Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:00 AM ET, 10/18/2007

An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds

By Michael Dobbs

A British judge has questioned some of the statements in Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie.

Last Friday, shortly after Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, we posted an item on a recently concluded court case in Britain that questioned some of the facts in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. We are now giving Gore's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, the opportunity to respond to the criticisms of the British judge. Kreider also serves as Gore's environmental adviser. You can find our original posts here and here. UPDATE: SEE VERDICT HERE.

The Gore response

With a column titled "Fact Checker," it is difficult not to lose the forest for the trees. First and foremost, An Inconvenient Truth presented thousands and thousands of facts. We stand by our initial statement. We were gratified that a UK High Court judge, a layperson with a full docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. A generation of schoolchildren will become more educated about global warming and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

A number of other broader points need to be addressed from the Fact Checker's last two postings:

  • The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.

  • The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex. Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years. He regularly seeks the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.

  • Former Vice President Gore does not solely rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As many know, the IPCC operates on a consensus driven process requiring the approval of all governments involved. As a result, its findings are often believed to be conservative. In addition, new science is published every week in top journals such as Science, Nature, Eos and others. Some scientists predict more extreme consequences and some predict more conservative effects, but Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious. Although we commend the Fact Checker for looking to the IPCC, Mr. Gore relies upon other highly credible sources as well.

  • Since the Fact Checker has afforded us the opportunity to respond specifically to the nine points at issue, we will do so.

  • Ice-sheet driven sea level rise. Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen. We hold our fate in our own hands. If we conclude a strong treaty--or if we pass strong legislation in the US to cut the pollution that causes global warming, it could make a real difference to our future and that of our children. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act.

  • Pacific island nations needing to evacuate. On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise. In addition, in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation and the government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders. We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate; however, the potential effects of global warming on human displacement as a broader topic is a matter of critical importance, which we believe warrants the attention of the global community. The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.

  • Ocean Conveyor in the North Atlantic. Simulations described in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation by roughly 30 percent by 2100. Again, there are uncertainties, which were a bit lengthy to describe in a feature film documentary, but the future of the ocean conveyer really depends upon how quickly we take actions now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Multiple scientists have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor.

  • CO2 Temperature connections in the ice core record. Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. There is a much longer explanation. Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of

  • Kilimanjaro. Mr. Gore has, for years, relied upon the research of Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Dr. Ellen Mosely Thompson. Dr. Thompson recently received the National Medal of Science and works at the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is not just Kilimanjaro. Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating. The evidence has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (2006) as well as IPCC studies. As the movie states, there are other stresses on Kilimanjaro that are contributing to the problem. And this is a very, very important point--fundamental to our understanding of climate change: Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing, such as drought, erosion, rising sea levels, and shifts in extreme weather events.

  • Drying up of Lake Chad. This example is used to illustrate what the models are predicting which is the shift in rainfall across the Sahel region of Africa. As in the previous example, there are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad and again, human-induced climate change can and will make this situation even worse.

  • Hurricane Katrina and global warming. The film is careful not to ascribe any single weather event to climate change. However, in the film Mr. Gore does state, "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger." He based that claim on research published in peer-reviewed journals from Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and several others, who have found a link between an increase in sea surface temperature and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Since then, further research has strengthened the science in this area with regards to a link between human-induced climate change and hurricane intensity. Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.

  • Impact of sea ice retreat on polar bears. Polar bears only exist in the Arctic and hunt and live on the ice. Where there is not enough ice, they are required to swim. The US Minerals Management Service (part of the US Department of Interior) reported new research in December 2005 about increased polar bear mortality due to reduced sea ice. At the same time, a study by the US Geological Survey and the Canadian Wildlife Service was previewed showing a major polar bear population drop (22 percent) in Hudson Bay in Canada--which was also believed to be linked to sea ice decline. Since 2005, more research has emerged in this area. In addition, Arctic sea ice decline was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering an Endangered Species Listing for the polar bear in part because of the impact that human-induced climate change is having on their habitat.

  • Global warming and coral reefs. The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs. Corals are also under stress from other factors like water pollution (agricultural runoff), overfishing, and ocean acidification (another direct impact of the release of carbon dioxide). These stresses have a synergistic effect. As I have made clear earlier, global warming places a further strain on an already burdened ecosystem.

  • To conclude, it's unfortunate that news coverage of the UK decision was so sensational and, once again, directed conversation away from a broader and much-needed discussion and debate about solutions to the climate crisis.

    By Michael Dobbs  | October 18, 2007; 10:00 AM ET
    Categories:  1 Pinocchio, Environment, Video Watch  
    Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Inconvenient Truth, Part II
    Next: Iraqi Civilian Deaths, Part II


    "First and foremost, An Inconvenient Truth presented thousands and thousands of facts."

    The subtext here is clear: using a few debatable issues (addressed admirably here) in a broad spectrum of thousands of unassailable facts to evaluate the 'truthiness' of the whole is ridiculous. As Gore is well aware, such tactics are the bread and butter of the right wing Obfuscation Patrol. It isn't, however, appropriate behavior for what is supposed to be an objective column called "The Fact Checker."

    I repeat my prior point. Rather than debating how many Pinocchio's Gore's movie should get, you should be asking: can you give it NEGATIVE Pinocchio's?

    Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 18, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

    too bad we are spending so much time (and money) 'defending our positions' instead of making real changes. i look forward to the time when this newspaper spends valuable time and print space chronicling the *climate changes* rather than debating the causes.

    Posted by: mamund | October 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

    Excellent! A comprehensive, but not rambling, response. Kudos.

    Posted by: Mobedda | October 18, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

    Wow, no-factchecker must be seeing a doctor after being ripped a new one.

    Posted by: JD | October 18, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

    Obviously 'Fact Checker' needs to get his facts right before writing the nonsense he wrote last week. Perhaps a scientific expert should have written last weeks fact checker column, or someone who actually knows something about the science. His ignorance on the subject was painful. Pity that this well informed response is not given as much prominence as the less well informed Fact Checks of last week.
    I am beginning to feel that 'Fact Checker' should always be enclosed in quotes.

    Posted by: G | October 18, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

    Nice comeback. Also good because it deals directly with the evidence, giving the scientific information that backs what the film says. Fact Checker seems to be more into the political arena, where slime and smear are effective weapons.

    Posted by: pojo68 | October 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

    I believe the proper response to this rebuttal is, "OH SNAP."

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

    Its been a rough couple hurricane seasons...

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

    Ms. Kreider, You did a WONDERFUL job explaining the facts and how-not only the suit, but the spin to further distort realities, was based on false claims and unfortunately, again, politically motivated and driven by special interests.

    Thank you.

    Posted by: Linda in SFNM | October 18, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

    Isn't this the point of a debate ("a broader and much-needed discussion and debate about solutions to the climate crisis") - to discuss all aspects, from all sides, of every argument. I think the fact checker played a valid role in pointing out the supposed inaccuracies so that they could be responded to and argued for and against. Whether you believe or agree with one side or the other, or fall somewhere in between, there should always be space for questioning all facts and questioning all supposed truths.

    Posted by: j | October 18, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

    LOL, "SNAP" would have been much shorter to state the response. Agreed. :)

    Posted by: LindainSFNM | October 18, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

    Pretty funny to see how a simple response by Team Gore generates so much enthusiasm and positive feedback. Thought this forum was called "fact checker" ? It's not because Team Gore calls it "facts" that we should all applaud and agree. I'm pretty sure that the NeoCon maffia can as easily produce a couple of "well known" scientists which will easily say the opposite. Hey we even have Nobel price winning scientists who claim that colored people are less smart then white people. Does that mean it's a "fact" ? The FACT that it comes from Team Gore, by definition implies that it needs to be approached with caution (as we should when it would come from the white house).

    Personally I prefer the previous analysis by "fact checker" (version II) to be closer to reality. Overall the film is correct, a couple of generalisations, maybe one or two unproven (but likely) links

    Please let "fact checker" check the facts, and not the involved parties.

    Regards from Belgium

    Posted by: bilbosimca | October 18, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

    Just more useless, BORING, dribbles from the stiff.

    Posted by: peoplearestupid | October 18, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

    Verdict still pending? You wish, fact-checker. You did a mean little hit-piece against Gore, WaPo-style, and were just eviscerated for it.

    Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

    Of course the first thing the Gore acolyte does is imply that the judge is too busy and not qualified to make an informed decision, then proceeds to smear the plaintiff.

    It shows how much Gore learned, under 8 years of the Clintons' tutelage, how to handle criticism.

    Posted by: gitarre | October 18, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

    "Fact" Checker got pwned! And perhaps should have been asking the motive for that British law suit to begin with. As we see, the funding for it came from the big oil companies. Didn't that give you any pause before you write the original shoddy piece? Or were you not aware of that? And if that's the case it might be time to go back to take a few refresher Journalism 101 classes.

    Posted by: jbk | October 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

    Posted by: jbk | October 18, 2007 12:05 PM

    I raised the same point yesterday and the Fact Checker sniffed that it wasn't relevant to the story or to the mission of the column.

    Posted by: bilbosimca | October 18, 2007 11:40 AM

    Hello Belgium! Are you still a country?

    Posted by: cab91 | October 18, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

    "It shows how much Gore learned, under 8 years of the Clintons' tutelage, how to handle criticism."

    I'd change that to "It shows how much Gore learned, after 8 years of witless, deranged attack by a right-wing Congress and a right-wing media, when and how to expose critics as rich political hacks who are sincerely uninterested in the truth."

    Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 18, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

    the right could only just stick to what was actually said.....

    Posted by: Now if | October 18, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

    I think this whole 'Inconvenient Truth' is more like a convenient fear. The best way to motivate people is to make them afraid. Climate change has been happening for billions of year and there are so many factors involved that the best we can do is make partially informed predictions that don't often come true.

    Posted by: D | October 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

    " a convenient fear. The best way to motivate people is to make them afraid."

    Worked wonders in the 2004 election.

    Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 18, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

    UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros.

    Posted by: Dr Coles | October 18, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

    While admittedly the need for brevity limits thorough response I did find it interesting that the Team Gore rebuttal does admit that the movie significantly simplifed matters; that the real story is much more complex; and, that indeed, there are many other stressors that need to be considered. But isn't that the court's main point? That matters are not as simple as the movie would suggest nor are the expected consequences nearly so scary as it projects. The Judge's decision calls into question the movie's integrity and to the extent his findings are correct, puts the reliability of the entire message into doubt. And on the issue of credibility, isn't attacking the motivation and the of the plaintiff in the case rather beside the point? Surly the Team Gore isn't suggesting by this that the Judge too was on the take. It is also worth mentioning that in reading the actual decision (which I recommend to all) that the Judge based nearly all his findings on the admissions made by the Defense expert who, of course, was there to give evidence in support of the movie - which is perhaps why we see the broadsides aimed at the plaintiff rather than the person who actually made the findings and wrote the decision.

    Posted by: Timothy Boyle | October 18, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

    I wonder if the Fact Checker could explain why the Judge never used the word "error" without quotation marks throughout his opinion. The Post reporting and the Fact Checker's column both report the judge found errors. Are they not errors?

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

    Yeah they won't "ascribe any single weather event to climate change"; unless they can get some political mileage out of it after the fact. BTW have they revised their revised forecast for this season yet? What is it now over two seasons Prediction 15, Reality 3?

    Posted by: ronjaboy | October 18, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

    Fact-Checker, what else have you been wrong about?

    The right-wing/corporate state (see--I didn't say "fascist"!) attempts at debunking Al Gore, his movie and the issue of global warming (how did it now become "climate change"?) is straight from the Karl Rove Dirty Tricks Handbook.

    Befuddle your opponent with hundreds of "debatable points" and watch the larger argument float out to sea!

    Posted by: tony | October 18, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse


    Posted by: JIM R. | October 18, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

    About the Polar bears. Only one small area of Hudsons Bay is the population decreasing. The other group under threat are the ones that migrate to Greenland where there is no restriction on hunting. Swimming well that is what the bears do best. Davis Strait which happens to be one of the most ice free areas the bears are quite fat and happy. In the last 15 years the bear population has a whole doubled, they like it a little warmer. Hey the AGW industry is worth 60 billion. Gore knows how to get his bread buttered.

    Posted by: Nick | October 18, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

    Someone ought to do a parody of climate change dissenters applying their "logic" to Ken Burn's "The Civil War" documentary. I wonder how many distinct "errors" they could discover in it to disprove the entire notion that the Civil War ever happened -- or if it did, it wasn't actually fought by Americans.

    Another useful comparison might be with the methods of Holocaust deniers. Hearing them talk about Gore is roughly like listening to Iranian President Ahmadinejad discussing Israel.

    Posted by: GuardedOptimist | October 18, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

    While it's true that 9 bad facts out of 1000 isn't a bad record, this response is generally unimpressive. It basically states: "we didn't present the whole story because, who has time to do all that in a movie?" and acknowledges "unfortunate" wording.

    That said, the film is part documentary and part political propaganda. It's trying to be persuasive. No one should expect objective films from politically minded people (think Michael Moore).

    Posted by: John | October 18, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

    Um,..ronjaboy re hurricanes.
    Interesting that you only look to the statistics for your part of the world.By that argument Global Warming doesn't count if it happens in another part of the world.
    You might want to look up the statistics for the rest of the world, before showing your lack of understanding of hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.
    The number of these more or less remains constant globally. I have never seen any scientist make the claim that the frequency of these weather events is increasing. So if there are less in the Atlantic basin then there may be more over the Pacific and visa versa. These numbers, themselves, change on an estimated 40 year cycle. With scientists thinking that the cycle of increased Atlantic hurricane activity starting in 1996.
    It is the intensity of the Hurricanes that seems to be increasing world wide. Some papers seem to back this up. Most scientists are noncommittal.
    So please, please, please read more, and be informed before you make comments that make you look foolish.

    Posted by: G | October 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

    Great response, Ms. Kreider. The only item you forgot was how many Pinnochios to award to Mr. Dobbs. ;)

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

    I am impressed by the back-pedaling and temporizing made in this response. No doubt. its an environmentally-friendly back-pedaling bicycle. The real problem is that we have allowed this issue to become so politicized. I wouldn't trust anything that either side would say now, because I need to figure how their own agenda fits in to their argument. Its a great way for one person to make a living, but the rest of us lose iregardless of how the debate turns out.

    Posted by: Steve | October 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

    John, what is wrong with the response that they did not have time to present the entire body of scientific knowledge in the movie? To me this seems so obvious that it is painful they are required to state it explicitly. If you want the full body of knowledge, go to school and read peer-reviewed journals and maybe in twenty years you'll be up to speed. But most people won't do that, will they? Which is precisely the raison d'etre of "An Inconvenient Truth."

    You apply the pejorative term "propaganda" to the movie because it obviously attempts to motivate a response from the audience to the facts it outlines. But the use of that colored term implies that you disapprove of the attempt -- which, if 991 out of the 1000 facts it outlines are true, is hard to understand.

    Posted by: GuardedOptimist | October 18, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

    You have yet to address the issue of why the Post published the British judge's lay opinions the same day as the Nobel announcement.

    Posted by: Bartolo | October 18, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

    It would be cute that the pollution industry shills are still acting like all five of them can form some kind of a scientific consensus simply by acting snotty if propagating idiocy weren't so very infuriating.

    Posted by: mobedda | October 18, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

    Kreider's response is insulting - full of inconsistencies, just like the movie. How interesting that so many left-wing radicals like Crater etc above jump to the conclusion that Gore is right and that the fact checker is wrong. How small minded.

    Fact checker: Thank you for bringing this to a point where it can be debated. There are MANY MANY people out here and all over the country who think Gore is dishonest, and a hypocrite. Unfortunately, too many of your readers want to slander you or him or both instead of talking about the issue and debating it properly.

    You do a service to us all.

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

    Where are all the hurricanes that were forecasted for this year? If anyone with a centilla of sense can see, these are, at best, evasive rebuttals to the points that "factchecker" is outlining. Lake Chad, for one is silly. Read them over again. They are not rebutting anything!

    Posted by: Eric | October 18, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

    Seems to me that "The Fact Checker" might have avoided a lot of controversy through simply rearranging the emphasis in the original article. Would it not have been more accurate for "The Fact Checker" to claim to be checking on the accuracy of the judges comments? After all, no efforct was made in the original column to discuss the hundreds of other facts presented in the movie, and all agree the judge in question was not an expert in the field. So, in choosing to focus on these specific nine points, there was either a selective bias or the intent was to examing the judge's opinion.

    Unfortunately, the "Fact Checker" managed to grab the wrong end of the stick- and in the process, managed uncritcially to assume that the nine statements cited by he judge were the only ones worth discussing in the entire movie.
    Of course, grabbing this stick by the proper end would have meant actually examining the nine points raised instead of doing a glorified version of block and copy.

    It will be interesting to see what determinations "The fact Checker" finally makes. I hope there is sufficient intellectual integrity to note that the deteminations are based on a non-random sample of nine specific points. Absent such a clear, prominent explanation, the conclusions are in fact quite worthless for any purpose other than generating controversy.

    Posted by: skeptic | October 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

    The Gore response to FactChecker is a very good example of how to make a polite, factual, and intelligent rebuttal to an argument. No sensationalistic verbage, no ranting, no raving.

    Kudos to the Gore team for not letting special interests (or lazy fact checkers) get in the way of their science-based message.

    Posted by: Rick | October 18, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

    Wow, where to begin? I note that the first thing "Team Gore" does is attack the messenger. Guess he learned it from the masters during his time in office. If any info used to rebut the doomsayers comes from any organization with even the remotest ties to big business is used, that alone seems to serve to invalidate the facts, as far as the MSM is concerned. But what about the motives of those who will financially benefit from using lies, distortions, and hyped statistics to scare people? Certainly no former politician, having blown what appeared to have been a no-brainer for the most important job in the world, would stoop to these tactics to regain $$$, power, and fame. Nah. He's just doing it for our own good. And, his work is so beneficial to the world that we can all overlook the fact that he is easily the biggest hypocrite since Jim and Tammi Faye Baker. I also must note that Mr. Gore's defender mentioned IPCC studies to rebut(kinda-sorta) on 5 of the 9 points, but as for those points where the IPCC differs from Mr. Gore, well, we use other sources too... This would be know as cherry-picking to the nth degree, in scientific terms. Was sorry to hear about the decline in polar bears in Hudson Bay. Thankfully the population is growing in the rest of the world. Sure seemed to be a trend throughout the "rebuttal". anyone else notice it? Seems there are multiple reasons for many of the problems in the film. Coulda sworn those dang humans were the sole cause, but I only have read about the film, I'm sure it didn't leave that impression with any children.

    Posted by: Friend of Fred | October 18, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

    "Where are all the hurricanes that were forecasted for this year?"

    Please read my response above. If you keep asking this question amongst knowledgeable people you are making yourself look very, very foolish.
    If you want to find out why your question is not intelligent then you need to actually read and become informed. Maybe that's too much work.

    Posted by: G | October 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

    Several GW "skeptics" have mentioned how the predictions for the last two hurricane seasons have been way off. They seem to cite this as proof that the GW proponents are thus wrong. However, researchers like Kerry Emmanuel have argued that GW may - and I emphasize MAY - increase the intensity of storms, not the frequency.

    Meanwhile, the annual Hurricane forecast for the Atlantic Basin - important, the Atlantic Basin - is made by the scientists at Colorado State Univ. by a team led by William Gray, who are the leading GW skeptics and argue that they are the real scientists who understand the atmosphere and that the IPCC and researchers like Emmanuel are just computer modelers.

    In other words, don't cite the errors of the hurricane forecasts, because that only calls into question the methods of the biggest GW skeptics who argue that the believers don't know what they are talking about.

    Posted by: Whigsboy | October 18, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

    Al Gore will always have naysayers and political enemies who will attempt to diminish his contribution to our understanding of Global Warming. While they are simply armchair critics who drive their big SUVs and invest in Exxon stock this contributing to the problem, Mr. Gore is a glowing example of one man who is working hard to find a solution to help mankind.

    Posted by: A.Lincoln | October 18, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

    What is "political" about the message of the movie? Those who charge it is politically motivated don't make sense to me. Yes, I can understand distrust of Gore, a former (?) politician who ran an incompetent campaign in 2002, but he's the messenger, not the message. Besides, if he's not running for office, what's his "political" agenda? Gore's dumped on for doing it just for the money. And for living in a huge "wasteful" mansion. So he's not the Dalai Lama? So what does that have to do with the message? I ask again: what is "political" about global warming? Is it because conservatives view it as a threat to established fossil fuel interests? The fact is that the smart business people the world over are already investing huge bucks in non-polluting energy technology. How can people be "opposed" to climate change? Skeptical about what it means? Yes, absolutely. That's like being "opposed" to the HIV virus and denying the possibility of AIDS. The point is: something (Earth's climate) is changing out there pretty fast and we had better understand what it is (or isn't) PDQ and figured out what we can do about it. Let the science go forward and the debate rage!

    Posted by: Fritz S | October 18, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

    Friend of Fred:"we use other sources too... "
    Even my second-grade son knows that when writing a research paper, it is necessary to consult MORE THAN ONE source.

    Posted by: cw | October 18, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

    Posted by: Rick | October 18, 2007 03:42 PM

    "polite, factual, and intelligent rebuttal..."

    "...appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus..."

    Rick, I think these words do not mean what you think they mean...

    Posted by: Jerry | October 18, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

    How about humbling yourself with an apology on many of these points, Factchecker.

    Posted by: Ben | October 18, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

    Why can't Gore and his friends just admit that he told few stretchers and get on with their crusade? So what if hundreds of Flat Earthers with Ph.D's object? "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong!" Al is much better than Einstein! It took Einstein 21 years to get the Nobel Prize; Gore did it in less than two. He should also receive the P.T. Barnum Award for Rhetorical Excellence!

    Posted by: paul Brinson | October 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

    Now that Mr. Smirk and the Rapture-Rushers have stowed away on Ol' Fisheye's calliope, get ready for...THE RETURN OF THE ICE AGE!

    Quoting Rep. Jefferson:

    "Meltin' bucks brung Feds a-swarming!
    Blame Al Gore an' global warming!"

    Posted by: sawargos | October 18, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

    I don't think the climate change issue has become politicized. True, the term switched from global warming to climate change, which is said to be less alarming and more neutral. But the term really came about because while the greenhouse effect does/is predicted to cause elevation of _average_ global temperatures, it doesn't cause warming everywhere. It's a lot more complicated than that. Anyway, I think the climate change debate is actually becoming less politicized. I remember hearing about the greenhouse effect since the '80s. But back then, if you took it seriously, you were an anti-American tree-hugging hippie, or something along those lines. More recently, climate change seemed to be a Red vs. Blue debate, until the recent IPCC reports. So climate change as an actual effect has certainly become mainstream. The (passionate) debates are now centered on what to do about it.

    Arguably, the greatest force in motivating progress towards tackling climate change is the markets. And the indications to me are that the markets are moving in the right direction. When major companies (energy companies, even) are advertising their green products and lobbying for green policies, I feel just a little bit of optimism.

    Posted by: Austin | October 18, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

    Gore is an idiot. He failed out of college and was a newspaper reporter before getting into politics using his father's name. Whatever he says is his opinion NOT fact.

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

    Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased from around 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the 1830s to around 380 ppmv in now. That's an increase from around 0.03 % of the atmosphere to around 0.04%.

    Even if greenhouse gases are stabilized at year 2000 levels, sea temperatures would continue to rise for the next one thousand years

    Around 24 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year are released into the atmosphere by combusting fossil fuels. At the same time, around 220 billion tones of carbon dioxide per year are released by natural decay of dead plant and animal matter (and other events like volcanic eruptions, peat-bog fires in Indonesia, thawing of the Siberian permafrost etc).

    This is already fact-checked info, but feel free to check it out. I am sure even a short documentary of 90 minutes could have informed its target audience of this.

    Most scientists accept that climate change is underway. That's a no-brainer. A sub-set of this believe it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (not all do). A further sub-set of this sub-set believe the rate is so rapid that unless economic production is cut immediately (the only quick way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions available to policy-makers), we are all doomed. This is where China and India peel off to chart their own policies.

    Posted by: Sarbo, India | October 18, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

    Fair and Balanced. If you loudly claim to be, you are probably a liar. Nonetheless, the concept of attempting to be fair and balanced has long been a cornerstone of liberalism. Unfortunately, some have learned to turn this ethical high road into a weakness, and too many liberals have failed to see that some attempts at being fair and balanced are based on faulty logic. Thus, the far right has consistently taken outrageous positions for the purpose of moving the "balanced" discussion their direction. Creationists have made hay from "debates" that pit one creationist against one evolutionist, creating the illusion that the fair and balanced position is perhaps midway between the two perspectives. As an example, if 90% of the data are consistent with one model and 10% with the other, the point of fair balance is not at the midpoint between the words of one proponent for each side. This is the central fallacy; if you don't understand it, think about it some more -- there will be an "a-haa" moment. It is time for the liberal media to understand how their well-meant intent to be fair and balanced is being manipulated to distort important stories.

    On another point, a basic rule for journalists is that if contributors to a scientific story will not reveal the sources of their financial support, their contributions must be weighted with very high skepticism pending full disclosure and independent evaluation of their methods and data.

    Posted by: an earlier Dr. Phil | October 18, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

    Nick writes: "About the Polar bears. Only one small area of Hudsons Bay is the population decreasing."

    The most trivial fact checker, wikipedia tells me this is completely wrong:

    "The World Conservation Union listed polar bears as a vulnerable species, one of three sub-categories of threatened status, in May 2006"

    Fact checking in fact checker as it were.

    Posted by: Dan D | October 18, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

    The inconvenient truth in the eponymous movie lies not in the suppression of truth by the "vast right wing conspiracy" but in the distortion of such truths by the Michael Moore's of this world.

    Maybe Moorelywood could make a more accurate movie based on Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" novel; at least that work of FICTION provides links to the NOAA databases that substatiate its contention that Global Warming is at best overstated.

    Posted by: carmanjw | October 18, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

    Friend of Fred,
    Yes, I noticed it, too. Not only is it cherry picking - cw's second grade son's expert knowledge notwithstanding - it is called 'let's pick out those things we agree with and discard anything that doesn't agree with our thesis.' It's dishonest. Gore is dishonest.
    And fact checker has nothing for which he should apologise. Thank goodness he has the guts and the honesty to bring in points of view which may differ with "conventional wisdom." You may not agree with those points of view, but they do exist. Good job, fact checker.

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

    After what the press did to Gore in 2000
    should I expect anything better?

    They argued for two years that voters shouldn't vote for Gore because he was a liar and Bush was so cool and trustworthy.

    You guys made up quotes, events and rewrote Gore's history over and over again even after your original "story" was shown to be bogus.

    So why not apply the same standard?
    You lied about him so often you lost all your credibility. I don't need the WaPo
    or the NYT to know things about the guy, thank you. I will do my own research.

    Posted by: xyz | October 18, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

    If it was not so dangerous, the sheer backwardness and ignorance of Americans would be hilarious.

    Posted by: Forwards | October 18, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

    When dealing with "slick" politicians it is important to remember that the end justifies the means. Recall the Grist interview last year when Gore said that it was justified to "over-represent" (i.e. lie) in order to get people stirred up and active. The URL for the interview is:

    As for Gore's response, for the most part it is old hat and has been around the block many times. Recently, the New York University student newspaper took on Gore's major boo-boos and presented a concise response. In the short space available in this Comment section there is not much more that can be said. The URL for that article is:

    I don't know what the polls in the U.S. are but it was interesting today to read that 56% of the British public don't buy into the global warming hysteria. Sounds like we should spend more time in pubs.

    Forgetting for the moment that the science that Gore relies on does not support his argument even with the most extreme spin, what is his goal? Statistics show that more die from cold snaps than hot spells. What, therefore, should be the ideal temperature that we should shoot for, if it were possible to significantly affect climate? Gore wants a very high priority assigned to this impossible task at great expense to the world economy but does not provide any justification. In short this is the same position he was in when Kyoto popped up and is one of the reasons that the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto agreement for ratification to the Senate.

    Fortunately, just like the global cooling hysteria of (about) 1978, this will gradually fade away as the climate continues its never ending change. Our children will look back and snicker as we look back at the global cooling nonsense. By then I suspect that climate change models will have been perfected and be able to explain why temperture decreased from about 1945 to 1970 (don't have my charts with me) while carbon dioxide levels increased or why temperature has been realatively stable for the past 8 years while carbon dioxide levels increased or why during the big ice age 450,000 years ago the carbon dioxide level was 30% higher than today or why temperature has been increasing on average since about 1850 when the last minor ice age ended or why earth's temperature is highly correlated with solar activity or why Greenland is called Greenland or why the Medieval Warming period was warmer than today although the carbon dioxide level was lower or ...

    Posted by: tisjusme | October 18, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse


    Over-presentation does not mean lie or exaggeration. But you do lie here.

    If you read the actual interview you will see Gore said that in response to the question whether it made more sense to talk more about he solutions rather than the problem.

    Most of the movie deals with the introduction of the problem and only at the end can you see proposed solutions. That's what Gore was talking about
    and your attempt to take his words out of context and spin them in your way is pathetic.

    And by definition factual presentations are not lies or exaggerations.

    Posted by: xyz | October 18, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

    thank you for your clarification Kalee - it's a shame the media "beat up" the decision. That the case took place at all is down to those who think "The Great Global Warming Swindle" represents real science - and the companies who fund the climate deniers.

    Let's be clear. Big business funds the sceptic line because the very same businesses produce the most fossil fuels - which cause global warming.

    This whole case has nothing to do with science - and everything to do with politics.

    Posted by: shin | October 18, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

    I would like to see the "fact checker"
    check all the administrations statements for nuanced misrepresentations. Sometimes a little history of what has been done and said will help us choose the next candidate wisely. How bout it checker? Guts?

    Posted by: george | October 19, 2007 12:49 AM | Report abuse

    So, tisjusme, my understanding was that climate models do explain why the middle of the last century was cooler. Particulate matter in the atmosphere is known to have a dimming effect, and the air was much dirtier then. By enacting clean air standards, we've become healthier, but hotter. I think most of your other claims are misleading. Global climate patterns are due to a variety of effects including CO2, CH4, aerosols, particles, solar output, and perhaps even the tilting of the solar system out of the galactic plane. Supposing the strongest forcing at the moment is CO2, as is widely claimed, the full effect would not be expected to be seen for several centuries. By enhancing the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere, the equilibrium temperature is increased. But just like it takes time for your engine block to warm up after you start the car, it takes time for the atmosphere to reach its new equilibrium temperature. That's the weakness of climate science. It's a highly complex, highly non-linear system with more variables than we can count and a characteristic time longer than most of our lives. It took millenia for the previous warm periods to take hold. It should be alarming that there's been a measurable increase in temperatures in a matter of decades. In conjunction with other human activities that threaten the biodiversity of the planet (which provides resilience and adaptability to the biosphere) one might see a serious problem.

    Posted by: Austin | October 19, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

    Thanks for the link tis. I had read it but forgot how exactly Gore justified his exaggerations. "Overrepresent". LOL. I would, maybe, say that overrepresenting would allow for, say, doubling the size of a threat. Maybe. But 10 times? His co-award winner at the UN says 23 inches by 2100. Al used 20 FEET, without giving a time frame(next year? 5 years? oh my!). How any poster can be suprised that an Oscar/Nobel winning blowhard's obvious lies could be a topic here at fact-checker is beyond me.

    Posted by: Friend of Fred | October 19, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

    Sarbo, India:

    Your comment that natural CO2 emissions are about ten times that of anthropogenic emissions is technically correct, but it leaves out that this is about net flux, not just emission. The earth can reabsorb much of the carbon that is emitted by decaying plant matter, as it can with volcanic and anthropogenic emissions. But, the observed rise in CO2 content combined with the observed changes in carbon isotope ratios show that the earth can not absorb the extra 24 gigatons we are adding to these natural cycles. About half of that 220 gigatons that you cite is simply released and reabsorbed by the ocean, and the other half is reabsorbed into plant matter through photosynthesis. We are adding to the emissions side of this equation without balancing it with reabsorption, and therefore forcing this balanced system to find a new state. The earth will be fine, it's just a question of how hospitable it will be for us.

    Of course there are unknowns, but you have to weigh risks and benefits and act on them. Cutting economic activity is not what this is all about, it is about funding innovations that can allow us to continue our economic activity in a sustainable manner, which is better economic policy in the long term. The focus on short-term gain is the problem.

    Posted by: Primordial Ooze | October 19, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

    There is more of an issue than just global warming. We are burning finite fossil fuels at an ever faster rate. Our diets and lifestyle are contributing to major health issues, and infinite growth model is unsustainable in a finite world where money is created as debt. The people running the show are making a fortune from misinformation, but there is no great conspiracy just general ignorance of what we are, where we came from and where we are going.

    Human emissions are only a few % of the natural ones, but natural carbon sinks cant handle the extra CO2 in the air. Feedback loops could easily make the situation worse, and the reports are just likely to be conservative as they are alarmist.
    Not knowing for sure is not an excuse not do do anything!!
    Floods in Asia, droughts in US & Australia... La la la its not happening

    Posted by: Matt | October 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

    So, on one side we have facts and a nobel prize winner, and the other side we have a smear campaign and a chimp. Gosh, you start to wonder about people sometimes...Maybe, instead of drinking wine made from sour grapes, we could actually start *doing* something about Climate Change. Also, Kudos to you, Miss Krieder!

    Posted by: Maria Diamantoukos | October 19, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

    Go Big Al--way to give the Post a much deserved smackdown. I only wish he'd been that confident and aggressive in 2000, because the world would have been a much better place as a result.

    Posted by: Patrick Kiger | October 19, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

    Sorry to hurt your feelings, but this is most certainly not a refutation of the English case. An Inconvenient truth is farther from the scientific Consensus he so brags about than are the absolute deniers.

    For only one example sea level rise has been running 10-20 cm a century for thousands of years, with no human caused global warming. When I read the latest IPCC report it looked like a rise of 23 cm was on the high end of their reasonable estimate for this century. Are you seriously trying to claim 7 meters is closer to 23 cm than 20 cm is?

    The IPCC is most certainly not a conservative body. Many of the top climatologists have left the process or been forced out of it because they refused to go along with the distortion insisted on by government and environmentalist organizations.

    I encourage you to do as they ask and check out It is amazing how they answer all the objections of the Skeptics without ever actually scientifically answering any of the objections. I could do better myself and I'm kinda skeptical.

    Posted by: Wondering Aloud | October 19, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

    Here's why it's so important to understand what your average second-grader can grasp: consulting multiple sources that are in general agreement in kind but that differ in degree is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is combing the intelligence services for the single individual who will tell you what you want to hear when the vast majority of your own people are telling you the evidence is questionable.

    Posted by: cw | October 19, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

    the saddest thing in the miscellaneous denialists comments here, is the extent to which they reveal an utter determination to naysay Gore and AIT, regardless of any sort of devotion to truth or reason. tisjusme links to an opinion piece in a student newspaper -- misrepresenting the piece, incidentally, as something other than a polemic expressing Simon Basseyn's semi-informed opinions -- and uses space considerations to dodge any analysis of the opinions expressed therein. well. let's have a look.

    Case 1: Basseyn says Al Gore claims, "Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, hurling all of Europe into another full-blown ice age."

    Basseyn responds that government experts (unidentified) assert: "The very notion of such a phenomenon is, inherently, scientifically implausible. Not only is the Gulf Stream not the reason Europe stays moderately warm in the winter, but it flows because of wind, not currents." Basseyn goes on to say that, "Even Al Gore would admit that global warming can have no impact on wind. In other words, the Gulf Stream is perpetually safe, at least from the 'threat' of climate change. Lie"

    First of all, if Al Gore were to admit that global warming can have no effect on wind, Al Gore would be a bigger idiot than Mr. Basseyn seems to think. Of course global warming could have some such effect, although I don't know whether the models indicate one. But that's a small matter. This is a bogus argument that is made, either out of ignorance or cynical disregard for truth, which is that the Gulf Stream as defined by scientists is not the same as the Gulf Stream as colloquially understood by us regular folks. There IS, in fact, a warm current of water that circulates up from the central Atlantic, that is driven by complex interactions of wind and tides acting on temperature and salinity gradients, that contributes to Europe's moderate climate, and that may, in the worst-case scenarios, be shut down by a flood of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic. This current is referred to as The Gulf Stream by almost every person in North America who knows that it exists and who is not an oceanographer or meteorologist. Rather than cite some know-nothing undergraduate bloviator, perhaps tisjusme should read something written by people who know what they're talking about: realclimate.

    Case 2: Basseyn says Gore claims, "Human emission of carbon dioxide will cause most of Greenland's 630,000 square miles of ice to melt by 2100, causing an increase in sea levels of over 20 feet in a mere 90 years."

    Basseyn argues: "The United Nations' review of global warming found that it will take millennia for that amount of ice to melt, according to the policymaker's summary. The rise in sea level in 2100, moreover, will be somewhere between 8 and 17 inches."

    In fact, what the IPCC review found was that we don't have good enough models to predict the rate of ice melt. So, in keeping with a policy of conservative estimates -- a policy based on political, rather than scientific, concerns -- the IPCC simply left out all consideration of Greenland's ice melt from it's sea-level calculations. Since the day the report was issued, we have seen a flood, as it were, of observations and analysis telling us that Greenland's ice is melting, that it's melting faster than even the alarmists had thought it would, and that the result of its melting will be a catastrophic rise in sea levels.


    Note that I'm not even taking issue with SB's claims about what Gore actually claims. Maybe his representations are accurate, and maybe they are not. Given the vacuity of his actual arguments, I'm not optimistic.

    I will observe that tisjusme's characterization that the "the science that Gore relies on does not support his argument even with the most extreme spin," is plainly, simply, and obviously false.

    But then, someone else already observed that tisjusme deliberately mischaracterized Gore's statement concerning "over-representation". So the casual observer shouldn't have too much trouble assigning a credibility-score to the rest of tisjusme's statements.

    Posted by: yeahright | October 19, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

    It's odd, but under your link called "Arts and Living" there is not subtitle "Art".
    As an artist, there is no interest here.

    Posted by: Tom Brand | October 19, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

    Yes the earth may be warming, but to think that humans have caused it or can control it?
    An ego check may be in order.

    Posted by: meek | October 19, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

    That's right "Fact Checker" try to fault-find with people on the side of the scientists after a multi-decade campaign to suppress the science. Where was the "fact-checking" then? Now comes the quest for "rational objectivity".

    Posted by: David Morgan | October 19, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

    The real issue with Gore's "inconvenient Truth" is his choice of language. Gore claims that each of these issues are caused by global warming, not "may" or even "have a high degree of probability, he says they are facts, which are not proven. Indeed, they may be proven in the future, but it is dangerous for a man of his influence to go around saying these are cause and effect examples of global warming when these are not facts within the scientific community. As a linguist, I find this video to be a powerful piece of rhetoric, but could easily be dissected into very few pieces of useful information and hardly should be accepted as factual information.

    Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

    Who cares what Al Gore thinks? The world's leading scientists have expressed serious concerns about global warming. They originated the facts, not Al Gore. Anyone who fails to understand what they are getting at, and sees this as a trivial battle between Democrats and Republicans, should have their head examined.

    Posted by: Magic Child | October 19, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

    Climate change is coming as sure as the US came to Southeast Asia, & usual conservative denials & fear of change will not change that. Whether AG's lapsed a bit on facts or not doesn't matter at all.

    Posted by: Binky-Lu | October 19, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

    cw, that is a pretty poor example you chose to illustrate cherry-picking. "..combing the intelligence services for a single individual.." LOL. Which intelligence services? Certainly not the French, their services believed Saddam was hiding/producing WMD. The Russions? Nope, they also believed. Perhaps the Germans? Nah, they were believers too. English, Australians, the UN etc. Exactly which intelligence service didn'y believe cw? If want want to talk finding an individual, who proclaimed loudly what a great threat Saddam was, shall we start w/Bill Clinton, or his wife? Madeline Albright? John Edwards? All stated, often pre-George Bush, that they were believers. And please don't start w/the they were tricked/lied to by President Bush. The bipartisan panel selected by Congress to evaluate the run-up to the war found these legislators recieved threat reports that were toned DOWN compared to the reports the President recieved, yet your heroes took to the floor of the House and Senate proclaiming Saddam a greater and more immediate threat than the President ever did. But now, with support for the war much less than at the time of their vote, these same people, in an attempt to gain/hold political power, publicly call the President a liar. Think America's standing in the world has gone down? Was gaining holding political power worth it? Makes me sad, it's sickening, yet is only possible with the complicity of the MSM. A curse on them as well, history will judge them all very harshly, IMHO.

    Posted by: Fred of Fred | October 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

    If Gore & company are right, and they almost certainly are, you can rest assured we'll all be paradoxically drowned or drought-starved LONG before politicians, or all the other people who don't want to be inconvenienced, do anything about it.

    How was that summer, huh? Sure was hot... Oh, wait, it's STILL GOING ON even though it should be practically winter. You people that try to cast doubt on facts as simple as checking a thermometer need your heads examined.

    Posted by: Newt | October 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

    Excuse me, but is the main counter arguement here,"I'd explain the science behind our statements but you're too stupid to understand it?" Sorry, but the official rebuttal is making me feel more skeptical, not less. There are far too many "could be" "we belives" and "many scientists" (who are not named or referenced in the rebuttal) for me to take this as any more than a PR piece.

    Posted by: nexxen | October 19, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

    Contrary to what the agenda-driven left is desperately pushing on the world, the verdict is still out on global warming. In the future, we will need to address these issues:
    1. That there is global warming. I would be surprised if there isn't. Millions of years of geological data indicate that the world's average temperature fluctuates in a cyclic manner, and we are supposedly on the upswing. But still, I want to see more proof than a contrived and heavily-speculated average of 3/10 of a degree increase over the past three hundred years.
    2. That humans are causing it. Admittedly, I'd like to think that we could control this. I mean, all of our factories and cars and paper mills have to have SOME effect. However, I'd still like to see more number-crunching. The numbers I've run (and seen run) show that the earth's atmosphere is so incredibly vast that it would take hundreds of years of uncontrolled pollution to have an effect.
    3. That it's a bad thing. It's amazing how many so-called liberal 'intellectuals' have thronged to the belief that the earth is so fragile that a half-degree change in average temperature will instantly change EVERYTHING into a burning desert. Laughable. Not everything will turn into a desert. Sea levels will rise and forests will die, but there will also be new forests where there were deserts, and the Sahara will benefit greatly by the altered ocean converances. QUESTION: Would you rather see the glaciers advancing or contracting? (you can't say neither: no matter how conservative you are, you can't ignore the fact that IT WILL CHANGE).
    All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't recycle, and cut back on pollution, and design more efficient cars. It's insulting that this small group of leftists are trying to lie to the world merely to advance their political ends. Recycle because it's right - not because it's left.

    Posted by: Skulldugger7 | October 19, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

    Let's see anyone out there create a movie that contains what they think are all facts, and see how well it stands up being picked apart. Having nine issues out of the many presented is a pretty good record, especially when it's science, which changes rapidly today. If the judge thought the movie was incorrect, he would have said "no movie". Instead he said "these few issues are not proveable yet". Let's not concentrate on such minute issues, but rather concentrate on what needs to be done to save our planet. In the end, we all have to live here. There are no second chances if we screw this up. If we choose to say "we aren't doing this", then that's something we'll just have to live with and pass the buck on to our children and future generations. Or we can say "we might be impacting our planet, so let's see if we can lessen that possibility." How about not ignoring the message, and think ahead to what's next? Is the issue really that there are a few things that haven't been proven yet? Is it so important to put a political spin on this that it overshadows any thought that we might be excusing what we're doing to the planet we all live on? Really, it's time to move ahead, and do what we can "just in case" we're really screwing up the world we live in.

    Posted by: ken | October 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

    What bothers me about the Gore people is that they want to stiffle debate and raise the lever of FEAR. They immediately say that anyone that doesn't drink their coolaide is either in the pocket of big oil or delusional. Since weather prediction is tremdously complex and we can't accurately know how much man made co2 affects the weather, lets not stop open minded research and debate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't control pollution agressively but lets not assume that it will change the weather.

    Posted by: Tom | October 19, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

    Here's a short message for the pessimistic Religious Right: "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come... and that thou... shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." - Revelation 11:18. "Them which destroy the earth" in our days should refer to the fossil fuel magnates responsible for global warming.

    Posted by: BlackRaiser | October 19, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

    Amazing how a response to questions about facts first starts off by trying to address the motives of the person questioning the facts. Why address whether or not the facts are correct, because they aren't correct so we must say the person who is correct is wrong because their motives are against us. Duh!

    Amazing how people can justify altering truth is ok if it leads people to agree with us. Let the truth speak and don't fluff it with white lies and exagerations.

    Posted by: Richard | October 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

    "Climate Change"

    The climate is always changing. There is no such thing as "Climate Static". Regardless of the effects that humans may or may not have in the dynamic climate, we adapt to the changes and move forward.

    The changes through the eons have benefited some areas relative to the inhabitants and caused problems for others. Just like now.

    The problem is when some want to impose their "solutions" on others in the form of new taxes, laws and regulations.

    Those of you that want to buy carbon credits, use a bicycle as your primary transportation, etc., do so. Just don't force the rest of the world to follow you.

    Posted by: Robert | October 19, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

    What hogwash! They never addressed the most obvious lie of the film about sea levels rising 20 feet in this century when in fact the IPPC Report clearly states a worst case of 23 inches. The film is a joke! And the glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro have been retreating since the 1700s! And now that the GISS temperature data has been corrected, the 7 warmest years of the 11 warmest years in the US occurred before 1955. Gore is taking you for a ride. He's not a scientist. He is destroying the scientific method and leading us into the dark ages of science and plucking your wallet as he goes.

    Posted by: TMC | October 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

    Thanks for the link, tisjusme. Amazing that these chimps will actually still follow this Gore bozo, even after he makes startling remarks like: ". . .I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

    See for yourself:

    So . . . it's OK to lie.


    Posted by: Skulldugger7 | October 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

    It is shocking how so many people fail to understand that the underlying problem is pollution. To say there is no man-made pollution would be a lie. To say man-made pollution will not someday threaten our existence is an even bigger lie.

    Posted by: F Kapnist | October 19, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

    I like what Robert Klein said 30 years ago in his comedy routine ... "let's see an Exxon executive wrap his lips around his car's exhaust pipe and see what one man can do, my friend" LOL anyone who denies that we are putting poison into the air at a faster rate than can be absorbed by our planet, air water or land, is in denial. That said, I don't think the movie should be shown to school children as science. Maybe as entertainment on recess time! :-)

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

    Bill in NY:
    "... anyone who denies that we are putting poison into the air..."

    Complete baloney! CO2 is not a poison. CO2 is a molucule necessary for life on this planet. Go gulp some more kool-aid.

    Posted by: TMC | October 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

    Perhaps if Americans were better educated (particularly with regard to science), such issues wouldn't devolve into political blather. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to abdicate responsibility for your own decisions about scientific evidence to likely equally scientifically illiterate journalists, politicians, and judges? In the mean time, perhaps the members of the IPCC are more credible than Mr. Dobbs is on this issue (and probably many others).

    Posted by: ts | October 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

    Good jouralism requires that you should see what climate scientists have to say about the state of climate science.

    Real Climate (which is run by climate scientists who are frustrated with the media lies that prevent the truth from getting out) has a very fair analysis of Gore's movie here:

    One reason the news business is in decline is that you have allowed the advertisers to decide the facts for you. You have come a long way from the glory days of real investigative reporting.

    This attack on the greatest messenger of our age is a new low.

    Posted by: dotcommodity | October 19, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

    I am still curious why Mr Dobbs, in his own voice, chose to characterize the "9 errors" as significant. He has very little reputable company in this opinion.

    Posted by: zukermand | October 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

    I guess big Al discovered global warming as well as invented the internet. Both have been around or known of since the 50's. If Al were to live like Ed Begley Jr. and distribute his film at no profit he would deserve more respect.

    Posted by: SeanC | October 19, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

    Gore is now Dan Rather all over again. "The underlying proof may be shoddy, but the message is true!"

    Let's face it - Al Gore is riding this gravy train in his private jet all the way to the bank.

    Sincerity -

    If a man tells me that "for the sake of the ecology" I must reduce my use of natural resources, and between paragraphs sips from a container of bottled water from Evian, I doubt his sincerity.

    If a man tells me I must drive less, and consume fewer fossil fuels, before hopping into a limousine or an SUV that will take him to the airport, to ride a private jet to another city to make his next public appearance, I doubt his sincerity.

    If a man promulgates a movie to theatre complexes, requiring me to drive there to see it, rather than distributing it via public broadcast which would allow more people to see it without driving anywhere, but the message of the movie is "drive less, use fewer resource," I doubt his sincerity.

    UPDATE: If a man buys carbon offsets from himself, and proposes you buy them from him too, while living in lavish luxury using 20 times more energy than the average American, then I doubt his sincerity....

    Sincerity is not "belief in an ideal." Sincerity is "acting on an ideal." A man such as described above is not sincere. He's a hypocrite.

    Posted by: Stan B. | October 19, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

    What a shameful back-tracking and parsing of words. If only the exaggerations and outright falsehoods made by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" had been presented with such nuance in his movie. But then again, this would defeat the movie's ultimate goal of scaring people into drastic, unnecessary action.

    The assertion that "particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research" to fit in a 90-minute movie does not justify lying about or severely misrepresenting the facts. Moreover, claiming "We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate" is a classic deflection of personal responsibility. The words didn't appear by themselves; Gore chose the words he used, and he chose them deliberately.

    More importantly, in the numerous examples of false and misleading assertions documented by the British High Court, Gore's spokesperson (rather than Gore himself, who refuses to personally accept responsibility for his exaggerations and falsehoods) tries to justify the exaggerations and falsehoods by explaining that some scientists might be able to interpret certain events in a way that would be consistent with Gore's assertions. Well, if that is the case, they why didn't Gore say this in the movie, rather than deliberately convey the impression that the science is settled and all respectable scientists agree with him? The answer is that Al Gore deliberately chose to distort the science and champion baseless propaganda rather than engage in an honest and open discussion of what sound science has revealed.

    Shame on you, Al Gore, for your initial decision to deliberately distort sound science and for your ongoing decision to parse words and deflect responsibility for your exaggerations and lies.

    Posted by: James M. Taylor | October 19, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

    Reading all the sceptics posts here is like reading a 5 year olds reasoning as to how they KNOW Santa exists. As in:

    "I dont care that you're more knowledgeable than me on this subject, or that you can cite from an almost inexhaustible supply of credible sources to back up your claims - I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THATS THAT!
    And besides, my friend Billy's parents told him Santa DOES exist, so there!"

    Posted by: Geoff | October 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

    Well said, Stan B.

    Last year, did a comparison between Gore's mansion and Bush's ranchhouse. Gore's mansion is a typical American mansion - probably about as efficient as my own (much smaller) house. Bush's, however, had it's own water-recovery system, additional recycled insulation, expensive but eco-friendly lighting fixtures, and a garden of regional, low-maintenance plants.

    You do the math.

    Posted by: Skulldugger7 | October 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

    Criteria of the AFSC Nobel Peace Prize Nominating Committee:
    1. The candidate's commitment to nonviolent methods.
    2. The quality of the candidate as a person and of her/his sustained contribution to peace.
    3. The candidate's work on issues of peace, justice, human dignity, and the integrity of the environment.
    4. The candidate's possession of a world view and/or global impact as opposed to a parochial concern.

    I must have missed where it contained "Truth". "Pleading to Authority" has always been among logical flaws used - and here Gore has been shown to be no exception.

    Posted by: oh,really? | October 19, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

    I enjoy that a judge in England made scientific judgements of the movie. Sur the judge is entitle to "judge," he attended years of school and worked years to get where he is. But I seriously doubt that he has years and years of scientific training. I just read Steven Milloy's article ( about the ruling and it was quite comical. It became even more comical when I read about who Steven Milloy actually is, a former tabacco lobyist. HA!

    The bottom line: In a scientific study that is this complicated, it is extremely easy to use an "opinion" to poke holes in it and generate doubt to its validity. It is NOT easy to do years and years of research and formulate these hypothesis based on facts.

    Posted by: paul su | October 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

    On October 18, an anonymous poster wrote: "Gore is an idiot. He failed out of college and was a newspaper reporter before getting into politics using his father's name. Whatever he says is his opinion NOT fact"

    According to Wikipedia: "In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row[10] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and found a passion for government and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [9] After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university's law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District in 1976."

    Posted by: R.D. Eno | October 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse


    It's a pretty simple question:
    If those that deny climate change are wrong - what do we get? Since we won't do anything about new energy sources whoever's left living on this god forsaken planet will be living the scenes from Mad Max fighting for the last truck of oil.

    If those that say we need to start now towards clean renewable energy are wrong - wow!!! look what happens: We don't depend on Middle east oil anymore, the air is clean and the climate is still the same. Horrible, Horrible Ending!!@!!!!!!

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

    Unfortunately "An Inconvenient Truth" lost credibility in my eyes when Gore started talking about the 2000 election!! I thought this was a movie to discuss GLOBAL WARMING??? I watched the rest of it with skepticism. Wasn't Gore the goofball that said "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!!!!" about Bush?? Kind of hypocritical of him since he wants us to fear Climate change so much. I can do anything. . . I bought Carbon Offsets!!!!

    Posted by: Shawn | October 19, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

    One of you climate change denialists please explain why GE, Alcoa and over 30 Utility companies are now onboard and working towards clean energy solutions, carbon caps, and forming think tanks to create a cleaner tomorrow. I guess fortune 500 companies are filled with idiots who can't see what lies in the future.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

    Psst! While you humans were off bickering, my dang ice shelf--my home!--broke loose and is adrift and some scientists found that yeah, the food under this floe is plentiful, at least while this berg is big enough to stand on.

    It's really too late for us down here and it's too late for you out there. This planet's climate is warming and it will soon force you to change location and fight over displacement and resources.

    And there is NOTHING you can do about it, whether you believe you exacerbated matters or not.

    Apparently, my drift will take me to Florida, where I hope to live on the beachfront just north of what was once Miami.

    While you contemplate a world without polar bears (yea!), we penguins contemplate a world of only 3 billion humans...

    Posted by: Bob the Penguin | October 19, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

    Is Al Gore a propagandist? Well, let's see.

    Al Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, hurling all of Europe into another full-blown ice age.

    Government experts: The very notion of such a phenomenon is, inherently, scientifically implausible. Not only is the Gulf Stream not the reason Europe stays moderately warm in the winter, but it flows because of wind, not currents. Even Al Gore would admit that global warming can have no impact on wind. In other words, the Gulf Stream is perpetually safe, at least from the "threat" of climate change. Lie.

    Al Gore: Mt. Kilimanjaro's melting snows are clear evidence of the immediate impacts of global warming. England's government experts admitted that not only is there no evidence to support this claim, but it is blatantly untrue. Various other isolated, natural phenomena are wholly responsible. Lie.

    Al Gore: Evidence from ice cores show that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused increases in temperature over the last 650,000 years.

    Government experts: Levels of carbon dioxide have preceded any trace of rise in temperature by at least 800 to 2,000 years. Elementary school reasoning can easily reveal the inconsistency in this proclaimed correlation. Lie.

    Al Gore: By utilizing emotional and visceral photographs of Hurricane Katrina, he blamed the catastrophe on global warming.

    Government experts: It is impossible to blame any single, anomalous event on climate change. Not only was this factually incorrect, it was utterly insensitive to those who suffered. Using such a tragedy for a blatantly false, self-serving purpose is simply morally disgraceful. Moreover, the same scientist whose findings Gore used to correlate the strength of hurricanes to global warming said himself that we cannot claim such a cause-and-effect relation. Lie.

    Al Gore: Human emission of carbon dioxide will cause most of Greenland's 630,000 square miles of ice to melt by 2100, causing an increase in sea levels of over 20 feet in a mere 90 years.

    This is alarming, almost as if someone decided to invent the fact out of whole cloth to frighten the world community into believing something untrue. The United Nations' review of global warming found that it will take millennia for that amount of ice to melt, according to the policymaker's summary. The rise in sea level in 2100, moreover, will be somewhere between 8 and 17 inches.

    Al Gore overestimates - or, more appropriately, purposely exaggerates - the consequences by 2,000 percent. Gore's second-favorite example of melting ice is in Antarctica. Using his ever-impressive shrewdness, he presents evidence that only surveys ice sheets from the Western half and also only dates to 2002, a mere 5 years ago. Unfortunately for him, when scientists looked at the entire Antarctic from 1992, the evidence showed that the ice there is actually increasing. Lie.

    Posted by: Here is the meat | October 19, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

    Most climate change advocacy articles seem to make a big point of the fact that their opponents are being paid by someone. In their view, those paychecks damn their objectivity.

    What about those scientists who are proponents of drastic global warming theories? Don't they get paychecks?

    It is simple verifiable fact that an enormous industry has evolved from global warming, and hundreds of thousands of jobs (in just the USA) are directly dependent on global warming. A lot of "big businesses" are actually making a lot of money on global warming.

    Companies like oft-demonized Exxon have no particular reason to pay people to fight the global warming craze. They know that people are not going to simply stop using oil, whether it is in cars or used to make plastics. The end use is pretty much irrelevant to them in the long run, and right now they make a bundle by selling specially-formulated "low-emission" fuels that sell at a higher profit margin.

    Warming the climate a few degrees would actually be good for most multi-national corporations, including agriculture, construction, and mining. Open up all of Canada & Siberia to agriculture & industry, for instance.

    And also note.. even so-called non-profit research institutes have to get money from somewhere.

    Global warming proponents cannot honestly claim to be unbiased, especially not any scientist whose job and grants will disappear when the global warming hysteria calms down to a more rational level.

    Posted by: reader | October 19, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

    After reading ALL of these comments... I hope to heck that Gore is right and humanity becomes the cause of its own extinction. What a bunch of self-indulgent, greedy, know-it-alls. Yeah, pollution in general is a great thing... I highly encourage sucking as much of it down as possible. Smog? Smog is fantastic; please, by all means, go inhale a lung full. Global warming... Hah... most human pigs like being up to their armpits in sewage and toxic filth. I just wish we'd speed up the process of our own doom, so I'm not exposed to this drivel anymore.

    Posted by: depressed | October 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

    Here is the Meat-head. Did you see oil reached a record $90 per barrel today. Let's "stay the course" as you would do, and let OPEC control our future and continue to let Big Oil rake it in Real great argument you have. Because the big picture you can't seem to see, is that if we embraced clean, renewable energy sources we could thumb our noses at OPEC. Oh, man a nice side line to this would be we won't have to have this argument.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

    The Gore Response Team is just that, the "Al Gore Response Team". This article does not refute one aligation of factual error, they dance around and dimish the errors.

    They try to make the point, don't get lost in the facts, it is the principle of golbal warming that counts. Science in fact refutes the Global Warming theory (note it is a "theory", not a fact). Why are so many human beings so eager to follow the crowd and not really think things through?

    We must be wise stewards of our environment, but please don't lie to me to try to get me to comply. That is simply wrong. Al Gore is s self-centered ego maniac who lost a presidential campaign and can't get over it. He produced this documentary to highlight himself and get on an agenda band wagon for his own enrichment. He doesn't even follow his own "principles". His carbon foot print is outrageous, yet he preaches to every one else about how they should behave.

    History will show that Al Gore lied and many people died. So follow your leader, as for me, I will follow the truth regardless of popularity.

    Posted by: MegaWhy | October 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

    Oh, humanity. There's nothing like a good debate about the validity of a debate ... especially when one side is funded by special interests who need ignorance and apathy to make trillions off the rape of the Earth.
    Here's a thought: manmade catastrophic climate change is not real - there is nothing to worry about expect those crazy liberals and their whacked out environmental causes. Manifest Destiny ya' all ... God gave us this planet to rape, pillage, and destroy. Man will always clean up the mess.

    Posted by: Monkey See, Monkey Do | October 19, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

    "over-estimate" sea level rise by 10 or 20 times, in order to gain wealth and fame, no problem says Big Al. You say that needlessly scares children about their future? Boo frickin Hoo, I'm not going back to flying commercial, says Big Al. Over-reaction by gullible countries causes their economies to shrink/stall/collapse? Let them eat cake, says Big Al, I'm not going back to the rubber chicken Chamber of Commerce lecture circuit. What a swell human being.

    Posted by: Friend of Fred | October 19, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

    Wow "Depressed" I'm with you. I really look forward to chugging some C02 and other filth at the local pollution bar. Kind of end up with a "Blade Runner" world. I don't care if some facts were wrong, or if Al Gore makes some money at it. We're so full of ourselves and all so sure of our own facts, we'll never get it right.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

    Here's what I don't understand... I'm not a scientist, but I have common sense. If a plastic bag takes years and years to biodegrade, and I can see this with my own eyes because of the TRASH lying around our roads, and then a company, perhaps spurred by fears of global warming invents a plastic bag that can biodegrade in a year, how is that a bad thing?

    If I can look out my window and see the smog enveloping my city, and someone says, hey let's clean that up, why is that something to be fought against?

    If my nephew goes to Iraq to fight and die in a war that is largely due to our dependence on oil and someone says, hey let's come up with a way that we wouldn't be so dependent on oil so other kids might not have to die, then who cares why they're saying it?

    Do I really care if Al Gore lives in a mansion or if his movie creates fear (God forbid that tactic be used for something other than terrorism!) if the end result is that we start caring about the planet we live on and thinking about the next generation and not just ourselves?

    Honestly, I don't. God will judge Al Gore's lifestyle choices. I will judge what's right and wrong based on my own two eyes. What do they show me? I can look around and decide that I want that forest next to my house to stay a forest, not become a landfill. I want to be able to swim in the river that's currently closed to swimming because of the chemicals that got dumped into it. I want my lightbulbs to last longer. I want to drive 125 miles without gasoline using the electric car that got smooshed, rather than paying $35 every time I fill up my gas tank. I want my kids to enjoy those endangered species that are dying out.

    These are no brainers, right? So what's all the arguing against An Inconventient Truth about if not simply politics? Who among us benefits from refuting its message?

    Posted by: curious | October 19, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

    Curious - You've made more sense than anyone on this blog. I applaud you. I don't know how anyone can argue with the simple truths - as you have said them.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

    It seems like the fact that any film about global warming will likely contain some element of side-bias or questionable information, seeing that we have yet to reach a conclusion on the issue. The nature of science, in fact, is such that many issues will never be conclusive. That doesn't mean students should not learn about them. I think it's stupid that the court making any decision on this issue- it should be an issue left to schools to guarantee that students are getting an adequate education. This decision is as stupid as banning books in schools.

    As to the question of the response here, the 'factual errors' are all based on science, there is no intent to lie about anything and presentation of the film clearly shows one set of theories about the idea. Hmm, presentation and discussion of theories... sounds like school!

    Posted by: l | October 19, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

    regarding this comment:

    Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.

    have you taken a good look at the movie poster ...?

    Posted by: vaporland | October 19, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

    Fact is, Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize along with the IPCC, not the Petroleum Institute's well-funded think tanks....

    Posted by: Jay | October 19, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

    I'm sorry, but I found Gore's response wholly underwhelming. They're using circular reasoning. Saying "here's a series of environmental problems, and if global warming is true they will only get worse" is the same as saying "if Santa Clause is real he will be very unhappy with those who do not believe" Both statements assume the consequence of the premise to prove the premise. Global warming may be real, and may be a crisis, but Gore has not proven so.

    Posted by: Jon Hughes | October 19, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

    Remark by Friend of Fred

    "Over-reaction by gullible countries causes their economies to shrink/stall/collapse"

    Friend of Fred - what happens if Iran sinks an oil tanker in the Straights and Oil jumps to $200-$300-$400 a barrel? WE ALL GO DOWN THE TUBES - THE WORLDS ECONOMY WILL BE UPSIDE DOWN. That's more of a real threat than this economic doom you speak of from the world turning to clean energy.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

    Global warming is just an excuse to tax the air we breathe

    Posted by: idiotdepot | October 19, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

    Will one of you denialists just tell me what is the down side to clean, renewable energy? Please explain - call me an idiot -I don't understand. If we had a global initiative to move away from the Carbon Economy, planned, studied, and enacted intelligently - what will be the terrible downside??????? I just don't get why you argue. Please someone explain the down side to me. Oil in the ground is finite. Maybe you know that oil is being delivered to Saudi Arabia by Aliens. If you know this - please clue me in on it. Otherwise - guess what. The tank will be empty one day. If One economy can be replaced with another if done over a period of years - and could be led by the country that put a man on the moon - what is the downside?????

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

    I have made changes to my life and the way I do things because of the Al Gore's movie. There are a lot of scenarios we have to consider about our future. Some people have other financial interests in the way we address the Global Warming issue. The fact is our planet has created sever climate changes on several occasions. That is nature, and we have to live with it. Hurricanes, volcanoes, and tsunamis are all going to be there whether we change our ways or not. But I do sleep better knowing that I am contributing less to the problem. Why not try to be more conscious of our environment if we can. Does it really hurt to change from coal power plants to natural gas, or buy an efficient hybrid vehicle instead of the Humvee. Those who watch the video are going to draw their own conclusions. I applaud the efforts of Al Gore and all those who are taking the initiative to educate others. "Either you a part of the problem or part of the solution, what's your contribution to life" - Jurassic 5

    Posted by: Mc G | October 19, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

    Have I posted anything saying I was against developing cleaner fuels???? I love the fact that there are more trees in the US now then there were at in 1900. What kind of human being wouldn't? I also remember the exhaust spewing from EVERY vehicle when I was growing up. Don't miss that a bit...always reminded of it when you come across one that still does it. I remember rivers catching on fire, but don't hear about that much anymore. Lake Erie was "dead", now we have bass fishing tournaments here. Technology is responsible for most of these improvements. The main man-made sources of regular pollution in the world today are in 3rd world or evolving countries like China. Slowing economic growth would seem to be counter-productive, IMHO. Any posters here know what the biggest producers of CO2 emissions in the world are? Hint: Al's suggestions(for the rest of us) would not address it. Hint 2: he's catching heck from PETA for not mentioning it...

    Posted by: Friend of Fred | October 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

    Jon Hughes, that's not circular reasoning, that's a conditional statement as is your analogy. You must have missed that day in logic 101. and you compound your error by making this completely erroneous claim "Both statements assume the consequence of the premise to prove the premise." WHAT??? LOL I want some of what you're smokin buddy!

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

    Hey vaporland, frequency is not intensity. Figure it out.

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

    Reader, you make an excellent point about the motives of all scientists. But let's just take these 2 facts and put them together: 1: CO2 gasses can deplete ozone thereby raising the earths mean temperature and "B" earths mean temperature is rising. Don't you think that we should be at least a little concerned about what the consequences of those 2 facts might be? As someone else said, what's the downside to using less energy? I don't see one for the Gore side, I do for the energy industry side therefore, I see the energy industrys motives to be more suspect. Simple logic.

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

    Friend of Fred. You mention rivers catching fire and exhaust spewing. Guess what - they are clean because of environmental initiatives that were led by the Government and environmental champions like GORE. Your and idiot. This stuff didn't happen on it's own!! The auto makers were forced to develop better mileage, catalytic converters - and the chemical companies were forced to do something about spewing waste into the rivers. They fought against change just like today say that the costs would be too high to survive!!

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse


    You end up where we should all be. Pick the low hanging fruit. Let's work conservation, energy efficiency (and aim for self-sufficiency), work on fusion and renewable resources. All good.

    The problem is that the next step (barely disguised by most of GW crowd), is not to aim for the low hanging fruit, but to impose draconian measures to combat something the danger of which is entirely unknown at this point.

    Further, the totally duplicitous nature of many of the people laying out the GW theory to in every case ignore anything that offers conflicting cues and to scare and attempt to shout down any with the gall to disagree about GW makes them sad.

    It should be very easy to find the middle stance on this, as the goals as you poiont out should be agreeable to all. It is the doomsaying and attempts to force everyone to your bidding through taxes/treaties/big brother that make many fair minded observers puke. Or the treating of very inconclusive things as facts by the constant appeal to authority.

    GW alarmists are truly the WORST enemy GW theory has going for it. Their impatience, intolerance, dim witted certainty of their own correctness (bordering on delusional), and that rather constant appealing to authority fallacy drive otherwise potential allies right out the door. I'm one of them.

    I'm an aerospace engineer by trade, and some of the best data sets on this come from satellites. It's my understanding that Antrop. GW predicts that the atmosphere should be warming up most, and first. Yet in 30 years or so of date, it is my understanding that the atmosphere has actually shown to be cooling. That is just one small example. Just like they melting ice sheet they always show in GW alarm peices hides the ones that are growing and expanding on the same landmass. I read they have to pass right by some of the growing ones to get to the melting one.

    So though it is not my specialty, this space engineer suggests that you don't let yet another appeal to authority from GW alarmists who quote one guy here at NASA (Hansen) let people believe that folks as a whole at NASA consider this a settled question.

    More study. Yes. Become better at leaving a cleaner world behind us? Yes, absolutely, for a big number of reasons. Presume we know enough to say we should undertake drastic measures to deal with GW at this time? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

    Posted by: Here is the meat | October 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

    I believe that the difference between of .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere (probably) created by man, simply does not warrant the fear being spread, not just by Al Gore, but much of the media. If such a small percentage difference would destroy the natural balance and create the death and destruction promised, then the PBS specials of yester-year showing various cataclisms they seem to be quite certain of, would clearly have destroyed us all years ago. No, I think the Earth is far more resilient than that.
    THE problem with the Al Gore show was the title, containing and purporting to be, "TRUTH". They gilded the lily on each and every item as though it was a political promotion or as a religious tenet, for if it was a product it would have to be backed to avoid the laws regarding truth in advertising.
    For myself, I've been around long enough to remember the "Impending New Ice Age" thing, promoted by the environmentalists, Newsweek, and perhaps even the Post (I didn't read it then). They had just gotten around to defining people as "deniers" when the weather stopped cooperating. To all you that seem to think a no-brainer consensys exists that (man-made) global warming is a fact, there are some very prestigious folks out there that find it problematic. Don't look for the younger researchers to contradict it, because they wish to keep their jobs, and keep or obtain government grants, and with the push to make it politically incorrect to "deny" it, true scientific discussion is becoming impossible for this issue in this country.

    Posted by: Terry | October 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

    Meat states: "Presume we know enough to say we should undertake drastic measures to deal with GW at this time? ABSOLUTELY NOT."

    Why not? What are the "drastic measures" of which you are so afraid? Mandate better gas mileage from auto-makers? .. spend money on researching alternative fuels? ...Tax rebates for energy savers? Work with other countries toward a common goal? Yes, scary stuff!!!

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

    Terry, what's the downside? What are the drastic measures that we are all afraid of? It's kind of like believing in heaven ... what's the downside? None, but the upside is fantastic! So far no one has made a credible argument for not believing that it might be true. What will be the downside to saving energy? Please explain. Ironically, I would bet that the neocons who are complaining about the "fear factor" are the same ones spreading fear about a terrorist attack, knowing full well that terrorists have killed far fewer people than almost any other event you can name except shark attacks! Hypocrites!

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

    I do agree with you. But what draconian measures do you speak of? Developing solar, fusion, nuclear, water/tidal, ethanol from sugar cane, other renewable sources. What is so draconian about pointint ourselves in that direction I'm looking at the big picture of getting off of Middle Eastern Oil also. Draconion is what will happen if the Middle East Blows up in a huge conflict - possibly led by Iran. We will have done nothing about our dependence on foreign oil - and then you'll really see draconian! Your aurgument against someone like Gore, just delays the inevitable - we have to get off of the the oil habit. As a scientist, you of all people must know it's a finite supply.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

    Who needs to be a scientist to know that the climate has drastically changed over the decades, the fact is, if it is allowed to continue the changes shall accelerate, and, once past the point of no return we shall be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Hostile nitpicking about the subject matter is done with malicious intent to discredit the report on the orders of vested interests. Those who do not take the report seriously have their heads up where the sun don't shine. Love him or loath him, Al Gore and not a few others have the planets best interests at heart, those who profit by fossil fuels have their own selfish interests at heart!

    Posted by: Gerry | October 19, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

    How can a 100 minute movie present "thousands and thousands of facts". Having that statement in your first paragraph indicated your bias to me and made me hesitant to accept anything else displayed on this page.

    Posted by: Jeff | October 19, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

    >Why not? What are the "drastic measures" of which you are so afraid?

    Attempt to enforce mandates/treatiees ala Kyoto that at this time would require dratic imapcts to GDP. That is the dumb answer to teh problem, and hurts those who want to advocate change.

    Researching new technolgies, incentivizing market solutions like: spenidng real money on fusion research, battery technolgy, getting serious about energy efficiency in homes/work. These are part of low hanging fruit we all agree on. There are many smart ways to skin this cat (sorry PETA). Even the goal Gore once said of trying to end the internal combustion engine is an admirable one. But as soon as you make it a big brother/central planning forced govt. mandate by "those who know better, so be quiet and just do what we say", you are dead in the water.

    Posted by: Here is the meat | October 19, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

    Sorry about the many spelling problems above. Eek!!

    Posted by: Here is the meat | October 19, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

    "Attempt to enforce mandates/treatiees ala Kyoto that at this time would require dratic imapcts to GDP."

    Might those impacts be positive? Your answer assumes more chrystal balling that Gore's movie. And I agree, that is a dumb answer.

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

    Of course cleaner air is a desirable goal, and so is recycling. But we don't need to be LIED TO by Gore's political machine to do it. Trains running on time is a good thing, but the way Mussolini got it to happen was abhorrent. Work toward a greener earth because it's the right thing to do - not because of a bunch of lies promulgated by a bunch of jack-booted political thugs.

    Posted by: Skulldugger7 | October 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

    Hmmm, isn't it black, not colored?

    All science has a margin of error. Meteorological science tends to have an even great margin. What is todays weather going to be??? What I do 'know' is that year by year the city I live in just 'seems' to be hotter. I do not know what the cause is but I do know that I don't like it. Is it possible I am the cause or at least a contributor? Deflection and avoidance or lying is usually the result when avoiding taking personal responsibility. So really, what IF I am the cause? What if I were to bring my own grocery bags, used a fuel efficient car, carried a resusable water bottle, used EER a/c, fridge, etc, change bulbs to compact fluorescents, maybe I could make a difference. We all want what we want without regard for the other person or its impact. Humans are mostly selfish beings, animals really and evolutionarily still quite young. Can we make a difference? Sure. Will we??? A question that won't be answered until I am dust.

    Posted by: knowspics | October 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

    Here's an perfect example of how well your theory of leaving everything up to the private sector with no governmental (as you say draconian) mandates to improve efficiency, etc.

    Average fuel mileage for a 1927 Ford Model T - 27mpg
    Average mileage for GM/Ford cars today
    This is with CAFE standards put in place by our government.
    HMMMMMM. So you're telling me we couldn't have developed any better mileage in 80 years. Wow - I guess the auto makers have our best interest in mind. If the government handn't stepped in with CAFE standards (one of your draconian measures) cars would probably have an average fuel mileage of 3 miles per gallon.

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

    Skulldugger - Political Machine???? What political machine? Maybe an economic machine to earn a lot of money. But that's his right as an American. Remember, we have this thing called CAPITOLISM. I guess you've forgotten this. It's good to get rich in the U.S. It's what everybody wants or at least covets. That's why we're so captivated by Paris Hilton!! We have this conversation today because of things Al Gore has done. What have you done, but complain about some nonexistent POLITICAL MACHINE>

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

    In pure spite of you morons who fearfully follow this Global Warming theory, I shall be filling my car up tonight and running it until morning for no reason (it's ok, I am a republican and have a high paying job, I can afford it). It is afterall, too cold in Chicago for my taste.

    You people have crap for brains; this stuff was predicted in the Bible thousands of years ago, but no! It couldn't be that, it must be what Gore says!

    The hottest year on record was 1933, not 1998 by the way. So many people want to be MLK or Bobby Kennedy, but you don't have the causes that they had.

    Go get jobs

    Posted by: Jordan-Chicago | October 19, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

    The Downside, is always paid by the middle and lower classes. The powers that be, apparently from both parties, believe that taking money from the middle and lower classes is the solution to all problems, but often leaves personel, and sometimes generational destruction in its well-meaning wake (i.e., welfare, ATDC, etal. which severely damaged the earning power of black families and others). First, its no secret that a $3 per gallon tax on gas has been mentioned, as a "beginning". Shutting down gas and coal fired electical generation, if done in a panic, will boost the price of energy, perhaps by multiples. Also, no drilling of the oil resources we do have. To you this may seem a great thing, but using these resources will seem necessary even to a true-believing Gorastrian, should gasoline be $6 per gallon. The poor and middle classes will no longer be able to afford to drive, and therefore have trouble with employment, etc. Somewhere in this cycle, economic meltdown begins. Meanwhile, Al will still be flying his jet around the world, along with the other modern-day Messiahs, who preach but don't practice. Oddly, the UN seems to think that cows are truly the major cause of excess CO2 (yes, same guys that share the award, the Onion must be giving out Nobels). Do you eat burgers Bill? OK, so kill all the cattle, then where are we? Eating more plants? Don't touch those, they actually break down the CO2...
    If you are a true believer, then why do you wish to do anything? Al Gore said two years ago that it would be irreversable in 10 years. Even if the US stopped all CO2 production today, the Chinese and Indians would outpace all we produce (some say they already have) in no time. So we're doomed! Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die: If we accept what Al says!
    So it AINT like believing in heaven Bill, economically it is like believing in Hell, and only Hell. I have sited only a few energy-only related "downsides", but economically they are the tip of the ice-berg. Bill, don't go wasting your energy in believing in Al Gore, you will ultimately be disapointed, and you'll be poor.
    Just one question: In '94 when Al was VP, with Democrats in charge of the Senate, where were Al and the Democrats with Kyoto?? If they really wanted it, no "neocons" were in power, or even on the radar.

    Posted by: Terry | October 19, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

    Hey Jordan in Chicago, please do us a favor and run that car in your garage all night. It's a nice peaceful way to end it all ... sleep sleep tight! ;-)

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

    Terry I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but I cannot be poor because I live on Long Island, home of the highest electric rates in the country!, so while I don't share your fears about the middle class, I am concerned about electric rates and more important, the rising tide since I have waterfront property! Granted, I will be gone by the time it reaches my door, but each storm we have brings it closer and closer. Bottom line is: no one has to listen to Gore, he may influence policy, but in my mind the best way to prepare for the worst is to think it just may happen. Worst case scenario we call it in my business... it's always smart to calculate the risks.

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

    I know quite a few folks that used to live in the Glenn Cove area. They sold and moved to Florida, worked out nicely for them.
    In my case, I'm an Engineer. I like to deal with facts when possible. In this topic, I see too much emotion and no data, but lots of really expensive suggestions. I would personally like to see real energy solutions worked out and put forward to replace oil and fossil fuels, without pushing the demise of our economy.

    Posted by: Terry | October 19, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

    Terry, I agree, but I see fear mongering about the economy as pointless as fearmongering about the ecology. Alternative energy will be big business and the real fear should be in oor continued dependance on foreign oil and the trillion dollar wars that are necessitated by same.

    Posted by: Bill in NY | October 19, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

    Wow, its amazing how stooopid people can be on both sides of this issue (I won't dignify it with the term debate). But then again were trying to get rational answers and discussions from people that probably can't name a dozen scientists or elements (or countries, or counties in their states, or cousins in their families) without looking it up.

    People nowadays are stupid. Plain and simple. Adjusted for the decreasing standards of testing and measuring, intelligence has actually gone down over the past 100 years (you really are stupider than your great grandparents), so it shouldn't be a big surprise that we fark this all up. People can't do math, they don't understand science, physics might as well be an impossibility. Non-linear dynamics of weather systems, just fuggedabotit. And before you yell about being smarter because you can use a computer and a cell phone, just shut up unless you could build that computer or cell phone on your own.

    Of course if the average American had half a functioning brain cell to work with the world would be a very different place. But then we'd be missing out on things like MTV's Jackass, the Surreal Life, Kid Nation, and Dancing with the Stars. Not to mention all the incredibly intelligent conversations (thats sarcasm) you hear on shock and awe news programs (they know your to dumb to look the news up yourself so they'll show you the same 15 minutes of not really news over and over again all week long).

    Of course its not really their fault (I can't even type that with a straight face). If you can be President without having an education to speak of, what do you think your going to get when it comes to the lowest common denominator.

    To paraphrase Mr. Franklin, its only a democracy if we can keep it, and we stopped keeping it a while ago. Of course long before our founding fathers figured we'd screw this stuff up, other moderately intelligent people like Socrates and Plato had already acknowledged that a democracy is the most dangerous and difficult of all forms of government.

    Oh well,

    We get what we deserve.

    Posted by: Bakaman | October 19, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

    It's difficult to have a conversation with religious zealots, and Gore is out there preaching, not teaching. Too bad we don't have some people who can explain the science to the non-science-trained population without pushing an agenda.

    Posted by: Jim | October 19, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

    What would people say if after spending countless billions of dollars to reduce CO2 and nothing changed? Then the scientific community says "Oops. The sun has more of an impact on climate changes than us."

    While I strongly advocate personal responsibility in respecting our wonderful planet, I can not idly sit by and take supposed facts at face value without having an extreme opposite view to compare against. I applaud this controversial report and decision...but I will continue to do my part to support the reduction of ALL pollutants and to continue to persuade all humans to buy less, buy with more credibility and respect the person next to you. That, in the end, will be the difference maker that we can all partake in.

    Posted by: LL | October 19, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

    Would it be relevant to ask: just how much would it take before Team Gore might admit they are wrong? How many years of temperature DECREASES and REDUCTIONS in the incidence of extreme weather events? And how long would it take for those details to be admitted as the truth?

    Then ask yourself: haven't we got a political Frankenstein creation here that's got away on us?

    Posted by: PhilBest | October 19, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

    Ah Phil, Eli knows a fellow by the name of Brian Schmidt who is willing to bet you that global temperatures will increase. You can reach him at backseat driving

    Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 19, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

    People talk about DEADs as nothing more than a number. Put the label AMERICAN in front of that number and see how it feels. These numbers are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers...;.....

    Posted by: Sam | October 19, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

    Suprisingly the word believe is used many a times and not the word facts. Where is science?

    Posted by: Unbelieve | October 19, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

    "It's difficult to have a conversation with religious zealots, and Gore is out there preaching, not teaching. Too bad we don't have some people who can explain the science to the non-science-trained population without pushing an agenda."

    It IS difficult. There are absolutely NO scientific facts in Gore's babble.

    People are out there explaining the truth to the masses. Find yourself a copy of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" whose guest speakers include scientists that Gore claims back him. These scientists call him the liar he really is.

    That film has its share of controversy as well. What I find mind boggling is how Gore's statements are called facts by his zealots but comments from GGWS are called theories, viewpoints and claims. Gore is no scientist. I know who I would believe...

    Look here for some real facts:

    Posted by: Disgusted | October 19, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

    Dan D my comments about the polar bears is true because my scientists are not employed by the AGW industial complex.

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

    how come mr gore did not win the nobel prize for inventing the internet and since there giving them away where can i get one i invented the fly swatter

    Posted by: getsix1 | October 19, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

    Thankfully the Gore team again proves that all facts can be twisted for whatever reason they need 2 words BULL CRAP!!

    Posted by: if-only-it-were-true | October 20, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse

    i guess that limo and his personal jet he travels in must run on batterys so isnt it strange that someone who is so worred about globel warming lives in a huge energy wasting house drives a suv and limos and has a personal jet id have more respect for him if he rode a bike and drove a electric car like most tree huggers do

    Posted by: getsix1 | October 20, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

    I used to think the Post was a credible news source until the weekend after 9/11 I read in their magazine insert that I should go buy gas masks for my family and tape up my windows and doors. And to 'get the picture' more clearly they included the photos of innocent Israeli settlers frightened by those crazed Palestinian Moslem terrorists.
    So the fact checker attacks Gore for overzealously calling for humankind to control increasing levels of industrial pollution and quoting (with possibly a few errors) a majority of the world's scientists who believe that bad things will happen if we don't. I saw the movie so excuse me if I side with Gore and science on this one. BTW - if you didn't see the movie please don't bother posting till you do.
    MEANWHILE 100's of thousands of Iraqis die with thousands of our own troops dead or horribly maimed while our brave soldiers brutally occupy a country savaged by death and destruction under the pretence of a Presidential right to wage a 'pre-emptive' War. We are fighting the Islamic Terrorists there so we don't have to fight them in the Homeland.
    FACT CHECKER earns his salary by playing along with this Orwellian nightmare brought to us by the Bush cabal in apparent collusion with America's major media outlets.
    So you ask - where is the link?
    Gore = honest protagonist with a record of being right on issues but frequently misquoted or smeared.
    W.Post = foul neocon outlet I will only read for free.

    Posted by: wpostlied | October 20, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

    I want to post a relevant concern that I have about the fact that a very large surface area of the Arctic Ocean melted toward the end of this summer. Apparently, more ice melted than some of the models predicted. I will express my concern by using the analogy of going on a picnic with an ice chest to carry the food that needs to be kept cool. Typically one goes to the supermarket, buys a bag full of ice cubes and transfers the ice cubes into the ice chest. Then one's wife places the food she has prepared for the picnic into the ice chest to keep it cool. Now let us examine three factors that are involved in this cooling process 1) about 80 calories of heat are removed from the interior of the chest for every gram of ice that melts, 2) the rate at which this heat is removed depends on how hot the day is and how good the insulation of the chest is, 3) the ability of the ice to be able to remove the heat by melting depends on the surface area of the ice so that when the surface area of the ice becomes to little the temperature in the chest will increase. Now, the net melting of the ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland and elsewhere over a year's cycle are, to some extent, serving the global function of cooling the planet. We have just lost a lot of surface area of ice in the arctic region. You may argue that arctic water will freeze again in the winter so we will again have a cooling function next summer as the ice melts - true, but there is a serious problem with this argument. In the freezing process in the winter, 80 calories are added to the atmosphere per gram of water converted to ice. If the same amount of ice melts next summer as did this summer then over the year's cycle there will have been no net cooling! This adds to the other problems. I am worried - I have grandchildren that I dearly love.

    Posted by: J. G. Albright | October 20, 2007 12:52 AM | Report abuse

    Al Gore may not be a climatologist, and I think he needs some backup. Non-experts may fail to adequately defend anthropogenic climate change, but the true experts won't.

    If you think you have some "argument" against Anthropogenic climate change, then go here:

    This is website run by actual, well-respected research climatologists. They will set you straight.

    Here are responses to common contrarian arguments:

    Here is another:

    Good Luck

    Posted by: Bill | October 20, 2007 1:47 AM | Report abuse

    Why is nobody mentioning the fact that while the greenland ice sheet is shrinking along it's edges, it has actually become thicker at it's core? Or that while it's true the western antarctic shelf is also shrinking, other parts of the shelf have actually expanded? These are some, I repeat some, of the reasons they have changed the terminology from global warming to climate change. Now I believe it is only common sense for we humans to try and reduce our impact upon the enviroment, but to play into sensational claims that we are some how the cause of climate change is just stupid. We need to look at all the evidence and make sound decisions rather than just scare people into doing going along with a policy. This is true with enivormental issues just as it is true with economic, political, and martial decisions. The world over needs some cooler heads in key positions if we are to find relevant, sustainable solutions to the world's problems.

    Posted by: daniel j | October 20, 2007 2:22 AM | Report abuse

    Nero and fiddle comes to mind!

    Posted by: Grim Reaper | October 20, 2007 6:10 AM | Report abuse

    Who and why the suit was brought are of little consequence. The Court's ruling is. As the Judge pointed out there are a number of inaccuracies in the film. How may times have you heard the scientific community lament, "Gore should be praised for bringing the Global Warming issue to the public's attention, but we wish he had been a bit more factual; less of an alarmist."? We should teach our children fact, not fiction.

    Posted by: Robert Page | October 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

    It seems to me clear that there was only token interest in facts in making the film and no real effort in vetting the claims. For example we don't hear about how the Gore "science" team debated and questioned their own sources. It was pure politics ala Michael Moore and that is okay if being honest. The best proof is the response which focuses more on discrediting than being honest. Funding sources don't change facts and without free market funding sources we would be left with only politically motivated government directed research - a real crisis.

    Posted by: Gary Mesch | October 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

    I think the FactChecker's writings on Al Gore call this whole blog into question. The FactChecker misrepresented and exaggerated the ruling by the British judge as well as reported the judges findings as undisputed facts.

    If the Michael Dobbs is not an honest writer on this topic, then why should we believe that he would be on other topics?

    Posted by: SusanSmith343 | October 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

    A careful review of the evidence shows that Gore is clearly and unambiguously correct on 8 of these 9 points. For many of them, the film simply never asserts what this obviously biased judge claims. On others, the judge badly misrepresents the facts and science. Only the evacuation issue is worthy of a correction: Gore should have said evacuations were planned, very few had actually occurred.

    Many of these others are simply strawmen--things the film never actually said anywhere, like "exact fit," "near future," and "shut down." The Fact Checker needs to run a correction after repeating some of these, especially the "near future" which was put in quotes at the top of the first installment of this, and falsely attributed to Gore.

    The rest are simply illustrative examples of disturbing trends known to be attributable to global warming, such as glacial retreat, mass coral bleaching, hurricanes, droughts, and polar bears about to become an endangered species. It is often the case in science that no one data point proves something. It would be very difficult, however, for any competent judge to assert that Gore's examples were poorly chosen, given the evidentiary record as a whole.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

    Well, I summarized my opinion in the above post, but I had a much longer post which I attempted to post 3 times, and which never appeared. Maybe I just need to break it up? I'll give it a try:

    The judge here has gotten most of his facts wrong on these 9 "errors". At the least, he is very misleading in how he presents them. Perhaps some of this reflects the fact that neither Gore, the filmmakers, or any environmental scientists were a party to this particular legal dispute.

    At any rate, the one genuine error I see here is the issue about evacuations from pacific islands. It seems Gore should have said, "That's why citizens of these pacific nations have had to plan to evacuate to New Zealand". This seems to be more a misstatement than an exaggeration. link

    On the rest, the Judge misrepresents either the film or the evidence. On the impact of a 20 foot sea level rise, nowhere does the film say this would occur "in the near future." As for the 20 foot estimate if "half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted," here's what NASA has to say:

    "Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world's fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans." link

    If there's enough ice there in total to raise levels by 75 meters, or about 250 feet, then Gore's 20 foot estimate seems reasonable enough for the portions discussed.

    As for Kilimanjaro, this is only one of many sites of melting glaciers depicted in the film. Others locations mentioned are Glacier National Park, the Columbia Glacier, the Himalayas, the Alps, Peru, Argentina, and Patagonia. While it's difficult to attribute changes at any one site to global factors alone, the global pattern is unmistakable.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

    On the polar bears, the judge is especially disingenuous. link

    On Katrina, Gore uses it as an example of how warmer water can increase the power of the storm:

    "And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger."

    He nowhere says that the water was warmer that particular day only because of global warming. It is clear however, that stronger storms will be one likely result of warmer oceans.

    On Chad, Gore uses it as an example of the fact that global warming can cause both flooding in some areas, and drought in others. He says that "one of the reasons" for this is that it "not only increases precipitation world wide, but it also relocates the precipitation." He says that "one of the factors" contributing to problems in the region is "the lack of rainfall and the increasing drought." He never attributes the drying of the lake entirely to global warming. But it is clear that lack of rainfall has played a role, as has increased evaporation due to higher temperatures. Both are expected effects of global warming.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

    On the connection between CO2 and temperature, Gore nowhere asserts an "exact fit". He simply shows the actual graphs, and asserts, that there is "one thing that kind of jumps out at you". The judge's conclusion that the two graphs "do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts" is mind boggling. The judge on this one is far outside of the scientific consensus. It seems he finds it necessary to distort both the film and the science on this one. Perhaps because it is so persuasive. link

    On the ocean conveyor, Gore nowhere asserts that it is expected to shut down. He merely points out that it has in the past, in response to a large release of melting glacial ice. And he accurately notes that "The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time."

    When the current forecast from the IPCC is for a 30% slowdown by 2100, it is hardly "alarmist" to consider the possibility that it could be worse. This is like calling someone "alarmist" who suggests preparing to survive a category 5 hurricane, when the forecast is "only" for a category 2.

    On coral reefs, I don't see how one can debate the point that they are bleaching "because of global warming and other factors". It is well established that warmer sea temperatures are one cause of bleaching. And mass coral bleaching in recent decades is a real phenomena. One can certainly debate the relative degree of importance of different factors, but the film doesn't even seem to take a position on that.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

    Is it too much to ask for all who post comments to note whether they've seen the movie?
    I've read lot's of intelligent posts from people who dissagree with Gore and the majority of science on this topic, and I can agree to dissagree BUT it would help us all to start with a baseline of knowledge - and that is giving Gore's movie a viewing!
    After all aren't we debating the logic of this issue or is it all about personality and decisions from the 'gut.'
    It hurts me (okay to be honest he scares me, and it is even scarier when Russia's President Putin is now making more sense than Bush) to sit through Bush's speeches and the 'Press ops' Press conferences but I tune in and I listen very carefully.
    If you can't sit through this movie (even if it hurts) perhaps you are being just a bit intellectually dishonest?

    Posted by: wpostlied | October 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

    In the end, the complaints of the deniers of global warming are much like those who deny that smoking causes cancer. You can't "prove" that any particular cancer was caused by smoking. But that doesn't make it unreasonable, when you have a 20 year, pack a day, smoker who is dying of lung cancer, to suggest a connection. But the "skeptic" will claim that, since you can't prove that any one individual wouldn't have come down with cancer anyway, that the connection is unproven, that there are other possible causes of cancer, or that there are two sides to this "political" debate.

    Just because we can't be 100% sure that any particular drought, catastrophic hurricane, bleaching reef, melting glacier or drowned polar bear is due to global warming, this shouldn't mean that we can't use illustrative examples of global climate disruption, of increased storm severities, of mass coral bleaching, of worldwide glacier retreat, or of polar bears becoming an endangered species--all well established trends of recent decades. The attempts by this judge to distort what was actually said in the film about many of the specific examples used strike me as likely intended to distract us from the overwhelming body of evidence here, these thousands of individual data points, and redirect the political debate. Given this, I have to ask, who is the real Pinocchio here?

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

    wpostlied said:
    "I've read lot's of intelligent posts from people who dissagree with Gore and the majority of science on this topic, and I can agree to dissagree BUT it would help us all to start with a baseline of knowledge - and that is giving Gore's movie a viewing!"

    True. And for those who don't wish to, perhaps the transcript would help? link

    Though in some cases, I suppose even seeing the film won't help. After all the judge saw it, and still managed to get much of it wrong.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

    It's funny how all the Gorelytes gushed their Gorgasms in response to the "yeah, we were wrong be we're still the Church of Global Warming" response to the judge's smackdown of Gore's propaganda film.

    They all ignored the facts, ignored the backhanded admission of error by "Team" Gore and simply reiterated their faith that a non-scientist like Gore, who scored low in science while in school, was preaching the truth.

    "Team" Gore got "pwned" and all the "oh snap" shouts in the world will not change that fact.

    A fact that doesn't need a court-ordered disclaimer.


    Posted by: Reality Hammer | October 20, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

    Gores response is a cleverly worded misrepresentation that carefully avoids trying to counter the judges logical assertions...Gore has no evidence to counter with

    He trys to speak in a high tone condescending manner about the Judge being a lay person, when in fact the Judge was recapping testimony by climate experts provided during the case under his review..

    Gore is also insulting his supporters and audience by claiming that he had to present a simplistic argument that they were capable of understanding

    Gore himself is only a lay person in Climatology and as far as I know has no formal training in ANY scientific discipline...

    Finally, the Judge would allow the presentation of the film only if it was preceeded by a warning that the film represented politicized opinion and not accepted scientific fact...and not because it was worthy scientific research

    Gore is a reincarnation of the proverbial snake oil salesman...the sad part is that there are so many individuals very susceptible to superstition and arguments based on magic and wishful thinking

    Posted by: major | October 20, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

    Comment follow-up: The assertion that his film was based on peer-reviewed science is misleading...first in the nature of what peer-reviewed scientifc research did he quote (cherry-picking), was the research properly quoted with all its underlying limitations and qualifications...

    Did the research referenced represent the whole of the research in climatology and the resultant consensus

    Not at all.....

    Gore is dangerous propagandist not just because he is a clever liar, but because he has been given platform by several formerly respected but now misquided organizations either through intimidation or monetary compensation of some form..

    We stand on the brink of a dark age in science, if this kind of propagandist distortion and outright lies are allowed to go forward unchallenged

    Posted by: major | October 20, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

    Bush Aide Rejects Climate Goal - WPost Friday Oct 19th.
    For the FACT Checker et al, an article briefly stating: The President's top science adviser while not challenging IPCC data that global warming due to the "greenhouse effect" of increasing levels of C02 has already warmed the atmosphere by 1.4 degrees does not want to set a target of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    It's that simple - the atmosphere presently contains 385 parts per million of C02 and/or other greenhouse equivalent gases. More greenhouse gases (a byproduct of industrialization)means a higher everage atmospheric temperature. To limit the rise of the earth's mean temperature to 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as reccomended by most scientists we need to set a greenhouse gas target of 450 parts per million in our atmosphere.
    These are the facts - no debate here. More GG is directly related to a rise in atmospheric temparature.
    The adviser is quoted stating that setting a target for atmospheric greenhouse gas, "is going to be a very difficult one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that effect people's lives."
    Not yet anyway - so let's not hinder energy companies profis, we'll wait till greenhouse gasses rise to a catastrophic level and when we have regional events that effect people's lives then we'll do something!
    So are you for setting a target of worldwide atmospheric GHG or are you for waiting to see what will happen?

    Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

    One thing is certain - while the political debate proceeds ad nauseum, the earth will continue to be beat up by humans. Unfortunately for them, Nature always bats last. Stay tuned to hear Mother Nature's decision!

    Posted by: Jacques Caillault | October 20, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

    at least i wil bee able to ride my bike year round

    Posted by: getsix1 | October 21, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

    My son, after hearing Al Gore speak, said that his graphs would not be acceptable in a college paper because they do not include any values.

    Kalee Kreider's defense of "An Inconvenient Truth" seems to make the case that a video documentary is a poor way to present complex scientific knowledge.

    I will reconsider Al Gore's assertions about climate change when he changes his own lifestyle and reduces his own carbon footprint.

    Posted by: Rob | October 21, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse

    Experts in the field of climate science who post on have written that An Inconvenient Truth is correct for the most part on the science but the skeptics continually challenge the nuances as if those comprise the whole. It's a common theme. Another common theme is people who haven't studied climate science and gotten Ph.D's or written peer-reviewed articles in science journals are called "experts" by skeptics. It's why the Sen. Inhofe chose Michael Crichton as their "expert" on climate science for a senate hearing. And they say Global Warming activists are a cult? Gimme a break.

    Posted by: Jay | October 21, 2007 7:40 AM | Report abuse

    There are perfectly qualified scientists on both sides of the argument. Not just on the GW side.
    Climate is ever changing and always has been. Chances are we can do little about it.
    But we CAN do something about pollution of the air, rivers and seas, about overfishing, about the burning and cutting down of our rainforests, about overpopulation, about the destruction of marshland and coastal areas by land developpers, to name just a few things...
    And we SHOULD push and campain for more research into alternative sources of energy, and for more fuel efficient engines,etc, etc...
    We waisting our time debating Al Gore!....

    Posted by: Max | October 21, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

    Gore and Ms. Kreider belie their credentials with two phrases: "Scientists agree" and "It's not easy... to explain." The latter statement is truer than they will admit, and the former is an outright lie.

    Posted by: Wayne | October 21, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

    The debate is over.

    Every reputable scientific body agrees that climate change is real, very likely dangerous and very likely a major threat.

    Less talk more action.

    Posted by: Andrew | October 22, 2007 5:05 AM | Report abuse

    Gotta love Gore's back peddling! Suddenly, all his "facts" and "will happen" have now become "believe" and "could lead to" assertions. Not to mention "We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate..."

    This just shows that we need to continue to call politicos and self-proclaimed "experts" on the carpet for their "facts" and scientific "evidence" instead of just blindly following them like sheep.

    It's unfortunate that Gore received the Nobel Prize for his work. Now his "facts" and "scientific" conclusions are more likely to be accepted without argument or debate, and those who do decide to take up the challenge will be viewed as being less believable because they don't have Nobel Prizes of their own.

    Posted by: Dave | October 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

    Welcome to the unreal world of politicised science. Not that the economists here are unfamiliar with political pressure to suppress inconvenient truths... But Dismal Scientists don't labour under the burden and the threat that lies over the Earth Sciences: the data isn't free, it needs serious funding to go out there and get it.

    Which means that, if your funding body has been captured by a political lobby and its placemen - or if influential members of your faculty are taking money from tainted sources - you have to toe the line.

    So if you are standing on the very last ice floe in the Arctic ocean and it is visibly melting beneath you while soot rains down from above, you had better find some data and some conclusions that say this is all a natural process. Otherwise you'll never publish again, your department will lose it's funding, you and your postdocs can kiss goodbye to your academic careers and you'll be lucky to get jobs teaching in a high school.

    The alternative is to find political patrons on the other side who will protect you, and - if you're lucky - ensure that your work is published and publicised without distortion. But now you've got to toe that line, and your career will only last as long as the data and your conclusions support that particular agenda.

    Now add in the certainty that your conclusions will be distorted in the press: disagree with someone's model by half a degree, and it's SCIENTIST DISPROVES XX - PUBLIC POLICY IN DISARRAY! no matter what you said or what it means. Because manufacturing a controversy sells newspapers and serves vested interests all too well.

    And now you've made some serious enemies, academically and politically.

    As the world stands today, it is almost impossible for an educated layman to assess the evidence on Climate change without going back to the published data - in effect, becoming a postgraduate climatologist - because the public debate has been irremediably contaminated by politicised or profit-driven publications.

    And in the divided and politicised world of the media, there is no impartial figure with the resources to present and summarise the hard data. None. Nul Hombre. No-one and nobody. And where would they get the funding?

    And even if they were beamed down from Heaven, the Starship Enterprise or Sweden, they would be assigned a partisan affiliation in the court of the media and forever referred to a 'Leading Democrat and Climate-change XXX' or 'Inedependent Republican, patriot, sceptic and YYY'.

    Al Gore's film is the best explanation you're going to get. I happen to believe that it is substantively true. I am also certain that a great deal of money and some serious political resources have been spent, and will be spent, on 'disproving' or discrediting it.

    I look forward to hearing any point of view on this forum, or elsewhere, that might convince me that this effort to discredit will fail. I believe that it has partially succeeded and I can see that it continues to make progress.

    Posted by: Nile | October 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

    "Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act."
    hmmmm. the Same Dr. Jim Hansen who recieves funding from a George Soros backed company? Kind of ironic given their opening shot is accusing the plantiff of being funded by a mining company

    Posted by: Pantera | October 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

    Wow, It's amazing how Gore's critics here completely ignore the science. It's like they're in their own little alternative world.

    No, Max, there are not "perfectly qualified scientists on both sides" of the global warming debate.

    The IPCC report reflects a comprehensive survey of all peer reviewed research in this area. It does not take sides on issues on which there is any significant ongoing scientific debate. And it reflects the overwhelming consensus of scientists that human activity is causing global warming.

    Moreover, I would like to see even one peer reviewed paper published in the last decade which disputes this point.

    Finally, I think it's telling that not one critic of Gore's here has referred to a single scientific source which refutes anything he has actually said. One guy links to a student newpaper editorial (one filled with errors and outright lies). Another guy links to his own website, which self identifies as a site covering "business and management" issues. Another links to a wikipedia entry on a well known propaganda piece from British T.V. channel 4.

    So my challenge to the doubters, point me to one thing Gore actually said about climate change, which can be verified in the transcript of the film (link), which is contradicted by the IPCC or by any other source citing peer reviewed science.

    So far there hasn't been a single example which passes that test.

    For those legitimately curious about the actual science, you might start with the FAQ from the IPCC.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 22, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

    "Al Gore is a glowing example..." Perhaps he is glowing from the wattage emanating from his large houses/SUV caravan. The only thing inconvenient about this movie and movement is how irrlevent it will seem in twenty years when "Scientists predict further cooling will Ice entire planet" as they did in the 1970s. Oh, it also is painful to see Mr. Gore puff himself up further and pretend he doesn't want to be anointed Democratic candidate for President.

    Posted by: Goethesghost | October 22, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

    Critics can only try and argue with this!

    Posted by: JudgeWinchester | October 23, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

    Gore's no Gandhi. The man is in many ways a complete tool. So what?

    Get over him. He's just a fat head with yammering mandible and blinky bits. He'll die, like all of us, alone (aka "alone or with his god and/or gods"). So what?

    Gore can live and die as many times as he wants by what he said. I don't give a crap. I haven't even bothered to see the movie. So what?

    I am made more aware of the research that has been done to date on this issue. I am better informed about things I did not know were a possibility. So what?

    I remain utterly sceptical of both sides due to the level of utter political depravity that they both stoop to in order to make a measly case. So... ?

    When it comes to the science on "climate change" (what a stupid, !#$!#%& useless, meaningless, and internally redundant term that is), anyone who strongly identifies themselves or their work with any political/religious/corporate affiliation is a zombie who merely deserves to be dispatched in heartlessly ironic Hollywood fashion: dismemberment by electric hedge trimmers. Failing that, I'll just punch you in the voice box and then challenge you to a debate.

    *Spits vehemently on the ground*

    So what now? Well, I'm gonna save the $%^&*# planet while you lot try to think of ways to be right when the CO2 finally settles. Because both sides always will be, no matter what happens.

    Hello, flourescent bulbs! And cold wash water! And monthly bus pass! Boo to antibacterial soap--those bastards never got me with that ineffectual marketing crap! (Wow, I feel so good, I could impregnate something.)

    See ya.

    Posted by: Q | October 23, 2007 6:53 AM | Report abuse

    It is utterly AMAZING that someone would compare past KNOWN history events to the THEORY being advanced by the Al Gores of the world. The CIVIL WAR and the Holocaust are FACTS!

    Perhaps these same EXPERTS need to go back to elementary school and learn the difference.

    This is nothing more then a HUGE money grab. Perpetrated on the fools of the world that invariably would vote liberal. The have been fully INDOCTRINATED into failed logic of FEELINGS vs. fact. Results don't matter to liberals, only their intentions. And Judges that swallow and regurgitate the lies of liberalism are very dangerous to society!

    Posted by: Realist | October 23, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

    To those who oppose "profits" from energy. I propose you have the power company come pull your meter. That way you can generate your own electricity and keep those evil "profits" in your own pocket. You will recoup your own costs in about 20 years.

    Posted by: Realist | October 23, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

    EXTINCTION. DEATH OF WHOLE SPECIES. Is this the LEgacy we want to leave on the earth?

    It's Time to make Real change...not just talk about what should be done. DO SOMETHING. But here is my prediction, Human kind will sit on our collective asses until the last minute when its too late. How much ground will we allow to be lost in this WAR against extinction? When will we say enough is enough? When thousands of species are gone, and its too hot, and dirty in most environments? Are we SO SELFISH as to let everything and every habitat around us be destroyed because its INCONVENIENT for us to change..

    ...Watch around you as one by one species fall around us....because of us... As custodians of God's Green Earth We are FOOLS if we believe that there wont be HELL TO PAY for our destructive actions.

    Here is a little quote from the matrix...which, more and more, I think we are started to resemble.

    Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."


    Humans should be the Cure...

    Posted by: J.W. CONNELLY | October 23, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

    Here is a FACT about Al Gore's film: in it, there are some dramatic footages of a "melting galcier".
    The glacier in question is the Perito Moreno on the lago (lake) Argentino in Patagonia (Agentina), in fact one of the only (known) galciers still advancing. As it advances it reaches a land peninsula in front of it, and in doing so it cuts the lake in half by forming an ice dam. One side of the lake rises, and the pressure of the water become such, that after a few years the dam collapses. (This phenomenon used to happen every 8 years, but seems to happen every 5 years now due to the fact that the galcier moves faster than before)
    This is what is shown in Al Gore's film. So to illustrate his theory on global warming he is using footage of a natural event that has NOTHING to do with global warming, but if you don't know this, it looks very dramatic,and quite alarming.
    I have seen the glacier in 98, and the video of the collapsing ice dam was available to tourists for a few dollars. It is the same as the one in his film.

    Posted by: Cheers from Argentina | October 23, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

    Well, let's test Gore's hypothesis by doing nothing and continuing to burn fossil fuels and proliferate. Our town is a couple hundred feet above present sea level, and nearly every household is armed. If the neocons are right, the status quo survives. If they are wrong, they die when they come lookng for new nesting grounds.

    Posted by: William Leavenworth | October 23, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

    There is a tribe of indigenous people in Columbia known as the Elder Brothers. They have monitored their eco-system for thousands of years. They invited people to visit them ,to show that a landmark or baseline they used to monitor their eco-system was showing danger. They issued a warning to the Little Brothers that the whole Earth was sick. That they needed to repair it or the result would be a disaster. Time to listen to our Big Brothers.

    Posted by: George Renaud | October 23, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

    I am NOT impressed. First, they slander the opposition, then they present generalities that really say nothing at all and do nothing to support the contention that global warming is caused primarily by humans, would not have occurred unless humans caused it, will be primarily a negative change when it does come, and that actions by humans can prevent it.

    Posted by: Larry Hoy | October 23, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

    Oh - do not worry my little cows, ahem, I mean humans. You just keep doing the easy things (path of least resistance-no change). I'll save you. All you have ta do is believe... PPBBTT!!!

    Posted by: GOD | October 23, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

    I guess only dogmatic Gore apostles read this slop. My favorite bit of this allegedly airtight rebuttal is this (bracketed comments are mine):

    "Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. [well, if you say so] There is a much longer explanation. [i'd hope so, since you offer no explanation] Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of"

    Thanks for the link to a homepage. Why not link directly to the "longer explanation" mentioned. Uhh, maybe because Kreider knows the faithful don't need to read it. It's in there somewhere, I'm sure. Kreider's piece is just as diversionary as the efforts of the energy industry. He provides no references to any of the "research" he mentions and yet most of you seem to think he's sufficiently put to bed any criticism. Umm, yeah.

    Posted by: Peter Graves | October 23, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

    People still harping about Gore's house need to do a little more research instead of spewing right wing propaganda talking points. The Gore family's carbon footprint is zero because of improvements to the house (solar panels, etc.) and compensating for all of their energy use.

    Posted by: Angela | October 23, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

    It is my assumption that the right would rather do nothing and leave the mess to OUR children to sort out. I do wish that publishers had the "balls" to check the background and backers of scientific hacks before publishing such sensational stories. The "plaintiffs" obviously have an agenda, ie. to cause doubt in the minds of readers, that's it. As long as publishers allow, these "scientist" (read "charlatans") will lie, lie, lie.

    Posted by: Kurtislee | October 24, 2007 12:01 AM | Report abuse

    Us "right winger" never claim that the globe is not warming. But there is absolutely ZERO proof that people have anything to do with it. There were periods of time that our globe was warmer than it is now...and there were no cars or coal burning plants! Explain that?? And did the Earth not survive then? The thought of spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money to cool the globe, when we don't even know if we are causing it in any way is completely insane. We should use clean energy, be smart, look for alternatives to foreign oil, etc...But need we be completely stupid and brainwashed by Al Gore's obvious political agenda??? This should have nothing to do with "left" or "right" should have everything to do with common sense!...Which half of America has apparently lost. Even if we did pour billions of dollars of tax payer money in to "fight" global warming, it would take hundreds of years to see any impact. And if it's CO2 you're worried about (which is also insane, because history shows that warming PRECEEDS CO2 increases), cow farts release more than all of the cars on Earth combined per year. So you Al Gore lovers might want to show some cnsistency and integrity and stop eating beef. Please look at FACTS and quit just trying to attack the common sense folk. It is truly tragic to see so many people brainwashed to believing everything the likes of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton spew out for the sole purpose of power and political gain.

    Posted by: EG | October 24, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

    Hallelujia to EG's last post!!! Finally, someone with knowledge and common sense! As a liberal, I am proud to say that it is high time that we get rid of all of the FAKE politicians of our day. If Hillary Clinton becomes president or Al Gore has any influence politically, we might as well be living in Russia or Iran...because that's where we're headed. What happened to the true JFK. Thanks for your common sense EG.

    Posted by: loveamerica | October 24, 2007 12:24 AM | Report abuse

    It appears the intellect of the rightwing is to wait until there is 'proof' that global warming caused by humans is THE ONLY cause of 'climate change' before action is warranted.
    Golly, I wish Bush and his cronies would have waited this long for "proof" of the wmd's .. no wait, we were after Saddam .. nooo.. it was that terrorist guy up in Afghanistan, what was his name? Oh, he's unimportant now too? .. no.. oh yeah, now I remember, somewhere I saw it mentioned by the liberal (?!?) Press that we ""invaded"" IRAQ for the benefit of Rightwing 'do-gooders' and to protect our sometimes-allie Saudi Arabia - now I remember.
    For those 'upset' I'm politicizing - that's fine. I've been upset for the last 6 years by this takeover of our country by this religious rightwing regime funded by rich republican hypocrites.
    I have been aware of 'temperatures increasing', wherever in the USA I was residing, for the last 25 years. Where have you doubters been? Inside in the AC??
    I'm not 'defending Gore' - his 'movie' was, by golly, a movie (where's the popcorn?)!!
    The 'movie' should not be shown to any children framed as 'educational'. Why? Because it distorts and tells 'half-truths'.
    But if any 'group' in the USA has been guilty of distortion, half-truths, deception, and outright lies during the last six years - it's the Bush Whitehouse and the Republicans that continue to spread his lies.
    The Rightwing must be broken for our country and our citizens to survive ... recover, and then hopefully, begin to prosper again.
    The future of Americans and our country depends on YOU continuing to show Bush and his cronies YOU ARE NOT AS STUPID as they believe YOU to be.
    I'll be happy when Bush and his Rightwing Extremists are reduced to only horrible memories.
    So many have needlessly 'given their lives' for this repugnant President in this unwarranted invasion ...
    Politicizing?? You make me sick.

    Posted by: oncearepublican neveragain | October 24, 2007 2:21 AM | Report abuse

    As a lawyer, it seems that most people are missing the whole point of both the case, and the judge's ruling. The case was brought to STOP the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" to Brittish school children as the plaintiff claimed it was not accurate and not based on science. The judge did not have special training, he is not an environmentalist nor a climatologist. Rather, he sat as a lay person and had a trial where the plaintiff was allowed to present the 'evidence' against the accuracy of the movie, and to show why it should not be shown as a scientific presentation to school children. That was the only issue before the court. It is also important to note that Gore was neither a defendant, nor involved in the case. Gore's presence in the film was not an issue, just the accuracy and basis of the science presented.

    The judge's ruling, as all good rulings should, explained his findings based on the evidence that was presented to him. He found that there were 9 "points" where he could not find that 'a true scientific consensus supporting the claims existed'. He did not find these points to be fraudulent. He did not find them to be untrue. He found them to be arguments, or better stated as theories, rather than proven and generally accepted scientific facts.

    What the ruling found, however, was that while the court could not necessarily agree that these 9 points were fact, that given the overall accuracy of the science presented in the movie, that "An Inconvenient Truth" could be shown to school children as a credible science presentation. So to the extent that the plaintiff wanted to prevent its showing, he lost. To the extent that the plaintiff wanted to show the movie as simply being propoganda, he lost.

    So to all of the 'naysayers' out there, the court ruling both supported and vindicated the scientific basis of the film. Does that mean the film is completely accurate? Of course not, because it can only be as accurate as the science and predictions it is based on.
    I personally fully expect that some of the information, facts, theories presented in the movie will later be found to be somewhat inaccurate. This is because science is based on trial and error, and most importantly, predictions. It is not only normal, but expected for scientists to "tweek" their theories and understandings of science as they gather new and additional facts. When the new data fits, that tends to reinforce the theory, when it doesn't, then that causes adjustments to be made to theories and models. Such is very likely to happen as scientists' understanding of our complex environment and weather system grows.

    I don't pretend to understand all of the science used and cited in the movie, but common sense tells me that when the best and brightest scientists have all generally accepted that we as mankind are causing significant and potentially very negative consequences to our environment, that such information should be used to try and mitigate such devestating predictions. As another poster commented, we already know that we need to recycle and become more 'green' because we are using finite resourcs, so it only makes sense to heed these warnings, and make doing so an international priority. We really have nothing to lose by doing so, and we may just gain our survival and that of our children.

    Posted by: Gaunter | October 24, 2007 5:10 AM | Report abuse


    Never seen any evidence about the 'cow farts', but that is probably true given the number of cows around the world as compared to automobiles. However, electrical generation in the world is predominantly based on the burning of fossil fuels, which is the single largest man-made contributor. Obviously, to measure 'mankinds' total impact, would require adding all of the cars, with power plants, fire places, industry, etc.,and to the extent we have increased their numbers, cattle, poultry and other farm animals that we depend on for food.

    As far as spending 'billions' tax-payer dollars, as you put it; do you not understand that historically every dollar spent in research and development of new technologies and base science generates 15? The reason you have a microwave oven and computer in your house is because of the billions of dollars spent in the U.S. space program. Far from 'costing' us money, investment in science and technoloy has continued to keep our U.S. economy strong. So again, even if the reality of the 'climate change' predictions are not as dreadful as they currently appear, there really is no reasonable argument against mitigating the polution and ineffecient use of carbon based fuels, by developing cleaner and more efficient technologies.

    Posted by: Gaunter | October 24, 2007 5:30 AM | Report abuse

    Dang. I agree with Major,EG, Kurtislee, Angela, Peter Graves... my goodness, I even agree with 'God'!
    It must be the alignment of (Dancing with the) Stars?

    But loveamerica ... I must differ. "JFK" was 'better', but I think we must go back to Truman .. to find 'my kind' of President.
    That is, to find a Man that thought more of what was GOOD for their COUNTRY, instead of thinking about what was best for their Political Party, good for their 'personal' power, wealth, fame, legacy.

    President Harry S. Truman was a Statesman, a gentleman, a common man, an honest man.

    I can not honestly use all of those same words in describing President John F. Kenneday.

    Posted by: oncearepublican neveragain | October 24, 2007 5:58 AM | Report abuse

    EG, congratulations!! Couldn't agree more.
    As a liberal I'm appalled to see how hysterical this debate has become, with insults flying , and people on "my side" refusing to accept that there may be "valid scientists" on both sides of the debate, others even comparing the ones who don't agree with them, to nazis and holocaust deniers!!!???!!!!...
    It's becoming a bit like a debate between religious extremists.

    Posted by: MW | October 24, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

    Al Gore is just a liberal seeking attention!!!

    Posted by: lake | October 24, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

    By the year 2014, there will be only about two million people left alive in North America. About a million gathered near Boulder CO, and the other million in Alberta Canada. West of the Rockies will be under water except for islands around Salt Lake City and a couple small ones from the California mountain ranges. The Mississippi river valley south of St. Louis will leave most of AR, AL, MS, LA under water with the eastern part of TX under water. Mark it on your calendar (2014). Get your spiritual lives in order!

    Posted by: Shotzie | October 24, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

    Why did Mr. Gore and company choose to ignore NASA's data which shows that several planets in our solar system have rising temperatures or "global warming"?
    "Global warming" is caused primarily by a regularly occuring solar cycle about which we earth-dwellers can do very little.
    No, it stronly appears that "Internet Inventor" Gore is simply using his farce of a production to keep his name in the news.

    Posted by: Charles E. Akers | October 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

    What I still do not get is why so many people are standing up for pollution like it is a positive thing!! How could These brainwashed Imbeciles actually beleive that all these emmisions could not be harmful to the enviornment or our health. Regardless of whether or not global warming is human caused, would it not just be smart to reduce polluting emmissions. To any one that feels otherwise I challenge them to huff the end of a large SUV for a couple of hours and then see how they feel!! But. . oh whatever, just keep listening to the corporate controlled media and those pawns who would like to divert you from the real issue. . Our public health is at stake. . the evidence is all around. And it is not just global warming.

    Posted by: T dion | October 24, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

    Peter Graves:
    "Thanks for the link to a homepage. Why not link directly to the 'longer explanation' mentioned?"

    Good point. The pages are here and here.

    A sample:
    "Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

    'changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing'"

    You may also wish to refer to the FAQ from the IPCC:

    1.3 What is the Greenhouse effect?
    2.1 How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
    6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?


    "But there is absolutely ZERO proof that people have anything to do with it. There were periods of time that our globe was warmer than it is now...and there were no cars or coal burning plants! Explain that?? And did the Earth not survive then?"

    You may want to see 6.1 above. All of the mechanisms involved aren't fully understood, but the larger long term cycles between ice ages and warmer periods are strongly linked to orbital variations. These variations are very predictable, as they are based on fundamental laws of physics, mainly the gravitational pull of the various celestial bodies. They don't explain the current warming trend.

    Charles Akers:

    "Why did Mr. Gore and company choose to ignore NASA's data which shows that several planets in our solar system have rising temperatures or 'global warming'? 'Global warming' is caused primarily by a regularly occuring solar cycle about which we earth-dwellers can do very little."

    Neither Gore or the IPCC is ignoring solar cycles. They are accounted for in the models discussed. See 6.1 above.

    Many thanks to those here who are interested in discussing or questioning the science, rather than engaging in personal attacks and insults.

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 24, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

    Just one small point. Glaciers in tropical latitudes sublimate, they do not melt since the air temperatures at the height they occur is lower than freezing. The ice loss is driven by solar radiation and on Kilimanjaro ice loss has been going on for at lest one hundred years. The ice loss on this mountain and other tropical glaciers/ ice caps is not evidence of global warming, but perhaps an increase in solar radiation

    Posted by: Young | October 24, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

    British school kids may get political proaganda wrapped up as 'science'.
    Al gore gets a Nobel 'Peace' Prize for political propaganda wrapped up as a movie.

    Should not Mother Teresa get a Nobel Physics Prize then?

    Speaking of Science and Facts.
    given: a 90 minute movie and the supposed thousands of facts in this movie (let's pick 2000 facts to get a real number).
    Then Gore et al would have had to rhyme of facts at the rate of one every 2.7 seconds through the entire movie.

    Factual? I think not.

    Why do we let journalists, movie makers, politicians and the like who are educated in the humanities, tell us about science?

    Posted by: Gary Lopes | October 24, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

    Interesting call Young. Retreating tropical glaciers evidence something which evidence manifestly demonstrates is unlikely, (we have been directly measuring total solar irradience for around 50 years. That data show a declining trend), rather than something for which we have over 100 years of peer reviewed evidence. The genius of deniers truly knows no boundary.

    Posted by: Majorajam | October 24, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

    Your point only applies to a handful of glaciers at the highest altitudes. Kilimanjaro is one of those.

    Most are both melting and sublimating. In most the melting is the larger effect here, as the melt lines have moved farther up towards the summits of these glaciers. Even with those where sublimation is the larger issue, climate change could be playing a significant role through it's effect on precipitation. In particular, the lack of precipitation (consistent snow cover is more important than total snowfall) might be related to changes in sea surface temperature.

    In any case, while there is some debate about Kilimanjaro, it is also difficult to explain it's retreat entirely through changes in precipitation, as it has survived far more serious droughts in the last 11,000 years without being as threatened as it is today. At any rate, climate models predict increasing precipitation for Kilimanjaro over the next century, so we'll likely find out which is the larger effect.

    I suppose Gore can be accused of using Kilimanjaro as an example in part because it is so well known, when there are other glaciers which make the case more clearly. As one climate scientist wrote, "Certainly, if Hemingway had written, 'The Snows of Chacaltaya,' life would be much simpler."

    Posted by: Brian Blake | October 25, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

    I use to have faith in the American people. Since the last two elections, I've come to believe that Americans are stupid and ignorant.... like someone in the WH... I don't have to say "Who". With all the lies that have been around us for the last 6 years, why in the &%$# are we focusing on such an insignificant issue. Are you stupid or something?????? What ever became of lies or "errors" with Mr. Libby or Gonzolas....or someone of any significance........stupid....really stupid.

    Posted by: Disappointed | October 25, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

    I find it interesting that her first comment is about who funded who. It reminded me of a segment on NPR in which they discussed Al Gore's financial portfolio. It seems he is a big investor in the business of reducing carbon footprints. Interesting that he comes out with something that only encourages people to use resources that help him to profit. But, he is a Democrat so it must be for a good cause.

    Posted by: Dave | October 30, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

    Being that this column is a fact checker rather than a promotional device for causes I commend them for pointing out Untruths in a film that has truth in it's title. If people want to hear that the world is ending and we have to save it real quick before dead polar bears float up to our submerged doorsteps, there are plenty of sites that indulge this.

    Seems to me that a couple of years ago, Al Gore wanted to be the most powerful man in the world. Real bad. After the whole presidency thing didn't pan out, I get the feeling he went off the edge. Look into his eyes in interviews. There's madness there. Hiding and waiting.

    But silly character undermining tactics aside. Al Gore is riding the fast train back to getting another chance at being president, as the new, improved "we are the children of the world" campaign landed him a nobel peace prize. One of the most rashly handed out prizes in the world. Ask Yasser Arafat (If you could...), i'm sure he had a great laugh about it...

    Point being. Al Gore has the most to gain from the world ending. But ask yourself why would he care if the the world fizzles out? I mean, it's treated him like crap, he's old and his college, Harvard, doesn't want anything to do with him anymore. Where does this urge come from? Not another attempt at power. No, old Gore is an upstanding pillar of decency...

    He is a politician. With good spin control doctors like Kalee Krieder pacifying the masses. Did you get that little feeling that you were just a little confused by her defences of "the nine points"? It's because she admits that the fact checker has a point, yet goes on to twist it all. "He didn't mean it like that fellas! If he meant it like that, well... he'd be a liar! Which he is not, so you must be mistaken. Anyway, stop looking at what's wrong with it. It's alright though, I understand the importance of such organisations and commend your intentions..." Sounds fishy to me...

    Anyway, politicians are weasily little characters. What kind of sick bastard wants to be in control of a whole country? Jesus Christ?

    Posted by: Ross Nilesh Patel | November 13, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

    We can turn the conversation into a "warmingGate" if we want to - asking who said what to whom, when. And spend our days reacting to each others' reactions.

    The alternative is to listen to the 2500 climate scientists of the IPCC, and to the 1000+ US scientists who issued a warning letter to the US Congress in October of 2003.

    There are many reasons for choosing, but basically, that's the choice. If it was my body rather than the earth, and 3500 top physicians announced a 90% chance that I had cancer, I would start chemo tomorrow despite the difficulties.

    Posted by: Rob Weinberg | November 13, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

    al gore is super

    Posted by: Al gore fan | December 9, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

    I watched Gore's film 4 times and I didn't see "thousands" of facts. I guess you could say each chart is based on thousands of records condensed. But ,in that context,the Global Warming Swindle has many charts with thousands of "facts" too.
    In any case, I don't rely on films, Wikipedia, politically motivated groups or webblogs to form my opinions.
    I was dismayed to see that realclimate was cited in their response since it was set up to defend the now defunct "hockey stick" graph. Even the IPPC2007 has conceded by omiting much of it. Anyone that visits this RC can easily tell it has little to do with science and largely a mixture of politics and a defence of Mann and Schmidts work. Reading their site is what changed my pro-global warming/co2 views. I'm now a skeptic, not because of the so-called "deniers",but because of RealClimates weak scientific arguements on their own research and that of others.
    Now, having reviewed all the IPPC reports and much of the studies that it refers too, it is clear to me that the science has a long way to go before much of their claims can be justified.
    The verdict isn't in on CO2, solar activity, cosmic rays and other potential climate or temperture forcings.

    Posted by: ShawnS | December 13, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

    Pretty pathetic response in my opinion. Gore's prediction of a 20ft increase in sea level is downright silly. Even the "Gore friendly" IPCC expects a small fraction of that. Greenland was warmer in the 20's and 30's than now. Polar Bear populations are actually increasing. Most scientists attribute the shrinking lakes and tropical glaciers to climate variation and/or increasing demands of the expanding population in these areas...not, man-induced global warming...and 2005 was not the hottest year on record...1998 was.

    Posted by: stoney | December 23, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

    Certainly there is money to be made from the Global Warming industry, however people should be aware of that having a man like Mr. Gore(though he economically benefits from it) being the messenger is helping the message being spread to everyone around the world. Sometimes you need "capatilism" in order to spread your messages. With the right-wing media in US and small left-wing parties in Europe a movie like this and Gore being the leader is perfect to create the needed awareness of the serious global warming we are witnessing.

    Posted by: Mart | December 31, 2007 5:39 AM | Report abuse

    well Im happy that you atr running for prez and all but you need to accept the fact that you can't give up even if you do lose you are not supposed to give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: a concerned citizen | January 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

    i think your juts making a big ideal out of nothing just because you can

    Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

    i think your just making a big ideal out of something just because you can there is no such thing as global warning so stop making things up just to scare people

    Posted by: lisa | January 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    RSS Feed
    Subscribe to The Post

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company