Friday, November 24, 2006

Inconvenient truth released: full truth, half truth or pure hollywood excess?

To celebrate the release of the DVD of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth (click below) we post the following example of how the Oil company millions are used to employ "senior researchers" to print the "truth".

I am not sure why I am surprised that so there are so many groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute paid to put out such propaganda but it certainly disappoints. I accept the charge that this post helps to publicise this well funded Institute but one should always consider all sides of a story. Interestingly, it does not take much digging to realise that some of these so-called Think-Tanks are linked. For example, Iain Murray (Senior Fellow) of CEI also "owns and runs The Commons Blog, a web log promoting the cause of free market environmentalism" - a site we have mentioned on here before.

This suggests these "think-tanks" actually have a lot less thoughts that one might have originally expected. I would also like to see a list of "donors" to these sites. These sleak media outfits are obviously well funded and must pay these so-called "experts" a good wage. I can't help feeling that some of these writers (with PhD's from Harvard and other places) could find better ways to employ their talents.

Gore ‘Inconvenient Truth’ DVD Dogged by Falsehoods
Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary is scheduled for a Tuesday DVD release, but here’s what won’t be included in the purchase price: the actual truth. In a new short video series, PowerPoint presentation, and forthcoming book, CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. rebuts a few false and misleading Gore claims.


· Gore: “We have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide—the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases.”

· The Truth: Using a misleading and manipulative picture, Gore wants us to think we’re literally seeing carbon dioxide pour out of smokestacks. But carbon dioxide is as invisible as oxygen. More important, carbon dioxide is a form of fertilizer for plants. Literally hundreds of scientific observations show that plants raised in carbon dioxide-enriched environments grow faster, larger, and produce more fruit. Get the full story.


· Gore: “Textbooks had to be re-written in 2004. They used to say, ‘It’s impossible to have hurricanes in the South Atlantic.’ But that year, for the first time ever, a hurricane hit Brazil.”

· The Truth: Gore would have us believe that global warming and the associated rise in sea surface temperatures created Hurricane Catarina, the first hurricane on record ever to strike Brazil. Here’s what really happened. In 2004, Brazil had the coldest summer months in 25 years; the air was so much colder than the water that it caused the same kind of heat flux from the water to the air that fuels hurricanes in warm seas. Get the full story.


· Gore: “And in recent years the rate of [global warming] increase has been accelerating."

· The Truth: That’s just plain wrong. Over the last 30 years, the warming rate has been remarkably constant—about 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. And for 25 years before that, the world was actually cooling! The actual rate of warming is modest and non-accelerating. A better title for a documentary about global warming would be: “Apocalypse Not!” Get the full story.


· Gore: “When the [melt-]water reaches the bottom of the ice, it lubricates the surface of the bedrock and destabilizes the ice mass, raising fears that the ice mass will slide more quickly toward the ocean.”

· The Truth: Seems plausible, but only because Gore rips images out of their context. The photograph and diagram shown in the documentary come from a NASA study published in Science magazine in 2002. The study found that “moulins”—vertical water tunnels formed from pools of melt water at the surface of the ice sheet—accelerate glacial flow in the summertime, but the increase in speed over the entire year is no more than a few percent. Get the full story.

There are even powerpoint slides available. They are sure to provide interesting viewing.
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore

In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, he distorts the evidence he cites. In fact, nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong.

--Marlo Lewis, Jr., Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

In the following book, videos, and Powerpoint presentation, CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. reveals the inconvenient truths that Al Gore ignored in the book and movie versions of his global warming presentation, An Inconvenient Truth.

Read the book: A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (downloadable by chapters in PDF)

Download the Powerpoint presentation

This is one slide from the powerpoint presentation that caught my eye (probably because it had "GDP" in the first line).

Quote from Inconvenient Truth:
“The United States is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, Japan, and Asia—all put together.” (AIT, pp. 250-251)

Powerpoint slide:
The U.S., with less than 5% of global population, produces 28.3%* of global GDP, including:
Agricultural products and research (we feed people)
Medical advances on every front (we fix people)
Consumer products (we fulfill people)
Global investment (we fund people)
Defense of democracy (we free people)
Without our CO2 emissions, the world would be poorer, sicker, and less free

Where does one start?

The best line of course is:

Consumer products (We fulfill people).

I can't help feeling that Americans and many others could be more fulfilled if they did not have the pressure (from advertising) "to consume" just so much in an attempt to reach some materialist heaven. Can we only become fulfilled by consuming things?

Finally, is the final sentencce saying that if the US cut its emissions of CO2 that the world would become less free? The high US emission levels per head must mean Americans are the "most free" citizens in the world. Is this a generally agreed statement?


Anonymous said...

Does anyone believe these counters to Al Gore's statements? It's really sad how far the in-denial argument can go...

Anonymous said...

I am yet to see this film as I missed it in the cinema. But I have heard that for Brits and Europeans, it tells us nothing we didn't already know about climate change. The content of the film will only shock and surprise in-denial Americans. Is this true?

Anonymous said...

Why don't YOU "Get the full story" because every one of your rebuttals is proven WRONG in the same book your bashing. Why don't you read the entire book instead of taking stupid quotes that don't accurately convey the entire message.
First off, you are a complete idiot for thinking that just because you can't see carbon dioxide it doesn't exist. Wow, I'm sorry but that is a new level of idiocy. And yes it increases plant growth, but in moderate levels, the current concentration is way over the limit that plants can even absorb and is having a huge negative effect on the ocean. Also, warmer temperatures cause more evaporation of moisture from the soil, causing drought and desertification, ruining crops.

Second, one result of global warming is, of course, warming. You claim that the Earth had been getting colder then warming steadily within the past century, but since 1900, the days of frost have decreased from 70 days to a mere 15. This is a huge difference that is not natural, the world takes hundreds of years to even see such a change, and we are seeing this all within a lifetime.

I'm not even going to cover the rest because I would like to talk about your astonishing FIVE SOURCES, WOOWWWW!!! Compare that to the 48 Nobel Prize- winning scientists who, on June 21, 2004, accused Bush and his administration of distorting science "by ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global climate change, you are threatening the Earth's future." Also, while head of the NOAA, Jim Bake stated that: "there is a better scientific concensus on the issue than any other...with the possible exception of Newton's Law of Dynamics."

Once again, GET THE FULL STORY. And no, no one in their right mind believes these counters to Al Gore's statements, referring to the previous post. Every other developed nation sees the danger and is taking action. You disgust me with your weak arguments and lacking details.


Rob said...

Although your email may be a cut and paste job, I think you need to reread the post from the top.

The post is actually in total agreement with you. I included the skeptic quotes to elicit precisely your reaction.

Anonymous said...


What, exactly, are you referring to that is a "cut and paste job"?

Who are you even talking to?
What quotes?

Why don't you distinguish what you mean next time so you avoid looking as stupid as you do now.

Rob said...

I suggest again that you read the post again paying attention to those bits that are in a different colour (the quotes).

In comments, individuals will often post the same thing on numerous sites.