I posted the transcript, and it doesn't seem to read like that, to me. It depends on a particular reading of an essentially, in context, cryptic reference. Sort of like you depend on my taking your reference to islands "sinking" as actually referring to the ocean rising, and my overlooking your small but significant change of "had to evacuate" to people "being evacuated". Nor did I get that impression, when I saw the film - hence my surprise, and rechecking. I can see your interpretation, and the judge's objection, but I don't read it like that, I didn't hear it like that on viewing the movie, and I flatly contradict that it is a clear factual error. It's factual nature depends on what he was referring to, and that is not clear. What is clear is that Gore's assertion - that the ocean rise brought on by melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is a real concern - is valid. Yes? Here is the judge's ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html Note that in addition to finding Al Gore "charismatic" (a first, I believe), the judge objected to those nine specific things not on their inaccuracy, but on the misleading nature (in his view) of their presentation or statement in the film. For example, the judge included in the nine "errors" Gore's assertion that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels several meters, not because that is in fact erroneous, but because its presentation in the film seemed to imply (without actually stating) that such a complete melting and large rise could happen in the near future.
A change of tense is not significant, and it's still an event that has not happened. And if you're seeking to imply deliberate deception on my part, I reccomend that you withdraw that. I laughed out loud in the theater at that point in the film because I knew for a fact that it had not, or was not happening. What he was referring to is irrelevant, there has been no evacutaion of Pacific Islanders to New Zealand. I'm familiar with the judges ruling, otherwise I wouldn't be referring to it, nor would I by copying and pasting potions of it. To quote wikipedia "A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain wether or not it actually is true". By that definition, Al Gore's statement is a lie, and the movie is therefore factually inaccurate. Even your own source that you cited here states that it is something that could happen, not that it was something that had happened, or was currently happening - which is clearly what is implied in Al Gores statement. Correct. In his movie Al Gore stated or implied that it was something that could happen in a matter of weeks, where as Justice Burton is of the opinion that the scientific consensus is that it could or would take millenia. The simple fact of the matter is that in his movie, he presents it as something that has actually happened, it's quite clear from what he says: Had. Past tense. Something that has already happened. Something that he has presented as a fact as having already happened, that quite simply has not yet happened. What makes it even worse, in my opinion, is that a spokesmane for Al Gore has been quoted as saying "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up." Now I know for a fact that this is untrue of at least this specific point, and you yourself have conceded that he used the frog parable, something else which has been proven as being false. So that's two 'facts' in his movie that he doesn't have the studies to back up.
The change is significant in implication - from a more or less voluntary, non-refugee and individual departure to a disaster response of some scale. The difference between the people in New Orleans "evacuating" prior to Katrina, and "being evacuated". And I am specifically referring to the lack of deception or factual error on your part - likewise Gore's. But some Pacific Islanders have left low places, and some of them have ended up in New Zealand. You are apparently taking the implications of your rewrite - "being evacuated" - to heart. He did not state it. The implication of the presentation is of course a matter of interpretation - not to be confused with a matter of fact. By that logic, your claim that Gore was referring to thousands of islanders being evacuated to New Zealand is a lie, and you are a liar. And quite possibly you are referring to a completely accurate and factually impeccable movie as factually inaccurate because it deals with matters you think are uncertain. A specific point you have quite possibly misinterpreted, and thus have no such certainty about. Which makes you again, by the logic you apply to Gore above, a fabricator. This is not good logic for you.
Being evacuated simply implies they have had external assitance. No, I'm not. It was Al Gore that insisted that they had to evacuate to New Zealand, not me. And to the best of my knowledge, the Pacific islanders that go to NZ do so because of the economic and financial opportunities. He quite clearly, by your own citation of his script, stated it. If I was more awale, I could probably demonstrate a substantial difference between the two statements (for example, the population of people in the pacific islands is quite easily in thousands, and I could probably also demonstrate that typically - at least where I'm from, when people talk about pacific islanders, and pacific island nations, they're referring to polynesians, and PNG is not part of Polynesia). No. There is no uncertainty in my mind, and I should know, I live in New Zealand. Yes, I'm a New Zealander, and I am telling you, there has been at no point an evacuation of pacific islanders to new zealand because of global warming. I have not misinterpreted it, I am also not the only person that has interpreted it this way. Or are you calling Justice Burton a Liar? Because clearly Justice Burton has interpreted his statement the same way I have, and I have linked to another article where a lecturer at a univeristy IN NEW ZEALAND also interprets it the same way, clearly Mr Dimmock, and his expert witness also interpreted it the same way, which from where I'm sitting, places me in a majority.
Which may be why Gore used other terminology - so as not to imply that. Once again an extra implication slips in - they did not have to evacuate to New Zealand. Clearly this is a slippery statement of Gore's, inviting multiple interpretations. No, he didn't. So you are completely certain that of the many islanders who have evacuated due to the effects of rising sea levels, none went to New Zealand. Living in NZ is no guarantee of accurate interpretation of cryptic quotes from movies. I am not the only person who has interpreted it differently. And you are the one labeling that kind of assertion a lie, not me. I'm wondering why nobody seems to have asked Gore himself what he meant. I'm not wondering why such extraneous battles over matters more or less irrelevant to Gore's thesis dominate the popular discussion, though.
Seems that we may be on the same track, from what I am reading, the Milankovitch Cycles, do affect warming and cooling, and that we are some where in the middle of the cycle headed into the aphelion of the cycle. The length of the cycles make the effect on the weather minimal, but it does have a effect, and to what extent that is hasn't been demonstrated. So, a very interesting subject, that warrants more research, and that should be fun. Now as to the current drum beat for anthropogenic climate change, we are in the same boat, not enough valid observation to make any solid claim, or really know if anything we are doing today can affect the temperature at all. Right now my vote goes to the Sun Spot Cycles as the major driver of warming and cooling cycle, as we are in the most concentric orbit phase of the Milankovitch Cycles. Since 2000 the sun spot has dropped to almost zero activity, and along with that, the Temperatures, and I would add to that the CO2 as a damper to the warming. That seems to be born out by other information, that show CO2 follow the warming and do not precede that Warming. We may see more warming, but even now we haven't seen anything near the the warmest temperature, nor will we see the coldest temperature, that have been generated on our planet, and what we can do to affect that, for good or ill, is very questionable.
No. Gore clearly stated that the pacifc island peoples in question were evacuated to New Zealand. It's in your own quote from the movie. Quite clearly there's not as much wiggle room as you would have us believe. Quite clearly he stated that at some point in the past Pacific Islanders had had to evacuate to New Zealand as a result of rising sea levels. Quite clearly this has not happened. So now you've resorted to lying about what I have said? I am almost completely certain of this, yes. Over here such an event would have made national news, our green party would have ensured it, they simply wouldn't be able to resist cramming something like this down everyones throats. Apparently Justice Burton was convinced beyond reasonable doubt as well. Simply the evacuation due to rising sea levels would have been played out dramatically as well. That's twice in the same post you've lied about something that I've said. What you've said is accurate, but in the context of my post, it's not what I was saying now was it? What I was saying was that as a Resident of New Zealand, and soemone who follows the national news on a (more than) daily basis. I can gaurantee that nothing like this has happened involving New Zealand. It meets the definition. Did you ignore the part where I quoted part of Al Gores Spokesmans response to the judgement? Or are you assuming that Al Gore didn't read the judgement for himself before authorizing his spokesman to make a statement? I stated I found the movie to be factually inaccurate. You asked me why. I cited this as a single specific example, made it clear that it was such, and pointed out that this specific objection had been upheld in a court of law.
Correct. I disagree that the length of the cycles makes the effects minimal, mainly because the signals have been quite clearly detected in all the proxies. I still haven't made my stance on Anthropogenic climate change clear. You can assume that because of the discussion that I've been having with iceaura that I'm against the idea (as I sometimes think that iceaura seems to be assuming) however, all that really proves is that I'm capable of keeping my subjective opinions and my objective observations well seperated. There's several problems with this idea, including the fact that the '60s should have been hotter than the '30s, but I'll try and rustle up some more details when I have more time. As it does every 11 years. Not to put too finer point on it, but inspite of the sensasionalistic media you might have heard or seen to the contrary, this solar minimum has not been significantly quieter than the last one This isn't neccessarily relevant, all this neccessarily proves is that the \(CO_2\) may not have been the initial trigger. Think of it this way: Initial Trigger (lets say Methane release from methane Clatherates) -> Increased Temperature -> Increased \(CO_2\) -> Exaggerated increase in temperature... And so a positive feedback cycle occurs as the \(CO_2\) levels rise until they reach some limiting factor, and they exaggerate the rise of the temperature. In this scenario, \(CO_2\) still fulfills its role as a greenhouse gas creating warming AND it lags the rising temperatures. Agreed for the most part (I think).
Let me make it explicitly clear. I have no intention of deliberately clarifying my stance on Anthropogenic climate change and global warming. My personal opinion of an 'article' is irrelevant to my ability to critically review it.
I refer you to the quote in context, a side reference with significantly different wording and possible implications. No. Relevance? You are insisting on your interpretation of the statement as incontrovertible - I repeat: I didn't take it that way even when viewing the movie, neither did a lot of other people, it is even less clear from the transcript, and unless you can produce reasons why my take and that of many others was not what Gore meant, we are not dealing with a matter of fact. It is not clear that what Gore referred to has not happened. It is clear that what you insist Gore referred to has not happened, but your insistence is becoming less, not more, persuasive as this argument progresses. But the court ruling did not uphold the factual inaccuracy claim; it upheld a misleading presentation claim. It included your example among eight others, none of which are factual inaccuracies present in the film - such as the other one you mentioned, the 7 meter rise in sea level from the melting land ice, a perfectly accurate claim the judge found to be over-dramatically presented, and possibly misleading thereby. ? I am now officially lost. WTF are you talking about? Are you demanding that I accept your interpretation of Gore's movie speech as accurate, your detection of implications as incontrovertible, or else I am accusing you of lying? I think you are wrong about what Gore said. And I linked and quoted the transcript, so you can read it and see for yourself why I think you are wrong about what Gore said. It's simple enough - line up his quoted speech, line up your claims, note the differences in wording and implication. Suit yourself. I'm on record as not claiming that, right? Specifically, the fact that this is bullshit: does not make you liar, in my estimation. It means you are reading things into the movie that other people aren't. My only insistence is that you recognize the necessity of interpretation in assigning any such meaning to the actual transcript.
In the context you provided, he is clearly saying that people have evacuated from Pacific Islands to New Zealand as a direct result of the melting of the Antarctic ice caps. An event which, as a resident of one of the countries directly affected by this alleged event, I am telling you HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Clearly I am dealing with the same definition as Justice Burton, which is the most direct possible interpretation while retaining the context of the sentence. Go back and reread your own source. He explicitly stated "That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand." Do I need to work through the sentence word by word with you, using dictionary definitions (which is what the legal system requires when no other precendent or definition is present anyway). HAD ALL HAD TO. He is clearly referring to something that has allready happened. The event, the only event he could be referring to in that sentence is the evacuation of "The citizens of... ...pacific nations... ... to New Zealand" His words, not mine. He is clearly referring to an event that he is telling us has already happened, that even, however, has not happened. The claim that something has happened, when it clearly has not is not just misleading, it is factually inaccurate. They also said (or implied, I don't have the decision at my finger tips just now) that it was misleading, at least in part because of the inaccuracies (including at least one instance where he goes against the mainstream as represented by the IPCC). One part a miscommunication, I apologize. The other part - I have never claimed that living in one of the countries mentioned by Al Gore offered me any insites into what Al Gore had to say, only the (alleged) events he is referring to. And I have quoted your own source when referring to Al Gores comments regarding "why the citizens of these pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand." And I have pointed out to you several times (well okay, more than once) that this is what I am referring to, and that I'm quoting it from your own source, and yet you seem to consistently ignore this fact. Oh Boo-hoo. So I incorrectly remembered the exact phrasing of a sentence, that you claim was made as an aside, in a movie I saw more or less two years ago. In that two years I've been in two serious car accidents. Nearly lost my wife to HELP syndrome. Had a daughter that was nearly two months early delivered, that was closer to the average weight of a baby three months prem. Had to quite a job because I was unable to disprove allegations of assault (allegations that were, none the less, false), and a job that had made me clinically depressed for at least 6 months to a year. So I'm sorry if I couldn't remember word for fricking word a 15 word quote from a movie I watched, that I personally found to be inaccurate (if it contains inaccuracies, it can still be inaccurate, even if it is overall correct, it just means it's not correct about everything - less than 100% accurate is still inaccurate) un impressive, and politically, rather than scientifically motivated (even though it claimed to be a scientific presentation). (actually, on second thoughts i'm not sorry).
You might recognize that there are other ways of taking that little aside, ways that do not involve your inaccurate (in my view) assumption of reference to thousands of people being evacuated to New Zealand and making big news and so forth. Your confidence in your "finding" of inaccuracy seems to involve specific mental rewritings and rephrasings, indicating possibly mistaken interpretation and misunderstanding of Gore's actual words, in this and apparently at least one or two other places in the movie. You found it to be inaccurate by finding it to be different than, in my view and that of many others, it is. These are matters of interpretation and assumption, not fact. But the original question of mine was always tangential, a matter of curiosity given the role of Gore's movie in all of this, and is now answered.
Brilliant. Just bloody brilliant. I explicitly state for what must be the fourth or fifth time that, since you corrected me, I have been referring to your direct quote of Al Gores words, from your own source, and your still harping on about my original comment? Absolutely wonderful. Good on you, way to go debating skills. The point still stands that my interpretation that I have referred back to your original quote is the most direct one possible, and it has been the one that has been upheld in a court of law, and at least one other source that I have been able to provide, meanwhile, you keep saying that we were somehow magically meant to infer from his statement that what he actually meant was that these pacific island citizens have been evacuating from their home towns to the nearest 'big smoke' and then sometime later deciding "Oi, the climates crap here, this global warming thing is really getting up my nose, think I'll move to New Zealand". For some reason you seem to think that the media here wouldn't pick up on the fact that the people of Fiji or Samoa are evacutaing their coastal hamlets in favour of Suva or Apia because of rising sea levels and global warming? You do understand that you're talking to a resident of the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to say no to America and get away with it? The country who's politicians mocked French and American politicians with comments like "Could you hold your breath for a minute please, I can smell the Uranium on it from here"? A country that prides itself on its stance on Environmental Issues? I can absolutely PROMISE you that there is NO WAY it is possible for something even remotely resembling this to have happened without it having been all over the media. No matter which you cut it, Gore's statement is still plan old wrong.
No, I think such an event would be big news. I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened. Why do you ask? So? It matches neither my own take, nor that of many other people, nor other plausible readings of the actual transcript. I do not see how a court of law ruling on possibly misleading aspects of the movie is any justification for rejecting a non-misled reading, eh? And besides, it's very far to the side of Gore's argument in the movie. Which is the pattern I've noticed, and was checking on, in the public debate overall: the global warming argument is deflected toward Gore's movie, and Gore's movie argument is handled by distraction.
Al Gore is so full of shit in that movie His eyes are brown. The data that He uses from James Hansen, was cooked, and the methodology of Data collection wasn't adjusted for location and forcing. NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record! Admin, Thursday 09 August 2007 - 20:06:13 // comment: 1 // // Font Size - Increase / Decrease / Reset In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug! Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record). A Bald Faced Lie
Because this is precisely the excuse you've been making for Gore and his group. I've already stated, several times now that your take is provably wrong. Because that represents two interpretations that say your wrong. Three if we include the news article I linked to. There is no distraction going on here. If you had genuinely read through Justice Burtons decision, you would realize that there is also at least one example of him going against the mainstream in order to push his political agenda. The ONLY person here who has tried to distract from anything is you.
Well I see no need for further repetition of that distraction. Although I don't see much left of Milankovitch Cycles after your sound postings on that topic, so maybe another distraction is in order?
That's it? That's the best you can manage? I make a claim, and provide an example. You correct the example and question it. I provide evidence that my interpretation (of the corrected) has been upheld in a court of law and has been held by multiple people. You come back with "Maybe he meant this or that". I demonstrate that "this or that" are neither reasonable nor direct interpretations: •The evacuation of the Carteret Islands to Bougainville because of Innundation has not, and can not exclusively be attributed to global warming, PNG is not part of NZ, and represents only one pacific nation. • Rongelap Atol was evacuated as a result of American atmospheric testing at Bikini Atol (including test Bravo), and also wasn't to NZ (see Operation Exodus but was something that New Zealand was heavily involved in. Nor are these reasonable events to interpret as "The citizens of pacific nations having had to evacuate to New Zealand" because of Global Warming. You then accuse me of distraction, but, no doubt, the casual reader will notice that you have failed to produce any news release or articles to support your contention that something similar enough to the evacuation of pacific island nations to New Zealand has actually happened. The closest you've managed is to provide a link to an article which says the Carteret Islands were evacuated because of global warming - even though the UN have stated that Dynamite fishing is at elast an equally probable cause.
