BONUS: An Inconvenient Truth 2: Suggested Film Titles!
So last you heard, Al Gore’s propaganda film, ‘A Collection of Convenient Outright Lies’ ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was found to contain at least 9 serious errors… By the British High Court no less.
Now, ramp that up to at least 35 serious errors.
As I’ve learnt from Is It Getting Warmer, the Science and Public Policy Institute has reviewed all of Al Gore’s convenient misrepresentations and determined 35 key facts that Gore portrayed wrongly. The blog host also meticulously researched each of the SPPI’s criticisms and gives a rundown of the accuracy of each claim at this link.
Gore could have gotten his facts through his scientific incompetence, or perhaps by getting his information from only certain biased sources.
But my personal opinion is that Gore INTENTIONALLY LIES throughout the film. He is dishonest, manipulative, sneaky and utterly self-serving.
If you think my remarks are unfair and unfounded, just remember that Al Gore has been shown to change his stance 180-degrees and lie for personal political gain, he stands to profit immensely if governments enforce carbon offsets out of fear, and he totally does not subscribe to his own directives to us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So yes, I do think he intentionally lies throughout his film, in order to spread hysteria and panic about global warming.
Below are the 35 errors pointed out by the SPPI article, with my short summary of the actual truths behind each dishonest fib. See the full explanations at Science and Public Policy Institute article:
THE 35 BLATANT ERRORS OR LIES IN ‘AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH’
1. Sea level “rising 6 m”
Even the IPCC’s maximum estimate is a mere 59cm… In the year 2100.
2. Pacific islands “drowning”
They aren’t. The sea levels around the Maldives haven’t changed for 1250 years. Same goes for Vanuatu.
3. Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
In reality, it is strengthening.
4. CO2 “driving temperature”
It is a clear and well accepted fact that temperature drives CO2 levels.
5. Snows of Kilimanjaro “melting”
Temperature at the summit never rises above freezing. Most of the melt occured before 1936.
6. Lake Chad “drying up”
It also dried up in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. Where was our carbon-polluting human industry then?
7. Hurricane Katrina “man made”
Maximum hurricane wind speed and number of hurricanes has not increased.
8. Polar bears “dying”
Four bears died in a storm. Four. Measly. Bears. Meanwhile, there are 25000 polar bears today compared to 5000 in 1940.
9. Coral reefs “bleaching”
It was caused by an unusual El Nino pattern, not global warming.
10. 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
Gore overstates the effect of CO2 ten times greater than even the IPCC’s highest estimate.
11. Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
Air temperatures in the area were the coldest in 25 years, not warmest.
12. Japanese typhoons “a new record”
Tropical cyclone frequency has fallen in the past 50 years.
13. Hurricanes “getting stronger“
They haven’t in 60 years.
14. Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
Insured losses in hurricane-prione areas were lower in 2005 than 1905.
15. Mumbai “flooding”
There’s been no increase in rainfall over 48 years.
16. Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
Severe tornadoes have fallen in frequency for the last 50 years. Tropical storms are also at the lowest frequency in decades.
17. The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
The ocean emits more heat than it receives from the sun.
18. Arctic “warming fastest”
It’s actually 1 degree cooler now than in 1940.
19. Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
The ice sheet did not break up during the last three times when the temperature was 5 degrees hotter than today.
20. Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
The snow melt which provides water has not decreased in 40 years.
21. Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
For the past 10,000 years the Peruvian ‘glacier’ region has been mostly ice free.
22. Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
Human CO2 output has had no effect on the already-present glacier shortening trend.
23. Sahara desert “drying”
In the past 25 years, the Sahara shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres due to increased rainfall.
24. West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
Antarctic ice is at its thickest in nearly 28 years.
25. Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
Gore concentrates on the 2% of Antarctica that is experiencing some warming, while conciously neglecting to mention the 98% of Antarctica that is cooling.
26. Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
The ice shelfs have been breaking up since 10,000 years ago.
27. Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
The graph says it all: Wrong.
28. Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
None of the diseases quoted are tropical, none are affected by increasing temperature, and some even cause more harm at colder temperatures.
29. West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
West Nile virus flourishes in any climate, from desert to ice.
30. Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
Forests are thriving due to the increasing CO2 levels.
31. The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000″
Cold snaps kill people, but the IPCC does not include the number of lives that would be saved due to less cold weather.
32. Pied flycatchers “cannot feed their young”
A few tens of kilometres north, and there is no notable difference.
33. Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
Gore plays fast and loose with falsely used images.
34. The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
It is closed to retain tidal water in the Thames.
35. “No fact…in dispute by anybody.”
Do I even have to mention these?
CONCLUSION: It’s clear that Al Gore and his film have got the facts totally wrong, reversed, upside-down and etc on almost every count. An Inconvenient Truth is truly an amazing piece of bullcr@p, and it’s even more amazing that anybody still trusts anything it and Gore have to say.
Tags: Al Gore liar, An Inconvenient Truth lies mistakes errors false wrong, Science and Public Policy Institute
October 31, 07 at 11:01 pm
Great post! I like how you were much more concise than I was, however, we obviously disagree on some of the minor points. I say the list is about 22-24 errors long which is still pretty terrible for a film that won multiple awards and led to the man getting a Nobel.
November 1, 07 at 8:30 am
All hat-tips to you for your digging up the SPPI article. I listed down the criticisms as they were delivered by the SPPI, and noted that your blog has an analysis of which are accurate. Kudos again!
November 18, 07 at 2:22 am
You and the SPPI have to be two of the biggest bozos in existence. Talk about cherrypicking facts and skewing them to your own agenda. To be so critical of facts from Gore because of your political agenda and trying to pass them off as science is no better than what you are accusing him of. Also, if you’re going to be critical, it’s KATRINA, not CATARINA, dumb ass. It should also be 34 items and not 35 since you duplicated items number 7 and 11, misspelling Katrina in number 11. The SPPI article basically said Gore’s party was the cause of Katrina. You are all idiots with your heads up your asses and like all Republicans are more tied to the dollar than the planet. Don’t try to pass yourself off as champions of the truth when you are clearly not. Every day REAL scientists are coming out with REAL science proving that if we stay on the track we are on we are going to screw this world up more than we already have. Until we don’t have any water, food, animals, plants, you just won’t get it and even then will spin your lame arguments to blame someone else.
You are pathetic.
November 18, 07 at 6:37 am
LOL you sound like a cult member trying to defend your “faith”. You accuse people of things but have not shown proof that they did so, you use so many ad hominem attacks, and you claim intellectual superiority over those who challenge you. Keep at it, cultist, you always make me laugh.
November 18, 07 at 3:12 pm
Not a very observant or well-educated cult member either…
Point 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
Point 11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Catarina
Even the SPPI article clearly states that Katrina hit New Orleans and Caterina/Catarina hit Brazil. Cyclone Catarina was named for Santa Catarina where it hit close to. Eyes wide shut, JW, eyes wide shut.
Apparently this particular convert to the Temple of the Goracle didn’t even watch his holy prophet’s movie properly, let alone carefully read the SPPI article and considered its arguments. And he has the testicular fortitude to call us fact cherrypicking bozos?
Take note loyal readers: The majority of global warming scream-head-offers are about as well educated in science and the facts about climate change as this guy – who seems to have gotten his information solely from one theatre film… And he didn’t even stay awake through the whole thing.
That should tell you a lot about the amount of truth this global warming hysteria actually carries.
PS. The guy who is REALLY tied more to the dollar than the planet: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/follow-the-clues-is-al-gores-promotion-of-global-warming-hysteria-merely-a-scam-to-make-him-money/
As evidenced by his very clear disregard for obscene energy consumption and polluting the environment with the very CO2 he demonizes: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/
Goracle worshipers, feel free to use logic, facts, reason, references, Internet links and anything OTHER than name-calling to disprove my allegations.
YA RITE!!! LOLZ!
November 27, 07 at 1:20 am
Lol, holy crap. first off great post, i caught a few of those things but 35 jesus. Second scott and jamie nice work stickin it to the “cultist” suprising how similar this whole global warming movement is to a cult.
November 27, 07 at 8:18 am
Cult you say?
Prayer of Gore
Al is my Shepherd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead liberals
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies give children sleepless nights
Though i walk dark in my house
his 4 are lit like Vegas
Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever
– letzfaceit, YouTube, April 8, 2007
http://www.goracle.org/prayer_of_gore.php
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/ann-coulter-junks-global-warming-too/
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/
See also http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/global-warming-editorial-cartoons/ and search for the cartoons mocking global warming’s cultish religious overtones (search for the word religio)
November 29, 07 at 9:16 am
Y’all stoopid asses. Ah oppose to ahll this shit
November 29, 07 at 12:31 pm
Y’all heard it from the President’s mouth, Gore supporters are Democrat donkeys and he’s opposed to all this global warming hooey.
December 1, 07 at 6:21 am
he also lied about the evaporation rate going up it is actually going down!
December 11, 07 at 1:32 pm
Whoever wrote this is a totally stupid a$$ b1tch with no brain mothafukk@
December 11, 07 at 3:30 pm
Uh, did ODB just cuss at himself for writing the above comment? lolz!
December 11, 07 at 10:16 pm
I meant who wrote those 35 errors and says that we have nuthin to worry about. Believe him if you will…..
December 12, 07 at 8:29 am
Hahaha! Just playing with you dude.
The guys who wrote the 35 errors are from the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). They based their conclusions on official raw data, that they give citations and links to so you can check it out for yourself.
Of course we have to worry about the environment. But global warming is most probably not anywhere near the threat that Al Gore and the IPCC make it out to be.
Here are some links:
Arctic ice may be melting, but Antarctic ice is increasing (98% of it is gettign colder) – so the seas won’t be rising anytime soon – http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/irrefutable-it-is-a-fact-global-warming-causes-all-time-high-antarctic-ice/
In fact, sea levels at low-lying islands have been measured over the decades, and NO rise was detected – http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200512%5CCUL20051207a.html
There are fewer violent storms in this decade than in the decades before global warming allegedly took effect – http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/10/despite_goracle.html
These are all data backed by official scientific surveys and measurements, not just wild opinions. That’s why I will believe them that the world is NOT in immediate peril.
How’s about you?
December 15, 07 at 10:24 am
AL GORE IS A BIGGER THREAT THAN GLOBAL WARMING. MICHAEL SAVAGE HAS IT RIGHT ” LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER ” AND IT`S KILLING THIS COUNTRY.
March 11, 08 at 3:03 am
Yo, although Gore is wrong in some points, your arguing is the most pathetic thing I ever seen. On most points you are simply saying “no, it’s not” even more than Al Gore says “Yes it is”
Even thinking that global warming is bullshit kinda states what kinda idiot you are. and btw, If you have lived in a place with polar bears since you were born ( loooong time ago) you would’ve know the population has decreased dramatically.
March 11, 08 at 9:14 am
What, like YOU live in the Artic regions? Cause if you did, you’d know that polar bears numbers have INCREASED FIVE FOLD over the past few decades.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/environazis_pus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Conservation_status
Earliest preliminary estimates of the global population were around 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s, and this was revised to 20,000–40,000 during the 1980s. Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000-25,000.
And as the increasing Artic ice spreads (caused by global warming of course!), the bears are even looking at humans for food:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/growing_ice_for.html
Anyway, there are countless more arguments against anthropogenic global warming. Your mindlessly believing what the lie-beral mainstream media feeds you shows how Net unsavvy you are. Do some browsing – find out why the numbers of global warming skeptics are growing.
You can start here, brainiac:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
April 3, 08 at 7:10 am
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
I am giggling as I type this. I found a website like this that supports global warming!
I typred in and posted a huge long hillarious comment on it too. You should see it!!!
It lists all the major mistakes in his movie.
GUESS WHAT!!!!!!!
THEY LET ME POST IT!!
HA HA HA!
It gets better though. I started arguing with this dumb (donkey’s but) “Sally.”
It was soo funny.
you should post a comment too.
I would laugh
a lot.
I’ll check the website for your comments.
April 3, 08 at 7:14 am
Awww man!!! They deleted our argument.
THEY BETTER NOT DELETE MY POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 3, 08 at 7:15 am
btw- the website is-
http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/2006/05/turth_in_an_inc.html
April 3, 08 at 7:21 am
Oh, yeah. And to that “Mr. scintific” dude.
I live in Alaska and, well, there’s a TON of polar bears. Whever believes that $#*%!! is *&#$.
April 3, 08 at 7:24 am
I HATE YOU AMBER!!!
April 3, 08 at 9:23 am
Amber, what you can do is to press Print Screen on your keyboard while viewing your comment.
Then open Microsoft Paint and Paste the copied image. Save that as a jpeg, and you have everlasting evidence of your comment!
Then send it to me if you want me to post it, I’ll help you show up those global warmists!
Btw, polar bear mockery video below for you. Enjoy!
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/a_seals_take_on.html
April 23, 08 at 10:12 am
So what I want to know is when is the Nobel society going to call up their buddy Al and ask for their prize back! It should be a crime for this level of fraud.
April 23, 08 at 10:18 am
Well they still haven’t recalled the Prizes they gave to Lee Duc Tho even after the Vietcong massacres, or Yasser Arafat after yet more Intifada, or to Dhimmi Carter after he went wooing terrorist group dedicated to the genocide of all Jews Hamas last week…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Controversy
April 23, 08 at 11:00 am
Will you please send me the references where you found all of this information? I would like to review the facts myself. Please just post it.
April 23, 08 at 11:28 am
The SPPI website where I got the contents of this post has references at bottom.
I’ll dig up other references for you later.
April 24, 08 at 8:50 am
[...] 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth [...]
June 3, 08 at 9:18 am
seriously? You think just because you state all of your facts on a website, it makes it all true? I’ll be the first to note that Mr. Gore did make some exaggerations, but do you honestly believe temperature drives CO2 levels? It’s common scientific knowledge that combustion (something imperative in the burning of fossil fuels) produces Carbon Dioxide.
Read a book
June 6, 08 at 6:26 am
Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
June 6, 08 at 6:32 am
I understand that you didn’t create the chart for number 27. Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes” but when you examine it it shows no decreases in malaria becuse it never shows the difference between where it was and where its come to becuse each place is different on the chart, so for all I know it could be higher
July 15, 08 at 12:21 pm
I approve this.
The chat log shows many things. It shows just how mindless and unobjective some people are who believe global warming is exactly as Gore says it is. The bias of the bloggers here is shown as well with a subtle disdain for liberalism. This is not about liberalism or conservatism so ad hominem attacks and labelcalling is, for lack of a better way to express my frustration, fucking retarded, quite frankly.
There is nothing wrong with thinking that global warming is what Al Gore (or anyone else for that matter) says it is. However to say that debate is over and to consider something an absolute truth takes more than highly subjective, unproven, and exaggerated claims by a politician.
People who advocate Gore’s point of view tend to view anyone who disagrees with them as uneducated and intellectually inferior. I feel highly offended as the reason I doubt global warming is that I am a scientist and I look at facts, not what a politician says. It does not matter that he says his facts are backed up by scientists because they are obviously (numerically) not even close. He makes ridiculous statements like the sea level rising 6 meters.
THE IPCC ITSELF HAS ITS HIGHEST WORST CASE SCENARIO AT 53cm sea level rise by 2100!!!! hello….
I don’t agree with all the 35 mistakes but I do think that at the very least 24 of them are valid, with 6 being debatable and 5 being either pointless or biased.
Basically I am tired of people saying that “its happening, you dont accept it we all die then whos to blame”
Humanity has so much potential, why is it that 90% of people are fucking sheep? I never knew it was this easy to manipulate humans.
The very fact that we think for ourselves and not accept a common view of the world is what makes us scientists. I have severe doubts that global warming is caused by us. I know it is happening but based on the facts it seems that
1) if it were because of CO2, flatulance from cows does a hell of a lot more than all our fossil fuel burning, even china, india, and russia the coal burners combined.
2) global warming has happened at a CONSTANT, LINEAR RATE starting BEFORE we even used fossil fuels, and stayed at the same rate as fossil fuel consumption exponentially increased
July 15, 08 at 12:29 pm
I would also like to note for the record that BBC published a story denouncing the global warming myth, and an anonymous person blackmailed the journalist threatening to ruin his credibility with the ‘in’ crowd which is ‘green’. He of course complied, completely changed teh story after two weeks of insisting that it was based on notable climate change experts. Someone find this story, its a golden example of how pathetic the media-sheep interface has become.
I am also a college student at university, and I do research in computational biology. I have seen grad students (especially in Physics and Engineering) competing for research funds sadly make up ways that their technology can be used for ‘green’ tech…to get funds. ‘If you can’t find a way to make it green, no one will fund it.’ Scientists can be made into sheep as well and I’m sure there are ‘green’ scientists going to be hella rich as a posse of Gore.
September 12, 08 at 7:36 am
hi. im doing a research paper on this too see exactly for myself whats true, false, exaggerated, or debatable. so if u have time can u please email me the links for where u found your information. no attachments. thank you very much
September 30, 08 at 1:25 pm
This is a pretty good post actually. It would be more convincing if, instead of spouting off short sentences you backed up some of your evidence with empirical proof. I am not doubting it’s validity, but a professional de-bunker would cite his information.
October 1, 08 at 3:14 pm
Hi elliott, I’m just summarizing what the SPPI article I read claims.
And this link evaluates each claim from a netural stand.
December 3, 08 at 12:41 pm
i am a very young conservative, only 15. I love getting into debates about this at school. Thank you so much for these!
I think that is there is any global warming at all its only about 0.5% of what people make it out to be.
it’s sad people just follow like mindless sheep…
and Amber Brown, i clicked on the link and most the comments had been deleted… there were only 2 left, one was yours though. Did you get a screen shot of your previous comments before they were deleted?
December 3, 08 at 12:43 pm
ohh wow, i didn’t even realize how old this post was…
December 3, 08 at 1:24 pm
Glad to hear kyle! There’s lots of resources scattered around my site… Try these on my blog:
Five simple questions to ask anyone who believes that carbon dioxide causes global warming
Historical data shows temperature rises BEFORE CO2 levels rise – and Al Gore’s film shows it the wrong way round
BBQ pits are affecting temperature sensors
Al Gore uses 22 times the energy as us commoners
Global Warming Fears category
Watts Up With That – excellent blog with lots of scientific data on climate
January 1, 09 at 3:10 pm
Very simple solution…….. Pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the government to enact any type carbon use tax and the whole global warming cause dies.
All this bullshit is about MONEY, take away the money, and presto all interest is lost, the crusade dies.
If the donkey can’t get more tax money out of it, the donkey will look somewhere else.
I GUARANTEE IT, NO MONEY equals NO PROBLEM.
January 4, 09 at 11:09 pm
[...] (i.e. ME) falls in love with Wall-E and recontemplates Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth…briefly -A friend of mine introduces me to Smittens and all of a sudden, the world makes sense again -Teen [...]
January 7, 09 at 6:54 am
I would like to know where you got your mini rubutle facts from ie newspaper articles and such? Not that i’m going against what you’re saying, just so that I can use it for a school project.
January 7, 09 at 9:10 am
It is from this Science and Public Policy Institute article.
You can also compare the British judge’s ruling at Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda.
You can also see my meticulously researched (with links) article about polar bear lies at NST Letters: Al Gore Lied About Drowning Polar Bears.
January 7, 09 at 3:56 pm
[...] Here’s where I just read about all of this. Even a English court said Al Gore is a lair. And those English are deviants like Richard Dawkins and they had to admit it. [...]
January 7, 09 at 5:07 pm
“Idiot” Hansen of NASA probly wants Obambi to invade Australia so the aussies stop using coal:
AUSTRALIA’S miners have slammed a leading NASA scientist for warning US president-elect Barack Obama that Australia’s coal exports are contributing to the earth’s destruction, saying he has picked the wrong culprit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24882059-16222,00.html
January 11, 09 at 3:17 am
#2. Pacific islands “drowning”
They aren’t. The sea levels around the Maldives haven’t changed for 1250 years. Same goes for Vanuatu.
Pacific islands ARE drowning. One good example is the Republic of Kiribati, “an island nation located in the central tropical Pacific Ocean.”
Sea levels aren’t rising? Tell that to the people of Kiribati, who have asked Australia and New Zealand to accept them as permanent refugees.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/kiribati/
January 15, 09 at 1:59 am
Scott –
Thanks for the concise list of errors in Al Gore’s movie. Hopefully, the real truths about anthropogenic global warming will become more publicized and understood. Too bad we aren’t focusing on current environmental and public health problems that we know are real (third world sanitation, malaria etc.) instead of wasting so much time on this issue.
February 22, 09 at 4:13 am
As both a physicist and someone who lives in New Zealand I can assure you that we are not receiving Global Warming refugees. We are gainging a lot of Pacific Islander citizens as they can earn 3 to 5 times as much money in New Zealand.
Also – I personally know a reviewer for the IPCC, (He was a supervisor on my thesis). His area of speciality is global sea water level change. His conclusions to the IPCC were that sea level change due to climate change by 2100 would be less than 20cm. For some reason the IPCC choose to change this to a much larger figure.
Further, looking at temperature records adjusted for heat islands, in the Southern Hemisphere we haven’t had any global warming for the last 28 years.
As a scientist I believe in using the scientific method. In summary 1) look at the data, 2) make a theory, 3) make a prediction from that theory and 4) test that theory. To date proponents of Anthropogenic Global warming have failed on steps 1 and 4. Until people like Al Gore present actual emperical evidence, then I must include Anthropogenic Global Warming with other theories like Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance, SETI, Nuclear Winter, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. If someone produces some compelling emperical evidence then of course I will change my mind. But nobody to date has, and I see no threat of this in the near future.
Current data show a slight cooling trend and we can expect this to continue until about 2030 when we will no doubt have lots of articles about the coming ice gae.
February 22, 09 at 9:31 pm
Having lived in NZ for 6 years, I have met enough level-headed scientists to know that you’re the genuine article. You make sense, good sense, good scientific sense. You’re alright, mate!
April 15, 09 at 11:53 am
Well, I don’t agree with your critique on Gore’s documentary. Poltically speaking, I am not in favor of Gore, on a personal level I do not care for him. But these 35 “errors” you speak of are cr@p. You give half sentences the majority of the time and I respectfully disagree with your mate simon: You make no sense whatsoever to me, nothing of a scientific nature, just biased opinions against this documentary. I’m not saying that the things Gore stated are true you just did not have a convincing argument, mate!
April 15, 09 at 5:00 pm
Hm, mayhaps you should check out the origin link to the SPPI article before laying on the insults? As my blog post is but a tip to its full length.
May 4, 09 at 12:24 pm
You shouldnt trust politicians. Trust the Scientist! They know the facts. That guy is wierd anyways…
June 6, 09 at 3:48 am
As a teacher of Environmental Science at a well noted University in Florida I have done alotof personal research on Global Warming. To start, the moron who began this lengthy blog is, as many have commented, a naive republican prat with about as much common sense and pertinent knowledge as the ever increasing meltwater now poring from our vanishing glaciers. I do agree that politicians AND scientists should never be taken at their word. Everyone has an agenda (especially scientists) and will say what is in there own best interests. Like it or not folks, global warming is a FACT. Just about every noted Scientist in the world now agrees (and yes I’m lucky enough to know quite a few, especially in the cryospherics field). World climate does, and has, follow erratic cycles of warming and cooling, but not like this. This time IS different, and the only reason it’s so tough to categorically prove it is because this level of anthropomorphic change has never happened before. Not only is it happening, it’s happening at an ever increasing rate never predicted by the scientific world. The signs are everywhere as long as the Western populations can tear their fat, lazy butts away from their TVs for a moment to realize OMG, there is a world outside my daily commute to work and back. Islands of the Phillipines HAVE been evacuated due to sea level rise (have many peer reviewed articles to prove it), polar bear numbers ARE dwindling, temperatures and CO2 emissions ARE increasing, glaciers ARE melting at amazing speeds, severe weather events ARE increasing in both power and regularity etc etc. I agree we have many other issues that mankind is directly responsible for and needs to solve, but don’t be naive; the world is warming and we are the major contributing factor! And by the way, being a Physicist (while a prestigious and commendable achievement), in no way gives you the right to make assertions as unfounded as the idiot who wrote this original garbage on the ‘35 mistakes’. You should know better sir, shame on you for using your position to promote YOUR agenda.
June 6, 09 at 3:50 am
Did I really spell pouring without the u?!
June 15, 09 at 9:59 pm
[...] I’ve seen more articles and video on Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth debunking the video than positive thoughts about his film: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenie... [...]
June 27, 09 at 5:03 am
Aaron, regardless of his bias or “agenda,” pointing out facts isn’t immoral.
July 24, 09 at 5:54 am
[...] Originally Posted by jbrumberg AG and his followers having been laying pretty low recently . Jay 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth BUUUUURRRRNING HOT [...]
August 12, 09 at 5:12 pm
Just out of interest…how many facts do you admit are right?
And are you telling me, that all the scientists, all the campaigners and the (tiny portion) of political figures are all telling lies for money or whatever childish reason?
That it’s all wrong, not happening, and that there are really no major consequences to pumping millions, billions, of tonnes of co2 into the earth’s atmosphere, cutting down forests etc?
60 years, or more. Normal people ( who do know whatt they are talking about – scientists) have been telling people what is happening to the planet. Huge Businesses and the Government deny it. Isn’t that, even if Global warming or cooling, since it could be either, isn’t that showing some unwillingness to beleiving something that could stop them earning money and make them look bad, and showing also some corruption?
Why would soo many people have a reason to lie? If they have no way of gaining off of it???
As the daughhter of an ecologist, as someone who DOES have their eyes open, and as a member of many anti-climate change campaign groups, of which do not take funding from ANYTHING besides membership donations (no government or businesses involved) namely greenpeace, i think you all need to just think about it
Even if CC isn’t real, we would be handing down a more efficient, sustainable and a generally better world by stopping it, wouldn’t we. If Al Gore IS brainwashing people, it’s at least for the greater good isn’t it?!
p.s. stop calling the person at the top a cultist. Jw’s just doing what everyone else is: speaking his mind (or her mind)
August 12, 09 at 5:24 pm
(Hey also, I’d like to see Scott Thong go out and COUNT the polar bears. Do you think he’d find many? ( maybe he’ll just freeze to death and we can all forget about this whole ridiculous argument!!!))
Hey scott, up for a holiday?
LOL so much easier to be mean. MWAHAHAHA
(please ignore me)
August 12, 09 at 6:13 pm
No no no…
Some scientists genuinely believe it, while I suspect that some others cynically use it as cover for their social justice agenda (many global warmists came from clinging to previous environmental scares). Some play along because their research grants are tied to climate change. And some (several tens of thousands) don’t believe it, but are somehow repeatedly ignored as non-existent by the UN.
Most campaigners genuinely believe it, but that does not mean it is automatically true.
And as for political figures… Have you really no idea at all how the Democrats work yet? (Hint: William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich, Jack Murtha’s nephew, various others)
To accuse me of lumping them all under the same group as I put Al Gore under is simply a straw man, as I don’t really believe that all global warming believers are being intentionally dishonest.
——————————————
Look at the first graph here for why CO2 has only a limited effect on global climate (hint: diminishing returns), and then pages 5-8 of here for why human produced CO2 is even less of a concern (hint: merely 0.28% of the greenhouse effect).
I do believe that cutting down forests does cause negative consequences – again, you are using a straw man argument in alluding that I believe the opposite.
Meanwhile, vast swathes of rainforest are being cleared to plant biofuel crops, all in the name of fighting global warming. How’s them camels for ya?
—————————————
Well, considering that environmentalists have been warning about global cooling causing an ice age, population exceeding available resources, mass starvation killing us all by 1970, etc… I kinda have to give better odds that the ‘evil corportations’ are correct more of the time.
Not everyone who does not believe in global warming is a ’shill for the oil industry’.
Look at the leading blogs opposed to global warming theory. (e.g. Watts Up With That) The vast majority are ordinary folk with run of the mill jobs. Heck, look at me! I’ve had dozens of letters denouncing global warming as a fallacy published, yet am not a cent richer for it.
————————————
Most of them wouldn’t, however there actually IS a way to gain from it.
Case in point: Al Gore, who has earned $35 million from people buying carbon credits to ’stop Earth from getting a fever’.
Case in point: Nancy Pelosi, who has earned a quarter million from her Wind Farm connections while opposing drilling for oil and pushing for carbon caps.
————————————
Counting done! Around 25000 of them, five times more than the 5000 counted in 1950. Yeah, they are sooooooo extincted.
But sure, I’d like to head over to the North Pole (which as you admit, is full of freezing ice and is not melting). But unlike silly enviromentalists who think it’s all melting and end up getting frostbite, sleeping in ice and getting their boat stuck in ice, I’d prefer to hitch a ride on Al Gore’s personal carbon-spewing jet plane.
———————————–
I wrote whole, amusing essay on the subject of WHY NOT here:
Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head
———————————–
Okay. Not a cultist.
But DEFINITELY a High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy.
————————————
As a trained scientist whose only income is from a day job not at all related to government, energy or environmental groups, I used to believe in global warming, until I read up more and ‘just thought about it’.
That is why I’ve compiled this helpful, quick guide to why I don’t believe that CO2 is causing global warming that will doom us all. Even just looking at the pretty pictures is quite informative, without delving into the links to reputable news and science sites like AFP, Bloomberg and NASA.
http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/
A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU WILL FIND IF YOU DARE CLICK THE LINK
- Global temperatures have been falling
- Polar ice has been expanding at both poles
- Record cold across various parts of the world
- Snowfall in hot desert countries
- CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere
- Human produced CO2 is an even tinier fraction
- Tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in global warming
- More and more ordinary people no longer believe in global warming
- Global warming caused by CO2 is a flawed theory
- Even its scientific method is flawed (see these idiotically placed temperature sensors)
Care to debate on?
September 4, 09 at 3:44 am
[...] Gore — le gars qui a MENTI à tout le monde avec son documentaire « An Inconvenient Truth » qui portait [...]
September 16, 09 at 4:47 am
Hi Scott,
Id like to comment on some points from your previous post.
“co2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere”
Yes it’s true. CO2 fills up about 0.004% of air nowadays. But that surely doesn’t say anything about its effectiveness
“human produced co2 is an even tinier fraction”
Compared to.. what? I guess I know what you mean, because Ive seen it used by other anti-AGW’ers (but then, I also just use facts/arguments I see somewhere else)
I’m guessing by this you compare the human co2 emissions to -the much larger – emissions of the oceans and the biosphere, am I right?
Well then let me waste no time in stating my riposte: Those who use this argument neglect the fact that the huge numbers co2 coming from non-human sources, are also taken up by these same sources. The grand scheme that is called the carbon cycle.
- And finally, the comparising of a hole in the head and the supposedly needless action on GCC is a bit .. ehm.. Well it doesnt work for me.
-In this same post you said:
“Wait until it’s necessary, what a profound idea!”
Then this video is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
I’m curious how you went over to the dark-side. What videos did you watch that made you go over?
September 16, 09 at 2:18 pm
I first read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”, which I thought was full of bunk because it was skeptical of global warming… And everyone knows global warming is real, right?
So I started reading up for myself. My findings which led me to join the Empire are summarized here: http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/
As for the effectiveness of that tiny amount of CO2, see page 13 of thie PDF here or the first graph here.
Basically, the wavelength of radiation carbon dioxide has been shown to absorb is actually so narrow, it is already mostly absorbed by other gases such as water vapor. Once carbon dioxide and other gases absorb this radiation, then adding more carbon dioxide does not have any effect – the radiation is already being absorbed in full.
(To visualize this, imagine a flashlight beam being blocked by pieces of black paper. Once there is are enough pieces of black paper to block the beam totally, adding more pieces does nothing. All the light is already being absorbed.)
September 17, 09 at 4:43 am
Well first, thanks for your explanation. And admitting that you are indeed on the dark side. But I believe there’s still some good in you.
I don’t feel for going into discussing the site globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com as I thinks it’s a bit messy, fuzzy and hangs too much on the flaws in Al Gore’s movie, but thanks for pointing me to that site.
This wavelength thingy is indeed interesting, as I had’nt heard of that one before. But then I’m kind of new in this whole debating. I’ve only just realized there’s so much skeptism! I enjoy discussing it all the same, cause you can only learn from it.
Anyway, I’ve been looking around to make your statement out to be totally wrong and commie/liberal/extremist-ism-ish .. Well, none of the latter, but I’ve found the following:
“we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation” http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html
It’s not so much the incoming sunlight that’s being held up, it’s the infra-red-radiation(heat) reflected from the surface that gets captured by the GHG’s. CO2 is a very important one, apparently because of its infrared capturing capabilities and because of it’s abundance.
And I think we’re happy that the radiation isn’t being absorbed in full. Cause else we couldnt take purty infrared pictures from space.
Oh and we’d have a constant sauna here on earth.. but thatd be fine with me.
September 17, 09 at 6:02 pm
Oh… Well, thanks for the comments on the site, ‘cos it’s actually my own collection of quick facts on global warming. Just ignore the Goracle if you will, and focus on the record low temperatures and unmelted polar ice under the WORLDWIDE WEATHER heading. Where is the sweltering record heat and vanished polar ice we’ve been promised if global warming really is caused by CO2 emissions (which are increasing yearly)?
You’re right on the CO2 absorbing infrared rays reflected from the earth – that’s why they’re called ‘greenhouse’ gases, because they trap heat inside the earth like greenhouse glass or a blanket. And as I mentioned, CO2 absorbs just a small area of this infrared rays – in fact, most of the area absorbed by CO2 overlaps with the area absorbed by water vapor (which is why cloudless desert is so cold at night), meaning that even with 0% CO2 in the atmosphere there would be little change to the greenhouse effect.
My dark side reference comes from Star Wars fanboys http://mypetjawa.mu.nu, which quite idolizes the Empire and the Sith.
In seriousness however, I sincerely believe I am on the ‘good’ side. It’s not like us skeptics hate the planet or are paid by big oil companies. We are skeptics because that is what we think the facts show. (And environmentalists have turned out to be the bigger polluters, by the way!)
The reason globalwarmingisunfactual focuses on Gore a lot is because he is the most visible and outspoken proponent of global warming theory. But as I point out, he is chock full of hypocrisy with his huge energy use and CO2 emissions (while telling us to reduce ours), outright fibs in An Inconvenient Truth (as judged by the British High Court), and massive profiteering from the same carbon credits he tells us we must buy to save the planet (hundreds of millions of dollars worth). So if the head cheerleader for belief in global warming is a hypocrite, liar, wastrel and greedy, who is actually on the ‘dark’ side here?
And the Democrat lawmakers who drafted, signed and defend the climate change bill that will reduce CO2 emissions in order to fight global warming – as the videos I posted show, they don’t even know what is in the important, multi-trillion dollar leglislation. Lazy, irresponsible and negligent – are these attributes of ‘good guys’?
Meanwhile, other global warming believers include NASA researchers like James Hansen who have been proven to skew their data intentionally, the UNCCC which rejects any work that comes to conclusions not supportive of global warming theory, and the American EPA which squashed latest data that undermined its dire predictions of runaway global warming. More dishonesty – are they on the ‘light’ side?
And on a more general basis, most global warming skeptics are found on the Conservative side – the same folks who have been pointing out Van Jones’ dishonest cover up of his past affiliations, Nancy Pelosi’s lying that the CIA did not brief her on ‘torture’, ACORN’s lies and lawbreaking, Obama’s ties to ACORN, Obama’s tax cheat nominees, Obama’s relation to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers… While the Liberal side continually denied that such things existed until they were finally forced to concede the point.
In short, I believe that at least the Conservative bloggers I follow hold truth to be higher than agenda, while their opponents seem to take the opposite stance. And they are skeptics of global warming. Make your conclusion from there.
September 18, 09 at 12:43 am
i think that its all a lie, i do believe in global warming but at the same time i dont, thank you for having this so i can submit all the information i know.
September 21, 09 at 6:51 am
this film “inconvenient truth”from AlGore is in fact sponsored by the propaganda arm of the U.N. panel on climate change has as its cornerstone the putting forth what is known as the hegelian-dialectic -reaction solution saying that the emission of carbon dioxide is man made WE are the problem since we are producing too much carbon dioxide and we should all welcome a globalcarbon tax and join together to worship the earth and become one upon on it and welcome the coming “man of peace” who is revealed in the scriptures to be the man of sin who is Antichrist remember if you will that the the U.N. are the ones who support population control and uphold abortion and eugenic policies and has an underlying totalitarian agenda the trilateral push for global governance and to desire to control the citizens of the world listen and hear Jesus is the Christ the messiah and the Saviour of the world he alone died for our sins and rose again and offers us eternal life and the forgiveness of sins and to be with him in heaven and with the Father in heaven and we will not suffer eternal separation REVELATION KING JAMES VERSION
September 22, 09 at 8:54 am
The road toward world government is being planned by powers that be draconian policies-UN style fascism eventually to be imposed upon the citizens of the world an integrated global carbon tax -based upon the premise that”we are the problem”since we created it as told to us by the agents of disinformation.It is for this very reason the NWO orwellian centralizaton of power is not truly understood even recognized by the who want to give their acquiesence to since that is this illusion of united power will cost us freedom and our very soul because behind it-is the spirit of antichrist anyone bringing the world together will want to be worshipped but only God is worthy of worship and hear this if you will that the Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God the Almighty only he can save you and ransom you from sin and satans godless power by the blood of the cross therefore DO NOT SELL YOURSELF SHORT BY TAKING THE MARK -it is not yet implemented but it will come and to take it is to damn your soul Forever….receive Christ and his Spirit will indwell you and endure to the end do not be deceived the mark of the beast will cut you off from Gods mercy
September 22, 09 at 9:13 am
The road toward world government is being planned by powers that be draconian policies-UN style fascism eventually to be imposed upon the citizens of the world even an integrated global carbon tax -based upon the premise that”we are the problem”since we created it as told to us by the agents of disinformation.It is for this very reason the NWO orwellian centralizaton of power is not truly understood even recognized by the who want to give their acquiesence to since that is this illusion of a united world is deception and can and will cost you your freedom and your very soul because behind it-is the spirit of antichrist anyone bringing the world together will want to be worshipped as God but yet is false and the Antichrist but only the LORD being a holy God is worthy of worship and praise and honour and hear this if you will that the Jesus Christ is God the Son the Son of the living God the Almighty and only he can save you and ransom you from sin death and satans godless power by the blood of the cross that he shed for you therefore DO NOT SELL YOURSELF SHORT BY TAKING THE MARK -it is not yet implemented but it will come and to take it on your hand or forehead is to damn your soul Forever…. you must receive Christ and his Spirit he will indwell you and endure to the end do not be deceived the mark of the beast will cut you off from Gods mercy this forementioned movie is orwellian progaganda perpetuated and is itself THE problem and is masterfully cunning do not be deceived by it….
November 2, 09 at 6:52 am
As a Member of the science community, I must say I am very entertained by all of this — As with all statical information I see both sides of this argument have skewed the information to make their point. Unfortunately, guys, the scientific data shows that there is an unprecedented rise in global temperature – never before in the history of this planet has such a large increase of global climate change been evidenced. In the future, make sure you know something about CO2 before you make claims that make all of your comments seem ridiculous.
November 2, 09 at 8:20 am
Haha, here is another person, claiming superior knowledge simply because of her status as a Member of the science community. How condescending! Suzanne, scientists are no longer taken at face value. You may say what you say, so what? You say what SOME scientists say but OTHER scientists say the opposite. Or are you ignorant of those OTHER scientists? Go back into your ivory tower and remain there, and don’t even poke your long condescending nose out of the window to look down at us….bye.
November 2, 09 at 1:20 pm
What, you mean like the no rise in temperature in the past 11 years as the BBC reports?
What happened to global warming? – This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
And hey… I am certified Scientist myself!
November 3, 09 at 5:01 am
Okay, so before hand, you seem to have a lot of counter arguements to back up all my previous claims (and yes, it’s me again) Of which, I could argue back a million more, and this could go on and on, just me and you, just like it could with me and a hundred others, and with you and a hundred others.
Here’s a thought that has been repeated by lots of people.
Who cares if it is all wrong?
Treat Global Warming as a metaphor if you don’t beleive it, because from all the things causing potential global warming we’re losing out. Undoubtedly we are:
1. Destroying the rainforests due to farming crops for leather and meat etc.
[Do we want to destroy thousands of species' habitats and be left with nothing but infertile fields?] (even without the carbon emmisions it’s a bad thing to happen if we haven’t any rainforest left)
2. Overfishing and making marine species endangered. [Only 0.6% of the oceans are marine reserves. Almost all the rest is free to fishing, and we are, again losing out] (No marine food supply, and 70% of the world dead)
3. We have, among dispute, sent people into war for oil and fossil fuels. [for a reason we could avoid with solutions like the fuel cell technology from honda, and wind, hydro, solar etc; if we tried hard enough to achieve it] ( How many casualties from the Fossil Fuel Industry? How many more until we use every drop up (even if it’s in a hundred more years))
We are faced with problems that could be solved if we solve climate change. If it isn’t real or serious, we are only creating a better world. Forget whether or not people have lied to get us there. Because in the end we have nothing to lose by reducing the effect of a potential threat.
There will be consequences in some form, even iff in a hundred years, even if it’s some kind of revolt or the loss in species due to the industrial trade from developing countries to us, the consumers in europe, america and britain.
November 3, 09 at 12:20 pm
Not only do I have a lot of counter arguments, I also have long ago anticipated your current line of reasoning with a metaphor of my own: Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head.
Basically, I argue that yes – efforts to negate global warming could have potentially beneficial effects on other environmental issues, but these issues would be far better addressed directly instead of merely receiving the run-off from anti-carbon schemes.
At best, combating global warming will have marginal effects on the environment for massive amounts of money, most of which would be wasted. How does pumping CO2 into undersea caverns or shooting sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight help the environment in any non-gloabl warming related way?
At worst, the narrow focus on CO2-removal distracts from more pressing issues like the real, visible, choking air pollution in China that nobody seems to care about because smog isn’t CO2.
Observe as I illustrate the above using your own points:
Here’s an excellent example of how a focus on carbon-neutralness is achieving the exact opposite of what you claim it could:
Global Warming Moonbats Sacrifice Orangutans to Gaia – The Orang-utans of Borneo are facing an unprecedented threat as their habitat is destroyed to satisfy increasing global demands for bio-fuel.
In fact, it’s only after the massive surge of biofuel-plantings was underway that global warming campaigners realized that peat bogs cleared for planting release tons of CO2!
Lose-lose scenario?
I fail to see the connection between global warming and overfishing. At best, I could link rising ocean temperatures with coral bleaching, except that there has been no warming in 11 years.
If you want to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil (which btw saved 750,000 Iraqi lives to date), then I could argue it is the Democrats’ fault – they have been blocking oil and gas exploration, drilling and development for American-owned oil around the US coasts, Alaska, Utah, you name it!
And lest anyone claim that they’re doing it to discourage fossil fuel use and protect the environment, they are at the same time letting China drill for American oil off Floria and funding oil drilling in Brazil. (I thought the US was in recession and owes 1.5 trillion in debt? Still so much money to throw around?)
In conclusion, we have a lot to lose by focusing on CO2 and global warming – even if it is real, and especially if it is not. But points to you for trying this line of reasoning – it’s what us religious folk sometimes use to persuade atheists that they have nothing to lose by signing up for afterlife-insurance with Jesus!
I am all for protecting the environment, preserving biodiversity, and yes – even weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (for various reasons).
But I am also for sound economic growth, betterment of human living standards, and sensible policies based on hard, politics-free science.
November 9, 09 at 1:31 am
Okay, I’ll clear that up a bit:
You said: In fact, it’s only after the massive surge of biofuel-plantings was underway that global warming campaigners realized that peat bogs cleared for planting release tons of CO2!
Lose-lose scenario?
I say: Isn’t it also things like poverty (eased by selling of wood) and farming for crops that cause us to pull down trees? Biofuels are no where near in as big a market as fast food, leather and palm oil cosmetics. So don’t try saying that was the biofuel manufacturer’s fault completely, there are other things, anyway.
Also, biofuels are a desperate, dangerous and quite frankly ridiculous argument. I am against biofuels completely. But have you researched fuel cell vehicles? needs no fuel besides hydrogen, no emissions besides h20. No catches either. The only problem is that we can’t store it well yet…Yup, no catches besides the lack of technology – but we will probably find a way, not like we haven’t progressed in that area recently.
Biofuels on the other hand are very frustrating and a total waste of money, as are electric cars at the moment because of the lack of renewables that power the national grid – making them completely pointless. I’m pretty sure that most Climate change organizations are against biofuels too, most people have given up because there are more ethical options, and mainly because far better options. Jeez, I mean, whoever works out an easy way to store hydrogen as a gas is gonna be a millionaire.
You said: I fail to see the connection between global warming and overfishing. At best, I could link rising ocean temperatures with coral bleaching, except that there has been no warming in 11 years.
I say: The loss of fish has a direct effect on CO2. The first link is that fish droppings help absorb CO2 – proven by a paper submitted in January. The second is that overfishing now without recovery, means that later the one billion people who rely on fish for their main food source will be starving, (won’t be a good mix with things like the drought and flood sure to come our way… or in your opinion, not I suppose) And the fish industry could even become a victim if the oceans turn acidic as recent, okay, admittedly unsure predictions show. I wouldn’t chance it though, look it up, it’s quite convincing.
You said: If you want to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil (which btw saved 750,000 Iraqi lives to date), then I could argue it is the Democrats’ fault – they have been blocking oil and gas exploration, drilling and development for American-owned oil around the US coasts, Alaska, Utah, you name it!
I say: Really mature of them then, to go start a war because “The stupid mean democrats stopped us dwilling in our countwy.” Call me stupid but I doubt that he saved 3/4 of a million iraqis. Just seems…Unlikely to me that war can do that. So was it the war against terror that made him invade? that’s a different argument, i know, but what evidence backs you up there besides political words, which I thought you were against using as evidence? Thanks, but I think I gain points for not needing politicians as a backup in my arguments too.
You say:pumping CO2 into undersea caverns or shooting sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight help the environment in any non-gloabl warming related way?
I say: Don’t need to do that to stop Global Warming. Those are just lazy inefficient solutions the rich, dishonest people who were getting pummeled by the activists thought up. One offs that everyone later realized wasn’t at all useful.
You also said: In conclusion, we have a lot to lose by focusing on CO2 and global warming – even if it is real, and especially if it is not. But points to you for trying this line of reasoning – it’s what us religious folk sometimes use to persuade atheists that they have nothing to lose by signing up for afterlife-insurance with Jesus!
I say: Well, you have a point. It just happens to escape the reason for which it belongs. Er, we do not have much to lose – apart from these super fun online debates. All the brand new technology that is foolproof will create new markets and jobs to replace old ones of similar profession to do with the ‘dirty’ kind of stuff that we are stopping. We are past the point where we replace poisonous problems with poisonous solutions. You can’t unite people who are only in it for money with real, informed climate activists as well, so don’t say we are using poisonous solutions.
In MY conclusion, you seem totally oblivious to the fact that there are groups of people who are protesting against climate change:
there are the people using it to promote their businesses, who you claim to basically be hypocrites, looking for the billion pound easy way out, that doesn’t really work.
There are the curious but ill informed, who make mistakes, and who should not be penalized for that, the ones who make claims you then take the mic out of, even though their heart is in the right place.
There are the scientists and people who listen to the facts without corruption.
There are also loads of other people. So don’t stereotype please!!
I’m not gonna bother writing anymore, since everyone says to me “some people just can’t be swayed” – You are, and I am one of those people. So I probably won’t be reading anymore debating. I’m quite literally exhausted, and I have school tomorrow.
November 9, 09 at 1:31 pm
Yes, it is, but the whole point of me citing biofuels is to rebutt your argument that a focus on stopping global warming would positively impact other environmental issues. In this case, the surge towards mandatory percentages of biofuels was triggered by fear of global warming and directly led to a worsening of the already bad deforestation problem. Do you disagree?
Totally agreed on this point. As I said before (and hope you noticed), I am all for progression away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. My own hoeps are on the Bussard Fusion Reactor aka Polywell, which is 100% clean, no-radiation fusion energy. The US Navy has recently pumped $2 million into the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
News to me!
I was being snarky. I don’t believe Bush invaded Iraq primarily for its oil, but I do believe the Democrats are being insensible on the matter of drilling for oil. It’s a Tragedy of the commons – if the USA doesn’t utilize its own resources, someone else will anyway. And if we’re talking China, they’re far less stringent on their pollution standards – just walk around Beijing and collapse from the choking smog.
I believe I linked to my calculations on the number or Iraqi lives saved. Here is is again: Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives. It is totally possible that Bush’ aggression prevented more deaths than it caused, as Saddam’s rule and the embargo under ‘peacetime’ were causing deaths at a far higher rate than today’s situation in Iraq (fyi, South Africa has a higher murder rate than Iraq now!).
Of course wars cause a loss of life. But one of the reasons wars are fought is also to prevent a greater loss of life. For example, if the US had retreated into itself instead of plunging into World War II and the Nazis and Japan had not been defeated, how many more millions would have died in their concentration camps and death railways? How many Cambodians would have survived the ‘peacetime’ massacres if some great power had intervened and overthrown Pol Pot at the beginning? How many of the other 100 million victims of Communism would be spared if there had been a non-nuclear war and the West had come out on top? (Just compare North and South Korea today.)
Wait… Dude, you were the one who brought up Bush and Iraq.
I contend. The current state of ‘new technology’ has not yet reached the point where jobs and production will not be lost from an artificial mandate barring ‘old technology’. At present, a forced switch to ‘green’ energy use and production would cause a massive hike in energy bills, undersupply of electricity and losses of far more jobs than would be gained. Solar and wind simply isn’t at the stage where they provide sufficient power for their highly subsidized cost yet.
As I said before, I look forward to the day that fossil fuels are phased out. But that day just isn’t here yet, and panicking governments into kicking them out prematurely stands to lose a lot.
Well, we coudl start by weeding out the climate activists who are only in it for a quick buck or ulterior motives and the scientists who will deliver any result their grant givers want.
And similarly, there are plenty people who do not believe in climate change based solely on factual data. We are offended by suggestions that we are all on the dime of big oil, or are religious nutters who think science is for heretics.
For the record, it is possible to change my mind if the argument and facts are convincing enough. Two examples I can cite offhand: I believed in evolution, then disbelieved, and now am open to belief again due to the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and birds cited by a commentor. I argued that theists have absolute morals while atheists do not, but was swayed by a commentor who made me see that both types rely on relativistic interpretation.
Debating is exhausting, yes – think about how much effort I put into properly replying to the commentors on three or four separate threads daily!
But there is no rush to do so – my blog has no time limit. And so if you ever wish to pick up the discussion again, please feel free to do so!
November 17, 09 at 8:04 am
Wow, you guys have been arguing for 2 years, that’s kinda funny. I’m just going to say that there is hard scientific evidence that says that we only give off 250 parts per 10,000 of CO2 every 250 years, which is equal to a volcanic cough, and global temperature has always gone up and down, infact, during midevil times, there was a warming period much higher than what we’re seeing today, with only 0.8C increase of average world wide temperature.
November 17, 09 at 8:09 am
And as for wars, Communism always turns into dictatorships because the government gets power hungry, and they kill people, the Vietnamese used toddlers to bomb our soldiers, and if we hadn’t intervened in WW2 Hitler would’ve eventually been able to us the V-22 rockets to take over the world, and there would be billions of lives lost and i can almost guarantee you the population of the world would only be about a billion, if that, compared to 6.8 billion.
November 17, 09 at 10:59 am
It’s my hobby to attract and respond to commentors… Especially if it means debating/arguing with/mocking trolls! Try it sometime.
November 22, 09 at 5:21 am
[...] employee whose claim to fame is the now discredited and fraudulent hockey stick that Al Gore in an Inconvenient Truth. In the leaked emails RC’s role is [...]
November 22, 09 at 7:11 pm
Good stuff. I enjoy your info cuz it’s based on factual empirical data, not lacking thereof. So, when I see someone write that they are not believing what you have posted cuz you don’t support it with factual data; I realize they are either blind or ignorant. The later being the most obvious answer cuz what you state flies into the face of what they trust to be true.
Today, it’s a sad state of affairs. It’s not just global warming but if you disagree w/ anything they say you are uneducated and not hip. When in fact, they are the ones not educated on the facts. Hypocrisy continues, it has for all of my life and that makes me sad.
In the end, we all love this planet and every effort must be made to decide the best course of action in helping Mother Earth. If that means rigorous debate then so be it.
November 22, 09 at 7:23 pm
Oh one more thing and this did surprise me. I’m astounded that you ever waivered on evolution. My monotheistic beliefs contribute to how I view life but c’mon, evolution? Has there ever been a theory more time tested and proven in man’s existence?
Great blog BTW
November 22, 09 at 7:46 pm
From my reading of Scott’s blog all this past year, my impression is that he makes a distinction between evolution as seen in the adaptation of species and the theory of evolution in which the simplest organism evolved into the most complex (Man). The first is science, and the second is philosophy. I think he accepts the first and rejects the second.
I agree with you, Robb. I think he’s doing a great job.
November 23, 09 at 2:16 pm
Hyperbole, surely. I have always thought that relativity and quantum physics are far ahead on the evidence scale. Unless anyone wants to argue that these are no longer just theories…
But if you want to argue that evolution is well tested and proven on its own, I can debate on that point.
November 24, 09 at 2:44 am
My my Scott
As a teacher of Environmental Science I can only emphasize what I do to my students. There are those people who help and contribute to protecting our fragile planet and those who delight in twisting scientific information in order to ingratiate themselves and maintain the status quo that is destroying what we have left to hand down to future generations. You obviously fall into the latter. Whether you have decided to accept the science or reject it, even you know that the ecological balance of our planet is out of whack and WE are the reason. Why don’t you focus your obvious talents on promoting protection for our planet instead of convincing people we’re just fine! Scientific facts or not (they can be manipulated by both sides by the way), how can looking after our world be a bad thing? Shame on you and your narrow minded view of the big picture. I’m afraid attitudes like yours are the reason our children will be left with nothing but the dregs we decide not to consume or destroy. Stop being part of the problem and help contribute to the solutions we so desperately need.
November 24, 09 at 9:19 am
The ecology is out of balance, the world is not fine, and we should do something about it. You, sir, a TEACHER of Environmental Science, prefer to accept the STATUS QUO, particularly Al Gore and the Global Warming elite, who pocket untold riches and contribute many times more to the pollution of our Earth than any of us! Shame on you! You are part of the problem. You are not helpful in contributing to the solutions we so desperately need when you swallow hook, line and sinker the ultra scare tactics of those who try to benefit from environmental protection.
November 24, 09 at 12:59 pm
Really, sir? You note that I oppose what I perceive to be inaccurate data about global warming, and jump to the conclusion that I am anti-environment? I thought you said you were a teacher, and likely have training in the scientific method. Don’t conflate global warming activism with general environmentalism.
I have no problem with facts and truths. Are the rainforests being cut down? Yes – and I oppose that. Ironically, the rate of deforestation increased greatly thanks to the biofuel mandates passed to reduce carbon emissions!
But is the planet actually heating up? The BBC reports that ‘For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures… even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.’
Arctic ice is at the same levels as 1979 – meaning there has been no net melting.
Antarctic ice is at the highest levels ever recorded since records began in 1979.
NASA reports that the oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Even climate researchers who support global warming theory themselves privately admit that there is no warming – and discuss how they can hide that fact when they release their results.
Wait, what was that you mentioned about ‘twisting scientific information in order to ingratiate themselves and maintain the status quo’? I gues you must have been talking about the known liars of the global warming hysteria bunch, right? You tell me when was the last time global warming skeptics were exposed as fudging their hard data to win their case. I have a long list for the other side all prepared.
So do tell, what irrefutable data and evidence do you base your Environmental Science lessons on global warming on?
If there is no evidence that the planet really is warming, and that CO2 is causing it, then wouldn’t it be unfactual to teach students that? It would be comparable to teaching geocentrism… Or hey, Young Earth Creationism!
As I said earlier, don’t conflate global warming activism with general environmentalism – if carbon dioxide doesn’t actually have any ill effects, then what the heck are we doing focusing all our time and money on it? Copenhagen after endless Kyoto, for what? While forests burn and children die of thirst.
I am using my ‘obvious talents’ to try and show people that global warming is a red herring, a massive distraction from real environmental issues.
You may argue that global warming suppression efforts will cause an overall improvement in the the environment. But I argue that REAL environmental efforts would benefit far more from a properly focused effort. After all, how does pumping CO2 into giant undersea caverns or launching sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight achieve anything apart from ‘fighting global warming’?
Do tell, how do Al Gore, UN delegates and various A-List celebrities protect our environment by flying on their private jets and 20-limo motorcades to give speeches on how we must all reduce our consumption and carbon footprint.
I can honestly say that I have far less of an impact on the environment than any of them with my moderate house and modest consumption of processed goods.
Hey, you know what? I drive a 1.3 litre engine car running on 95 octane unleaded gasoline. What do you drive? I eat mostly vegetables and rice. How many steaks and burgers for you? My water is heated by tropical solar energy. Will you be bathing using electrically heated water this winter?
Do I have a smaller carbon footprint than you, I wonder? Maybe it’s my turn to be holier than thou?
November 24, 09 at 5:27 pm
Hey Scott, Again good stuff and I enjoy your rants LOL. I’m just one of many with opinions, no better no worse but hopefully always learning.
Evidence of evolution – mere hyperbole??? Surely you jest? To me many confuse fact (the evolutionary process), w/ theory (how it works). Evidence in the fossil, microbiological, and animal worlds tell us life forms evolve (fact), but the specific mechanics (theory) of that law are unproven.
By no means am I an expert of anything, the topic just fascinates me.
I dig your blogs, they’re well done and informative to boot man.
Thanx Robb
November 25, 09 at 3:03 pm
PS. Thank you, you have inspired a new post!
December 2, 09 at 2:50 am
Not saying I agree or disagree that some “lies” exist (ie, that some of the 35 are true), but I see a lot of so called facts that are based only on solid current numbers and not on statistics and trends (based off of those solid numbers of a period of time). I started to write this with the intent of pointing out a few things that were specifically ridiculous about Thong’s article, but after looking at some of his other petty posts I see that he just hates Gore. Facts written under a bias intent don’t usually end up being facts. Enjoy you’re hate-mongering.
December 2, 09 at 10:43 am
I usually vote Democrat and while I do not consider myself liberal conservatism is not my thing. That being said after a little research any one can find out for themselves that at best these scientists that purport that global warming is attributable to human activities really don’t know what is happening. The data is anything supports that the world is simply marching on despite how much we beat on it. Hurricanes aren’t stronger, tornadoes aren’t more devastating, oceans aren’t rising. Where is the evidence? Columbus had to prove the world was round right? Why should we allow Al Gore to dictate that something he can’t even explain? Let’s use our heads. This may be happening but look into instead of believing blindly. What is funny is that you have these liberals that usually never take anything on faith. They require proof of everything. Yet these are the people that choose to trust AL Gore blindly. It’s wild.
December 2, 09 at 10:44 am
excuse my terrible grammar. i was on a roll. thanks! haha
December 2, 09 at 12:29 pm
Gary… Totally true, the High Priest of Carbon Emitting Hypocrisy is one of my favourite targets. But does that mean that anything I say about him and his claims are automatically untrue?
And it’s not really my article, per se – as I state, it is merely a rehashing of what the SPPI published.
December 3, 09 at 4:23 am
[...] http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenie... [...]