as for my city, Dublin, in the Republic of Ireland over in Europe. Met Éireann has been recording temperatures in Ireland since 1888 and 7 of the hottest 10 years in their records have all been in the past 11 years. 2006 being the hottest, followed closely by 2005 then 2003. While we once had blizzards during winter, it hasn't snowed in several years. We have hurricane strong storms, the first tornado ever recorded in Ireland touched down within sight of my house just 2 years ago.
-
When I said it was a myth, I meant that Gore's exaggerations were untrue. I'm not really taken one side or another, but the article certainly leaves room for debate on a subject that is currently thought of as closed.
-
And also he can't go promoting a movie to the public, specifically the children, who will believe anything a person in power says, when it is untrue. Sure a lot of movies are untrue, but this was made knowingly of the evidence surrounding him, but all Gore cares about is making himself the president. I'm trying to decide this subject on my own, doing my own research, and reading articles with credible sources. The main thing that got me angry was how my school showed this to my 8th grade class and now they've got the kids all thinking this sea-level nonsense is true, along with a long list of others.
-
Al Gore's race for president is long oaver, he has no chance of ever achieving that, and he knows it. Now hows speaking untruths to push thier point?
-
You people did not read the damn article did you?All these points you are making are addressed in the article. Al Gore is trying for a position upper executive branch a.k.a President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc. Sure I'm fine with the eco-friendly products and new emission tech. But I'm not going to go out just yet and buy a $200,000 electric car that goes 30 mph and can only go 200 miles. Until someone can justify humans are indeed accelerating global warming, I'm not spending the money.
-
Quote:
Al Gore is trying for a position upper executive branch a.k.a President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc.
I don't think Al Gore isn't going to run again. He's having too much "fun" right now.
Also, if he did decide to run, don't you think it would be too late for him, considering presidential campaigns start "officially" start after every mid-term election?
-
Originally Posted By: bobaliciousGlobal Warming is not under any conflict in the scientific world, its happening, everyone knows it. What is being debated is whether humans are accelerating it. Mmm...I think we've been through this before. There is much debate in the scientific world, not only over the causality of a supposed global warming, but on the existence of such a phenomenon. I posted a buttload of articles recently, but I suppose no one cared to look at them, much like those who want to respond to the OP without looking at the article he posted.In fact, scientist of high repute have even shown that the concept of a "global temperature" is ludicrous.That being said, Al Gore is irrelevant. Even the scientists promoting a global crises don't take him seriously.But at the same time, whether or not global warming is a reality, humans are doing a bang-up job of screwing up our environment and wasting natural resources. Recycling and driving a hybrid car doesn't make one a mindless, liberal lemming. They could actually be a mindless, conservative lemming!!! I'd love to have the new Hybrid Escape.
-
It's interesting that the author of this article referenced to the Frontiers of Freedom, who's mission is to ....promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.This Frontiers of Freedom is not even a scientific organization. They are merely a right-wing think tank.This article, and this think tank, has no merit.
-
You're wrong.You are spouting ill-informed logic.You can't determine the factuality of a thing based on who is saying it. You are attempting, once again, to divert the discussion from the real issues raised by maligning the people behind the assertions. In fact, you aren't even attempting to discredit the article based on the author, but on the basis of someone the author references. In which journalism class did you learn that this was a feasible tactic? Beyond that, you are characterizing this group as having no merit based on the fact that you don't agree with their political views.Not very rational/scientific/logical/fair on your part.
-
Wow, calm down!First of all, any journalist or academite would say that referring to a conservative-leaning non profit for information on global warming is not good judgement at all. I don't know what you have against me, but you need to watch your tone. This attitude you have about who I am and my profession needs to cease. As for as me being rational, if you even bother to look at their www.ff.org you would agree that they have no basis for judging scientific matters. So anyone reading that stuff should take their "factual statements" with a grain of salt.
-
That's good. I'm glad you do. You're supposed to be skeptical of everything you read or hear. What do you think of the topic?
-
Originally Posted By: ClassyBlackWomanWow, calm down!???Does it make you feel better - or are you under some delusion that you can help your argument by attempting to portray me as spastic, or out of control, or somebody who needs to calm down? Or, more likely, is this another in your arsenal of tactics to divert from the topic at hand by attacking a straw man? I can assure you that, when I typed that, I was as calm and rational as a person can get. Seems to me you're the one getting riled up. Quote:I don't know what you have against me, but you need to watch your tone. This attitude you have about who I am and my profession needs to cease. I don't have a thing against you. Period. And once again, I have no idea what you mean by "my tone". I called your tactics into question. I did so rationally, completely void of any tone or attitude. If you don't like what I said, then address what I said. Don't make up problems that don't exist.I will not cease calling into question your errors and expecting you to know better. Besides, that's exactly what you did to me.Now, do you wanna discuss issues or continue to attack people who disagree with you? I can do either, but I refuse to do the latter.
