After watching the movie, "The Inconvenient Truth," a questions came to my mind. What would it mean if Al Gore had some facts wrong, or facts were disproven. What would it mean if the graphs that Gore showed in the movie and his lecture series were not completely accurate?
After coming up with this question, I googled, "The Inconvenient Truth" and read on article that disproves 35 "truths" in the movie.
(article found on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)
Knowing this brings up the question what does this mean for the state of our environment, and is it possible that we have more time to fix the issues happening within global climate change? Even though no one wants to think that something they've hold true is a lie, is it a good thing that we have more time for action? Or does it just mean we were given a little more rope to choke ourselves with?
We might want to place "disproves" in parentheses here. The SPPI is suspect for many reasons, eg whenever a paper has footnotes that supposedly contain proof of the articles claims and said footnotes mostly refer to other (non peer reviewed) papers written by the same entity (in this case the SPPI) that raises a red flag.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Remember that there is a huge and extremely well-funded industry dedicated to generating false doubt about the problem (read Monbiot, for example). Such disinformation thrives on the internet. The question is not whether some of the details of Gore's presentation are potentially debatable; the question is whether we grasp that this is not a silly game of finger-pointing, but a matter of life and death for billions.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine much of what was said in the movie is completely untrue, but perhaps now some of the facts should be altered or tweaked a bit. That's to be expected though now that the movie is almost 10 years old. It would be neat to see Gore revisit the project and alter the facts and make a new presentation.
ReplyDelete