Skeptical of an Inconvenient Truth

Feo Amante

New Blood
F
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
14
As did Mr. Randi, I too watched An Inconvenient Truth - but with a healthy amount of skepticism. The same skepticism I'd have while watching something like Secrets or while listening to the Kansas school board. Lots of folks here have keen interests in various sciences even if they aren't scientists themselves - all us Science Geeks. Mine is in the earth sciences in general with a particular eye toward Seismology. My geology teacher in college (a Mr. Clay - no lie!) got me started in this when he took us to Sunset crater in Arizona and I crawled through the ice caverns of the extinct volcano.

Since then I've been an avid caver/spelunker; member of the Speliological Society and when I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I kept thinking, 'But that's not how it works! But that's not how it works!' Until I realized that either Al was knowingly lying, purposefully avoiding anything that would interfere with his pet theory, or, to be most kind, simply exaggerating wildly.

By the end of An Inconvenient Truth, I understood why Al Gore was a college flunk-out. NOT a college drop-out, which denotes choice.

Since then, and despite the many voices of actual climatologists, geologists astronomers and others, I've been pummeled time and again by the realization that the whole Global Warming debate is nothing more thana fraudulent game of one-upmanship based entirely on political leanings. It affects me profoundly that Mr. Randi grandstanded several times in his piece in order to showboat Al Gore as a statesman (egad) and declare a demarcation between morons like Republicans and clear thinkers like liberals (whose number includes Maddona, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, and Montel Williams).

I was especially disheartened to find that this news article, when you track it back, finally leads (of all places) to the tabloid Grist. GRIST? The JREF is now giving credence to GRIST?

If someone can find a more credible news organization reporting this (not just repeating Grist), I'd like to see it.

It was only a few weeks ago that Michael Shermer apologized to his readers for falling for the old Internet myth regarding the Grand Canyon and book policy at its store. It's a very old hoax that Shermer fell for, dating back to just after Bush was elected. And its getting sad when the skeptics I admire most are believing weird things just because they want to.

I'm open to opposing and encouraging ideas.

Feo Amante
 
We are looking at this all wrong.
The documentary has flaws for sure, like anything else.
The real problem with an “Inconvenient Truth” and the cultural out cry it’s generating, that it turns a very important issue into emotional hype.
We as human beings are filthy ”pigs” when it comes to taking care of the planet and we need to alter our behavior.
But when the issue is shoved at us with fear mongering tactics and is use by groups like Green Piece to extort money from the general public (carbon credits), then the work that will need to be done will come in a distant second and sooner or later will be forgotten all together; because people will get sick of it.
 
Also, I am pretty sure that EVERYTHING that Mr. Randi does he does with a healthy amount of skepticism.
 
Overman said:
Al Gore Flunked out of College??!?!?
Click to expand...
Not according to Wiki:


"In 1965, he enrolled at Harvard College, the only school to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated cum laude from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt University and then entered its Law School. He left Vanderbilt after completing the required one-year Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for students returning to secular work to run for Congress in 1976.[7]"
 
Does the OP realize that by telling one obvious lie like that shakes his whole credibility, and that it makes it even tougher to trust him on 'facts' he presents that can't be checked, or to give merit to his 'opinion'?
 
fsol said:
The CEI? Well I'm convinced :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes:
 
Beady said:
Give us specifics, not generalities.
Click to expand...

So I just for the first time watched AIT last night because it happened to be on before the new Bulls Hit. I didn't sit down with a pen and tablet and an open mind but a few things stand out. My background isn't in science. My background is in saying "Why should I believe that and what is motivating you to want me to feel that way?" whenever anyone is trying to tell me what to believe.

I am highly suspect of visual aids in general. The film is fraught with charts and graphs and after seeing the tenth one, I start to wonder about the data and math that went into them and how it was chosen.

And then Gore climbed on the scissor lift and showed the projected graph on CO2 levels...the graph shot up so much that the screen had to be hyperbolically extended.

All the tugging at my heartstrings...photo montages...I cried a gallon of tears for Gore's life and boyhood and love of nature and how he conceded to Bush in that election. "What on earth does all that extemporaneous human interest drivel have to do with global warming?" I rhetorically asked my wife for the third time before checking NCAA scores only to find Southern Illinois had lost to Kansas.

Towards the end, Gore says something to the effect of (I paraphrase, obviously) "We now have all the information we need to do something about [global warming]" What an utterly dense thing to say.

Am I totally missing the point of the film because I think Al Gore is a spineless little man without gonads? Probably. The film has an agenda. It's not gonna change very many minds; rather it "confirms" the ideas of the true believers and gives detractors something else to red herring. And it turns a buck.

Just seems to me that taking global warming information from Al Gore is like getting information on the GOP from Michael Moore.
 
Al Gore discussed on NPR

I don't remember what day it was, but this week on "Morning Edition", they talked about Gore and his testimony in front of congress(?).

IIRC, the scientist NPR had on said that Gore's comments were often not 'scientific'. For example, Gore says that the arctic ice will be gone in 34 years. The commentator said that this was an awfully precise time-frame.

Also, Gore talks about the rising sea levels, and what Florida and New York will be like when the seas rise 24 (or whatever the number is) feet. What Gore doe NOT say is that current estimates are that it will take over a century for this to happen.

The NPR science commentator said that perhaps, because Washington D.C. is all about the "Now", and only reacts to crisis, Gore may be skewing things to make it seem more crisis-like.
 
While channel surfing I started watching "an inconvienent truth" last night, about 35 minutes beyond it's starting point is where I came in. I witnessed at least 5 graphs and charts that had no numerical data displayed but only numberless graphical representations which all looked very "impressive" but made my skeptical senses tingle. All of these graphs were presented and narrated personally by Al Gore holding a slideshow remote and standing on what I can only describe as some new age talk/game show stage.

After the charts were shown, it suddenly changed formats and became some personal story about Al Gore's childhood on some farm where he grew up. That's when I realized it was also some kind of self promotion video. "Does Al Gore still plan to run for some public office?" I thought, right before I changed the channel.

Had to change it back at 10pm to catch the new penn and teller!
 
Last edited:
Found this Washington Post article about Al Gore's grades in college:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

He did not "flunk out". Science and math seem to have been his weakest subjects, though:

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.
 
Big Al said:
Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Questioning the CEI as a source is quite legitimate, especially when they open their mouths about climate change.
 
Chimera said:
Found this Washington Post article about Al Gore's grades in college:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
. . . . The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet . . .
Click to expand...

Bull hockey.
Looks like the Washington Post is full of it. As is CEI, apparently.

I disliked the idea of an Al Gore presidency, and I did not vote for him. But, his message is no less valid because of that. I still probably would not vote for him, if the opportunity arose. But there is validity in the global warming message, even though the science is summarized and simplified and prettied-up for the US audience.

The really inconvenient truth is that most of us are morons.
 
If anyone is bothered by the fact that a documentary by a politician is not convincing, or cannot present the required depth of evidence, please, go to the IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/, as US pointed out. There is only so much you can fit into a 1 1/2 hour film, so it can hardly represent the many papers and countless hours of scientific research into the topic.
 
Also, when people critize an Inconvient Truth about how it has details of Gore's personal life in there, remember that this is the director's decision and not the presentor.

When Gore gives the slideshow presentation, which he has given over a thousand times, it does not have the montaoge included...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom