Al Gore's new book has been out for some time. Although he is not a scientist, he has managed to follow the scientific consensus rather well. Then again, according to Wikipedia, he might have a few weak points in his book. Still, the colorful photographs and vivid details are excellent. Props from me.
I thought the movie was pretty bad...He makes it seem like it's a 100000% fact that humans are causing it and never even acknowledges that there is some contradicting data.
Science is never proof; there is always contradicting data. The useful stuff is when you have 99.9% of the data in agreement, like we seem to have in this case. There is EVIDENCE that anti-bacterials work, there is EVIDENCE that fire makes things hot. Nothing can be proven, but both of those scientific theories hold up pretty well under scrutiny. What bugged me were two points specifically made in the movie: 1)that we got together to stop the ozone hole; this part of the movie is misleading, and suggests that the ozone hole is gone. In fact it has plateaued in growth, but has not yet gotten any smaller. Yes, we did good, yes, it is getting better, but even my Mom, who holds a PHD, "informed" me that the ozone hole was gone after she went to see the movie. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 2) That the annual fluxuation of CO2 levels is due to the Northern Hemisphere's summer/winter cycles, and the resulting drop in terrestrial photosynthesis. Given the massive volume of photosynthesis carried out by marine algae, archebacteria, etc; I find this hard to swallow. I may be wrong, I don't have any real data on this point.
I found few inaccuracies in the film (don't have the book, but I would assume it to be much like the film). I remember his comment about the ozone 'hole,' but I knew that it had stopped growing and reached a sort of balance which seems to correlate with the restrictions on CFCs. I didn't really notice that his comment could be construed to mean the hole got smaller and can see how that may be inferred this way by someone who didn't understand ozone depletion, which would seem a bit deceptive on Gore's part. One thing that is interesting to note, is that there will always be those that despise Gore because they have right-wing nutter alignments in their politics and simply make nonsensical and unsupported comments in opposition to Inconvenient Truth. These nutjobs will rarely offer reasons based on the science of the film that they find disagreeable. The three-post wonder, Hippikos above, is a good example of this. Such people aren't interested in the science involved, they simply don't like the politics and have already formed conclusions. Tell us, Hippikos, what, precisely did you find disagreeable with either the book or the film, Inconvenient Truth and why? My prediction: Hippikos will not respond and quietly disappear. My follow-up prediction: he'll click "quote" to reply with some remark he believes to be witty, just because I said he wouldn't. I wonder what that remark will be when he sees this hidden text and realizes he's that predictable.
Your predicition, as happens with many predictions, proved to be wrong. I do have a life outside SciForums you see.. I found, same like Micheal Moores productions, Al Bores movie: 1) suggestive 2) one sided 3) plain wrong 4) speculative 5) biased 6) out of proportion You didn't?
I haven't read the book, but the movie/documentary was first-rate and necessary. It's nice to see a politician pull his head out of the sand and do something in the interest of all humanity...like Jimmy Carter. Funny how Carter and Gore are both Democrats. Just a co-incidence I suppose.
Perhaps you should highlight all of my text in the post above to see the hidden text. What precisely did you find to be "plain wrong," "speculative" and "out of proportion?" And why? Or are you just feeding us more political bullshit rhetoric rather than actually doing some thinking of your own?
Do you want me to answer or not? Please make up your mind... for starters: plain wrong: Ward Hunt ice cracking 2002, where it has lost most of it's area already speculative: submerged coastlines out of proportion: disappearing of coral reef in 2050 due to raising of CO2 levels of 560 ppm And did I mentioned: "Misleading"? Apparently you agree with "An Incovenient Truth", with some minor exceptions. Did YOU do some thinkin of your own, or is, besides "An Incovenient Truth" Readers Digest, your main source of information?
