Court Rules Gore Film Biased

The question was not what Gore said, but why you guys insist on misquoting and misrepresenting what he said.

Apparently you find the actual quote just as damning, so why not use it instead of a misquote ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why did the left make such a big deal over every little mistake Dan Quayle made? Because he made a lot of them, and they hated him. Same deal. Al Gore is so damned full of himself and such an ass that we love to belittle him every chance we get.

Did you see him in the presidential debates? Sighing, going over time, invading Bush's personal space. He was an arrogant prick. I really, really hate that guy. I thank God he did not become president.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've never met anyone who hated Dan Quayle.

And the belittling of Quayle did not require misquoting him.

Why does the belittling of Gore require misquotes and misrepresentations and general dishonesty? The real quotes don't do the job, apparently.

You might also notice what depending on misquotes and similar lies says about your own politics. There is at least a possibility that your hatred of Gore depends on misunderstanding, if your expression of it depends on misquoting, no?

That's like picking Fumblefingers over Arrogance for your neurosurgeon because he seems like a regular fellow - you get what you deserve. Which would be OK if it was just you catching the consequences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're making a pretty big deal out of the substituton of the word "invent" for the word "create". Invent just sounds better. Create sounds pretentious, which makes sense since Al Gore said it.

 

The one is accurate. The other is not. In the context, they mean very different things. You and your kind chose an inaccuracy with a much different meaning, when the simple facts were right in front of you.

I am making a big deal out of the substitution of misquotes for quotes, misrepresentations for representations, falsehoods for facts, because it commonly leads to disaster in important decisions.

You deliberately lied, to yourselves as well as others, as loudly and frequently as possible, to justify what would otherwise be an obviously foolish hiring decision for a pretty significant job.

That kind of persistent, defensive self-deception is a consistent pattern with you guys. It "sounds better" ? It doesn't work better.

At the same time that a perceptive and hardworking Al Gore was writing and pushing through an otherwise mostly oblivious Congress the legislation that turned the theoretical possibility of some kind of "internet" into a entity in the real world,

W was passively lending his status as HW's son to grease a network of Enron-style "business" deals that thoroughly entangled BCCI and Arab oil money with (among others) Harken Energy and other Bush family dealings, corrupting US relations in the Middle East for the next twenty years.

Track record of public service, would be the category on the jobseeker's resume.

Why does that pattern exist? Why do you choose your presidents on their image consultant's ability to pander to your personal insecurities, rather than their record of accomplishment ? When you are successful, as twice with W, the consequences are disastrous - for yourselves, which is OK, but also for the rest of us.

 

This just in from a high court ruling in the UK, filling in the details from the original news item on this thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml

Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'

"Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.

His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.

1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

3. The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".

5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."

7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".

8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".

9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult."

 

Global warming is worth taking a chance on. It's a lot easier to survive flooded coastlines than it is to survive glaciation.

 

I disagree. Flooding coastlines can be tolerated by a mass exodus out of present coastal shores; it may also have radical economic ramifications for business out East, West, and South. But it's the climatology change that I fear will bring financial ruin to this country. Without the crop belt in OUR temperate zones, we may lose one of our major leverages in foreign policy, if not our whole economy.

With glaciation, at least our states nearer to the equator will be able to grow crops. Plus, Icelandic type conditions will not likely stretch into the US grasslands and farming community.

 

Of the nine things listed there, none are "scientific errors" committed by Gore.

And the article does not quote the judge as finding that they were scientific errors. The judge is quoted as having found the film "alarmist" and "exaggerated" and citing the rhetorical effect of Gore's presentation of those nine points as evidence.

That is not the same thing as finding the points themselves - which were of possibilities and illustrations of the consequences of such possibilities - in error.

For example, Gore made no erroneous scientific argument from, or explanation of, the obviously close (not "exact") fit of the CO2 and tempoerature graphs. (The matter is far too complicated for such a film). The judge's point that people would be drawn to making erroneous arguments of their own from the graph scene is probably well taken (certainly we have seen many Gore critics take things that way, not knowing any better), but that is not the same objection as one of scientific error.

The floods will be in dozens to hundreds of years, the glaciations in thousands to tens of thousands. You could easily get both, along with deserts inland.

The floods trash the fertile coasts. The deserts and glaciations trash the higher elevations and fertile inlands.

The problem is not the changes, which can be handled, but the speed, which if too great prevents handling them. If a small amount of global warming were to happen gradually over the next million years I for one would approve of it - the planet is a bit too cold, in general, for living beings.

The disturbing possibility is that we will hit ourselves over the head with this CO2 accumulation - that feedback effects will cause quick and major climactic changes. That would be, in general, very bad for us humans.

 

No, the article states that "ERRORS HAD ARISEN in the context of alarmism and exageration."

Not that the alarmism itself was the error.

 

That was not a quote from the judge, if you look closely at how the article was written. And any errors were not described as scientific errors by the judge, at least not in that article or in any other quotes I've seen, nor do they appear to be scientific errors when we see them detailed in those nine points and remember the film context.

Do you think those nine points are "scientific errors" ?

The judge found the film biased. I don't think anyone has argued that the film is not biased - Gore is taking a definite side, with pictures making fun of his enemies and so forth. He uses many of the techniques of rhetoric and persuasion to make his case, which is not a dispassionate one of scientific findings. I can easily see where, if that film were being shown in a science class for some reason, a good teacher would point out some issues - jsut as the judge recommended. So ?

 

The twenty foot rise Gore spoke of would take millennia, as the judge noted. The sea rise over the next hundred years is projected to be about the same as the rise in the last hundred years. Big deal.

 

1) No scientific error by Gore, agreed?

2) How big a deal, really, would another increase like that be? Do we start crossing threshold levels, such as salt water incursions or dike breaches?

3) Projections vary, and have an error range, as the judge also noted. Most of the actual events of the past ten years have been coming in on the very high side of the main stream projections' error range - the melt rate on Greenland, sea ice disappearance in the Arctic Ocean, glacier speed in Antarctica, winter night temps in central NA, etc - and so we should look at the high end projections, not just the most likely midrange. What is the high end projection range for sea level rise in the next hundred years?

 

What's wrong with that statement exactly? Before the Internet (capital I) there was Arpanet and Milnet, and various other 'internets' (lower case 'i', simply a connection between networks) that helped them and other sites communicate.

It became the 'Internet' when it became popularised. Gore did have a hand in that process. It's a branding issue, not a technological one.

 

Looks like Gore and Bush are correct.

Greenland ice cap melting faster than expected

COPENHAGEN, Oct 11 (AFP) Oct 11, 2007
The ice cap in the northern hemisphere is melting a lot more rapidly that scientists thought, according to new research published Thursday by the Danish National Space Center.
"Until 2004, the glacier mass in the southeastern part of the island lost about 50 to 100 cubic kilometres (12 to 24 cubic miles) per year. After this date, the melting rate acellerated to 300 cubic kilometres per year. It's a jump of 400 percent, which is very worrying," National Space Center head researcher and project chief Abbas Khan told AFP.

The ice cap, located in Greenland, is melting four times more rapidly than at the beginning of the decade according to the study. Glaciers in southeastern Greenland release icebergs into the sea, corresponding to a giant ice cube measuring 6.5 kilometres (4 miles) per side.

"It's an alarming development," Khan said. "We do not know if it is due to global warming or other factors."

The results of the study were made in conjunction with US-based University of Colorado and published Thursday on an online edition of Geophysical Research Letters magazine.

The researchers measured ice melt with ultra-sensitive Global Positioning Systems (GPS) stations located in the mountains and along the ice cap.

The measurements indicated that the mountains hugging glaciers in the southeastern part of Greenland rose four to five centimetres (1.5 to two inches) per year, and that the banks of the glaciers thinned 100 metres per year.

The Greenland ice cap measures 1.7 million square kilometres (656,000 square miles) and is 3.2 kilometres (two miles) thick.

 

Large Moulins in Greenland causing an Alarm
A probe is sent down into a moulin. Image courtesy of NASA


A moulin is the name for a giant hole in a glacier in which millions of gallons of melt water can cascade through to the rocky surface underneath the glacier during the melt season.

Why am I bringing this up now? Well, on a recent trip to Greenland a group of scientists and journalists were alarmed at the size and number of these moulins that they saw on the Greenland ice cap. Some of the moulins in Greenland run on the scale of Niagra Falls and are helping the glaciers to move at three times the rate that they did previously.

Scientists say the acceleration of melting and subsequent speeding up of giant glaciers could be catastrophic in terms of sea level rise and make previous predictions published this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) far too low, according to the article from AlterNet, which is a progressive news website.

Professor Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment said that newly invented ice penetrating radar showed that the melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a melt water lake 500 metres deep causing the glacier "to float on land. "These melt water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic." Correll stated that one particular glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one day to provide drinking water for a city the size of New York for a year.

Correll believes that the estimates of a 20 to 60 centimeter sea level rise this century from the IPCC report in February had been "conservative" and feels that it would be at the upper end of this range at a minimum. Some scientists fear that number could be 2 metres (200 centimeters), which would obviously have catastrophic effects for European and U.S. coastlines.

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/community/2007/moulin.jpg

 

Good to know our power bills will rise again. If we don't cause global warming then why do this?:shrug::shrug:

EPA to issue CO2 sequestration rules
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it plans to develop geologic carbon dioxide sequestration regulations.

Geologic sequestration is a process of injecting captured carbon dioxide into deep underground rock formations for long-term storage. The EPA said the rules will be designed to ensure there is a consistent and effective permit system under the Safe Drinking Water Act for commercial-scale geologic sequestration programs.

"Addressing global climate change will require fundamental changes in the way the world generates and uses energy," said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. "By harnessing the power of geologic sequestration technology, we are entering a new age of clean energy (in which) we can be both good stewards of the Earth, and good stewards of the American economy."

The EPA said it is working with the Department of Energy in evaluating potential impacts on health, safety and the environment.

The Safe Drinking Water Act established the Underground Injection Control Program to allow the safe injection of fluids into the subsurface in a manner that does not endanger current or future underground sources of drinking water.

EPA officials said they plan to issue the regulations next summer.

 

Al Gore got a noble prize...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/NEWS07/71012011/0/COL22

 

That just shows the power of the god damned liberal media.

 

Liberal media's gonna getcha if you don't watch out!
:roflmao: