Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Minster, Mark (2010). "Ecocinema As and For Activism: The Rhetoric of Ascent in An Inconvenient Truth and Everything's Cool". In Willoquet-Maricondi, Paula (ed.). Framing the World: Explorations in Ecocriticism and Film. Under the Sign of Nature. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 0813930057.
• Murray, Robin L.; Heumann, Joseph K. (2009). "Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and its Skeptics: A Case of Environmental Nostalgia". Ecology and Popular Film: Cinema on the Edge. Horizons of Cinema. State University of New York Press. pp. 195–206. ISBN 0791476774.

Science section

I tried to submit this article for FA in March but it got hung up by the Science section which reviewers said failed 1B: "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." If anyone knows something that was not properly addressed in the section, please comment.--The lorax (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that this article completely neglects the fact that the science is full of holes? Where is the discussion on the criticism leveled against the film? The article reads like Gore himself wrote it. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you feel is being overlooked in particular? In your edit summary, you refer to the the British court case that found alleged 'errors'. This court case is already mentioned lower down in the article. Many, if not most (if not all) what the court considered 'errors' aren't at all i.e. "global warming and other factors cause coral bleaching" (that's true!).--The lorax (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The science section should be about, well, the science. It isn't there for the media reception. The text there should be based around how the film stacks up against the mainstream science; not about how it measures against fringe crit. So the assertion that the science is full of holes is simply wrong and unsustainable. If that was the reason for the POV tag on that section it should go. As Tl has already said, the "discussion of crit" and the court case are already covered - but should not be covered in the science section William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The section of the where Gore shows the Petit and Jouzel data that graph carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from ice core data is misleading. In that section of the documentary, Gore claims that temperatures always trail carbon dioxide concentrations. The problem is that, when those 2 graphs are superimposed on each other, the plots tell a different story. Those graphs show that carbon dioxide usually trails temperatures and not the opposite as Al Gore claims. That error should be pointed out in the science section.--Scipio-62 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

This point is now adequately covered, and climatologists side with Gore on its placement in the film.--The lorax (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No they do not! If you bothered to watch the movie, Gore clearly stated that CO2 levels always cause rises in temperatures throughout the 420,000 year history of plots. Upon close examination of the data, Gore's claims proved to be grossly false. If there are any climatologists that claim that Gore is correct on that issue, they should be fired. Scipio-62 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs) From the article:

Gore's use of long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two drew some scrutiny; Schmidt, Steig and Michael E. Mann back up Gore's data. "Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they 'fit'. Both of these statements are true," said Schmidt and Mann.[40] "The complexity though is actually quite fascinating...a full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth’s orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore’s terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point–that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations–is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate."[40] "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is," said Steig. "He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate."

--The lorax (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect and I don't care how often Global Warming Alarmists like Mann et Al scream about it. I deeply dislike Mann's use of tree rings as data proxies, given their know inaccuracies. In the Inconvenient Truth, Gore stated that that rises in carbon dioxide (CO2) induce rises in temperatures. When the Petit and Jouzel graphs that Gore misquoted are correctly analyzed, a different conclusion has to be drawn. The fact is that the Vostok ice cores demonstrated that rises in CO2 usually trail temperature rises and not the opposite, as Gore so falsely claimed. Even though I acknowledge that Gore is no scientist, I expect the facts of his controversial documentary should have been edited by a scientist for accuracy. But unfortunately, Gore did not and no amount of misrepresentation can ever change that. Scipio-62 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

In fact it is you who are incorrect - if you go to the transcript (or even the British court-documents), you will find that what Gore says is: That the relationship is complex [over the 740,000 year period]. Try checking instead of asserting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not incorrect. I saw the video where Gore incorrectly stated that rises in CO2 cause rises in temperatures when he referenced the Petit and Jouzel graphs. You need to look at the science and not let your political views cloud your judgment. Throughout the history of those Vostok ice cores, carbon dioxide rises usually trail temperature rises and not the opposite as Gore so falsely claimed. --Scipio-62 08:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Scipio, you are fighting a losing battle. Although I understand and know you are correct, you can't argue with somebody who refuses to acknowledge empircal data for what it is. As I posted in another section, the article by Monckton titled "35 Inconvenient Truths" should be posted along side the original article here. Right now, the original article looks like it was written by Borenstein (Gore's personal cheerleader). Flackthejack (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A possible criticism section?

I remember when this documentary came out I remember hearing not only praise but criticism. Not directly at the messege of the film but I remember hearing about how people thought it shouldn't have been clasifed as documentary yet it won many documentary awards. Im not saying this article needs a criticism page but it could help make it a tad more neutral and possibly improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the criticism also be noted concerning Gore using a private jet to travel for performances of this documentary. They could also be a mentioning of the interview where he said he will continue eating meat, knowing that it is the single biggest warning the IPCC gave for global warming? His heavy investments in carbon trading companies that are pushing him to billionaire status should be worth noting, too, since he has a large financial interest in the politics of anthropogenic global warming.

Danielgump (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Any criticism has to be verifiable from reliable sources, so sources needed, and also has to be shown in context: criticism sections aren't ideal, it's better to put critiques in the context of what they're commenting about. Since the above allegations are about a living person, very good sourcing is needed: if none is available, these comments should be deleted in accordance with WP:BLP policy. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is already given in the "Reviews" subsection under Reception. It even quotes one reviewer who calls it "a blatant intellectual fraud", which I believe is acceptable because it's a critique of the film and not of the person.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Polemical

Well, it may very well be polemical, but we can't add it to the article without a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that scienceandpublicity.org is a very reliable source. The article written by Monckton titled "35 Inconvenient Truths" should be posted along side this whole article. Flackthejack (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Flackthejack 12:43 April 29, 2011 (I apologize, this is my first time posting on here)

I can't find "scienceandpublicity.org". Could you post the exact URL? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is what is meant: [1]. As an RS for factual matters, it has problems - as a source for Monckton's invaluable ideas, it's wonderful. Truly. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it notable criticism, even if not reliable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he actually lists coral bleaching as an error in the film? Are you freaking serious?--The lorax (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(to AR) I don't know if it's notable. Has it been picked up by serious third party publications? Newspapers, (science) journals, etc.? Or is it just internet froth? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, in my haste to post I mis-typed the web address; here is the link http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html. So, Squiddy, I must ask, what part of Monckton's article do you disagree with? Are you going to provide factual criticism or just resort to sarcastic name-calling? Even ecoworld.com (a green website) posted Monckton's article (http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/inconvenient-facts-about-global-warming-questions.html) and admitted that they can't seem to find any scientific inaccuracies in his criticism. Help me out here. Flackthejack (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Monckton and his theories already get plenty of coverage in this article. A detailed study of his criticisms would be more appropriate in his article. His views of this film in the article as it is gets no less than fair weight and, on balance of evidence, far more than fair weight. rewinn (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're statement is laughable as the only time the article mentions Monckton is one sentence which states that he supported the UK case. Passing off Monckton's article as a compilation of "theories" is ridiculous as you too have failed to provide any scientific arguement against the content of his article. Is this what passes for objective science these days? Flackthejack (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the '35 errors' document has been widely reported in serious publications, it might be notable enough for inclusion in the article. A brief google for it seems not to turn up any such reporting. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So your arguement against posting it is that it hasn't been picked up in "serious publications"? This fact alone does not invalidate its basis in science. However, I couldn't imagine any reason why the liberal left-leaning mass media would find it inconvenient (see what I did there?) to report on this [Monckton's] article. Flackthejack (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A large amount of commentary on Gore's film can be found on the internet. We obviously don't put it all in the article. There has to be a criterion for inclusion, and it is whether the material has been picked up and commented on by third parties. AFAICT, Monckton's criticism fails this test. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's the reason for which Monckton's article cannot be posted then I relent. Although, at the beginning of this section "Arthur Rubin" cites a "reliable source" as being the determining factor for inclusion. However, now you cite the fact that is hasn't been "picked up and commented on" or "widely reported" in what you call "serious publications". For future reference, can you define the phrase "widely reported" and maybe provide a list of what "serious publications" are so the rest of us have a definitive understanding of sources we can cite, as the Science and Public Policy Institute and Ecoworld are obivously not serious publications (by your standards). I would like to point out though, that you still haven't provided a scientific argument against "35 Inconvenient Truths". Good day!Flackthejack (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to user "Lorax" who mocks the credibility of Monckton's paper by claiming that "he lists coral bleaching as an error, are you freaking serious?" I think it's important to note (for those participants who won't go read Monckton's article for themselves) that Monckton doesn't argue whether or not coral bleaching occurs (which is observable and not left to interpretation) but rather the cause behind bleaching. His position is supported by actual research (kind of crazy, huh?) by Precht and Aronson. Link to their [Precht and Aronson] paper here: http://faculty.disl.org/Publications/Precht%20and%20Aronson%20Frontiers%202004.pdf Flackthejack (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, neither you nor Monckton have read the paper. It's main topic is that the spread of two particular reef-building coral species is cold-controlled, and that with warming temperatures, these corals seem to expand their range up the Florida coast. It also, and quite specifically, discusses an increase in coral bleaching events with increased temperatures. From the paper: "Field and laboratory studies have shown unequivocally that sustained, anomalously high summertime water temperatures are associated with bleaching [...]. If temperatures rise above the average maximum for a prolonged period, bleaching leads to death in many species [...] Coral bleaching in response to anomalously high summer-season temperatures has become more frequent since the early 1980s (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). The widespread nature of these bleaching events over the past two decades is correlated with increases in maximum SST (Kleypas et al. 2001).[...] The projected continuing increase in bleaching episodes on coral reefs, related to ENSO events and augmented by global warming, is likely to decrease coral abundance in the future (HoeghGuldberg 1999; Wellington et al. 2001; Aronson et al. 2002; Hughes et al. 2003; Sheppard 2003)." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your skill at cutting and pasting text is brilliant. Let's see what the text from inbetween your direct quotes read (what you've so cleverly designated as "..."):If temperatures rise above the average maximum for a prolonged period, bleaching leads to death in many species (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). [However you left out:] Bleaching is not always fatal, however, and some episodes have been followed by recovery of most of the affected coral colonies (Fitt et al. 1993). You also conveniently leave out "On a global scale, temperature-induced bleaching is usually correlated with inter-annual climatic fluctuations, of which the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important. and "During the ENSO-induced global coral bleaching of 1998, an estimated 16% of the world’s reef-building corals died (Walther et al. 2002)." It's nice to see you can selectively bold text as it suits your purpose, such as "augmented by global warming" If I didn't know better, I'd think you were taking lessons from "Dr. Gore" himself! Flackthejack (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I reduced the text to what was relevant to the topic at had (i.e. "does global warming promote coral bleaching"). How do you think the added bits affect that? And, in particular, how does that full quote (or anything in that paper) promote your point? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My point, though not explicitly stated, was that Gore would have us believe that the bleaching in 1998 was a direct result of global warming. The paper by Precht and Aronson point to the severe El Nino that year as being the biggest contributing cause, not global warming. The film only tells half of the truth. Flackthejack (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that I found the movie to be too boring to stand - it's in my DVD collection, but its moving slower than The No Motion Picture. But the book does not make such a statement. Of course, coral bleaching was also an effect of global warming, since the 1998 El Nino was on top of already warm temperatures, and hence had a more widespread effect. I think you have swallowed a straw man here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Flackthejack is arguing that the straw that broke the camel's back is the straw to blame, and that it is therefore an error to blame any of the other straws. This is a basic logic flaw. rewinn (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I am "swallowing a straw" is absurd. What I am doing is showing the WHOLE PICTURE here. If anyone is picking at straws (9 straws that the British court pointed out, specifically), it is Gore, who so cleverly spoke to only certain points from various studies that when combined together painted an apocolyptic picture of our future. How is it a "basic logic flaw" to present a complete data set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flackthejack (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To "present a complete data set" would be to include the effects of global warming. Thank you for your support! rewinn (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alas, my biggest arguement against Gore's movie is not that man has had NO effect on the environment. It's only logical and scientific to conclude that man has had SOME effect (even the breath I just exhaled has some effect). What I (and most climate REALISTS) argue, is the extent to which man affects the environment. As I mentioned previously, Gore advocates that man has had the biggest impact on the climate while in reality, there are other much bigger (natural) factors that impact our climate (such as that flying object in the sky called the sun!) and that the change in our climate is more of a natural variation that an irreversible trend causing us to spiral toward certain doom. But you see, Gore has an agenda and he would completely ignore reason and logic if it means building a case for said agenda. So far, you've bought into his agenda as I haven't seen you come forth with a single scientific argument. I can't have an intelligent converstaion with somebody who doesn't want to discuss science but instead relies on short posts void of content Flackthejack (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Flack, you say "most climate realists...argue (what) extent to which man affects the environment" -- but actually, the vast majority of climate scientists (97%) said in a recent poll that humans play a "significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".--The lorax (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So lets see, the survey had only a 30% response rate (don't you wonder which side of the fence the other 70% who didn't respond may likely be on in that they didn't even care to answer a web survey conducted on the subject?), and out of those that responded, not even the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed that man is the greatest cause of warming. Those who unanimously (almost, about 77 of 79) agreed that man was the greatest factor were "climatologists". Well, that may get you to start thinking that these people may be worth listening to until you read the author's definition of what a climatologist is: "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." So, these people aren't even necessarily experts or have higher education on the topic, they are self-proclaimed and have written some papers that most probably were reviewed by other like-minded peers. For all you know, these "experts" could have been nothing more than lobbyists for IPCC. But, you can keep your article. The public is already seeing alarmists for who they are: lobbyist looking for more government dollars. Flackthejack (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has wandered well away from improving the article. If you want to discuss the science, there are plenty of sites where you can do that. This isn't one of them. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it is popular to stiffle dissent even on Wikipedia. So the last post that is allowed on here is a link to a discussion about an unsubstantiated survey that didn't release data such as who the survey was originally sent to, who responded, and what their credentials are. Nice Touch! Flackthejack (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"High Court case" does not belong in lede (again)

The reference to a "High Court Case" in the lede is misleading. The Dimmock Case was brought in a court of ordinary jurisdiction, that handles divorces and all sorts of low matters. It is in no wise comparable to a Supreme Court; the use of the phrase "High Court" is completely misleading to most readers and has therefore been removed. The normal way to refer to court cases is by their name; there is no reason to refer to the level of the court except to imply that it is significant. rewinn (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)