Thirty Five Errors in Gore Movie

[Big Don]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Note that I was honest enough not to call it a documentary...

 

[Cruentus]

Not that we shouldn't debate points of contention in the film here, but it is worth noting that SPPI has a clear agenda of promoting skeptical views on global warming, and they are funded by ExxonMobile.

Again, not saying that these debates don't have merit, but SPPI is clearly not an objective source.

 

[Big Don]

SPPI was reporting what the Britsih judge ruled. Yes, they put their own spin on it, but, their's is still much lighter than Gore's...

 

[Karatedrifter7]

According to who? Oreilly?

 

[Big Don]

According to who? Oreilly?

Doesn't agree with your world view must be Fox news?

The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him. The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.

 

[Cruentus]

Look, the jury isn't really still out on Climate Change. When you look at unbiased and objective science, the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is a very real issue.

I have provided some links below to some very reputable sources that are not known for dwelling in speculation, such as NASA and the EPA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm
http://www.unep.org/themes/climatechange/


Pretty much all government agencies nationally as well as internationally accept that climate change is a very real phenomenom, and there is a reasonable probability that it is human behavior at the root of it.
So, it would suit our best interest to get on board with this body of research. This ain't the 1990's anymore, people.

Yet, we still have "skeptics" and "naysayers." Well, we also have people that believe that on 9-11 the CIA flew planes into the trade center
by remote control, and who are willing to put up web resources to support the claim. But that doesn't mean it's true. Due to the large body of science out there to support the notion of climate change, we can pretty much put the global warming skeptics in the same category as the "conspiracy theorists."

So, we should keep this in mind when we review Gore's movie. If one wants to debate in a point by point fashion the fine details of the suppositions presented in the film, that is fine. But one cannot say that the jury is out on the issue of global warming, because it simply hasn't been for the last 1/2 a decade. I have not picked apart Gore's movie, but in a general sense and from what I have seen and remember, the film presents the basic facts about climate change in an accurate fashion. This would have been incredibly easy to do, by the way, as there is now a large body of research to support climate change.

But, there are still "skeptics." What the skeptics usually boil down to are people who are unwilling to want to give up our resource rich lifestyles and therefore do not want to believe the research. Unfortunatily, these folks also include many entities with huge financial interests in our resource expendatures. Then, there are those who are stuck in the 80's and 90's, who made their claim, and who are simply too stubborn to look at the scientific data that we have today.

Never-the-less, the global warming skeptics usually have an agenda, plain and simple.

But if we want to debate the issue, that is fine. If someone out there actually doesn't accept the fact of climate change, or if someone has a contention with Gore's movie, go ahead and state some specifics. Perhaps there are inaccuracies in the film, for all I know. This wouldn't be uncommon for any documentary. But I am skeptical at the notion that these inaccuracies would really make a difference when one looks at the larger issue.

So if you got something, list it. This ought be interesting and perhaps amusing, at least.

C.

 

[michaeledward]

Last time we attempted to talk about An Inconvenient Truth, I offered to reimburse any martialtalk member for their ticket. I had no takers on it.

And, the thread got locked.

There really is no point to rehash the debate.

The fact is, the English court did not rule on any factual errors. What they ruled on was that English law demands an opposing point of view, and Mr. Gore's film did not meet that standard.

Big Don, and any shills for Exxon Mobil that he can find on the internets, are not going to convince any of us. And we are not going to convince him. We have all become polemcists on the issue. (Although, I like to believe I am on the side of the scientific method.)

 

[Flying Crane]

Look, the jury isn't really still out on Climate Change. When you look at unbiased and objective science, the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is a very real issue.

I have provided some links below to some very reputable sources that are not known for dwelling in speculation, such as NASA and the EPA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm
http://www.unep.org/themes/climatechange/


Pretty much all government agencies nationally as well as internationally accept that climate change is a very real phenomenom, and there is a reasonable probability that it is human behavior at the root of it.
So, it would suit our best interest to get on board with this body of research. This ain't the 1990's anymore, people.

Yet, we still have "skeptics" and "naysayers." Well, we also have people that believe that on 9-11 the CIA flew planes into the trade center
by remote control, and who are willing to put up web resources to support the claim. But that doesn't mean it's true. Due to the large body of science out there to support the notion of climate change, we can pretty much put the global warming skeptics in the same category as the "conspiracy theorists."

So, we should keep this in mind when we review Gore's movie. If one wants to debate in a point by point fashion the fine details of the suppositions presented in the film, that is fine. But one cannot say that the jury is out on the issue of global warming, because it simply hasn't been for the last 1/2 a decade. I have not picked apart Gore's movie, but in a general sense and from what I have seen and remember, the film presents the basic facts about climate change in an accurate fashion. This would have been incredibly easy to do, by the way, as there is now a large body of research to support climate change.

But, there are still "skeptics." What the skeptics usually boil down to are people who are unwilling to want to give up our resource rich lifestyles and therefore do not want to believe the research. Unfortunatily, these folks also include many entities with huge financial interests in our resource expendatures. Then, there are those who are stuck in the 80's and 90's, who made their claim, and who are simply too stubborn to look at the scientific data that we have today.

Never-the-less, the global warming skeptics usually have an agenda, plain and simple.

But if we want to debate the issue, that is fine. If someone out there actually doesn't accept the fact of climate change, or if someone has a contention with Gore's movie, go ahead and state some specifics. Perhaps there are inaccuracies in the film, for all I know. This wouldn't be uncommon for any documentary. But I am skeptical at the notion that these inaccuracies would really make a difference when one looks at the larger issue.

So if you got something, list it. This ought be interesting and perhaps amusing, at least.

C.

Very well said, sir. I'd pass you some rep, but I gotta spread the love a bit more first.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Look, the jury isn't really still out on Climate Change. When you look at unbiased and objective science, the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is a very real issue.

I have provided some links below to some very reputable sources that are not known for dwelling in speculation, such as NASA and the EPA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm
http://www.unep.org/themes/climatechange/


Pretty much all government agencies nationally as well as internationally accept that climate change is a very real phenomenom, and there is a reasonable probability that it is human behavior at the root of it.
So, it would suit our best interest to get on board with this body of research. This ain't the 1990's anymore, people.

Yet, we still have "skeptics" and "naysayers." Well, we also have people that believe that on 9-11 the CIA flew planes into the trade center
by remote control, and who are willing to put up web resources to support the claim. But that doesn't mean it's true. Due to the large body of science out there to support the notion of climate change, we can pretty much put the global warming skeptics in the same category as the "conspiracy theorists."

So, we should keep this in mind when we review Gore's movie. If one wants to debate in a point by point fashion the fine details of the suppositions presented in the film, that is fine. But one cannot say that the jury is out on the issue of global warming, because it simply hasn't been for the last 1/2 a decade. I have not picked apart Gore's movie, but in a general sense and from what I have seen and remember, the film presents the basic facts about climate change in an accurate fashion. This would have been incredibly easy to do, by the way, as there is now a large body of research to support climate change.

But, there are still "skeptics." What the skeptics usually boil down to are people who are unwilling to want to give up our resource rich lifestyles and therefore do not want to believe the research. Unfortunatily, these folks also include many entities with huge financial interests in our resource expendatures. Then, there are those who are stuck in the 80's and 90's, who made their claim, and who are simply too stubborn to look at the scientific data that we have today.

Never-the-less, the global warming skeptics usually have an agenda, plain and simple.

But if we want to debate the issue, that is fine. If someone out there actually doesn't accept the fact of climate change, or if someone has a contention with Gore's movie, go ahead and state some specifics. Perhaps there are inaccuracies in the film, for all I know. This wouldn't be uncommon for any documentary. But I am skeptical at the notion that these inaccuracies would really make a difference when one looks at the larger issue.

So if you got something, list it. This ought be interesting and perhaps amusing, at least.

C.

I find it interesting, and in my opinion typical, of people who take the left side of issues that even though something like Gores movie might had factual errors (especially for trying to be a documentary), as long as it is biased towards their viewpoint, that is perfectly acceptable. And not only that, it should be used as an educational tool.

Reminds me of a time when I heard Jeneane Garofalo on Air America radio say that she is often wrong, but at least she is not mean spirited or a liar. I did not hear her on the radio any more shortly after that.

And I dont look at govenments and their agencies being the most fair-minded and objective of entities. As far as NASA is concerned, they showed that the facts used in the report on Climate change was inaccurate. And the EPA must justify its budget and show how bad things would be without them. Not exactly un-biased.

 

[michaeledward]

I find it interesting, and in my opinion typical, of people who take the left side of issues that even though something like Gores movie might had factual errors (especially for trying to be a documentary), as long as it is biased towards their viewpoint, that is perfectly acceptable. And not only that, it should be used as an educational tool.

Reminds me of a time when I heard Jeneane Garofalo on Air America radio say that she is often wrong, but at least she is not mean spirited or a liar. I did not hear her on the radio any more shortly after that.

And I dont look at govenments and their agencies being the most fair-minded and objective of entities. As far as NASA is concerned, they showed that the facts used in the report on Climate change was inaccurate. And the EPA must justify its budget and show how bad things would be without them. Not exactly un-biased.

I guess this issue can't be let go.

5-0 Kenpo ... You state 'An Inconvienent Truth' may have factual errors. This begs the question, 'where'?

What facts are you claiming that NASA put forth that are incorrect?
What facts are you claiing the EPA put forth that are incorrect?


The 'on the one hand / on the other hand' mentality pervades places like Fox News Channel. But, not every topic can be correctly described with this 'fair and balanced' approach. Sometimes 'facts' have a well known liberal bias.

When people start arguing about "Al Gore's movie", they are introducing the 'on the one hand / on the other hand' argument (on one hand there is Al Gore / on the other hand there is George Bush) or (one the one hand is a 'Big Government Agency' / on the other hand there is 'Private Enterprise').

Arguments such as those put forth here are attempting to discredit the argument because of who is making it. (Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, so how can you trust him on global warming? (except, of course, Al Gore did not claim to invent the internet)).

Now, I recently argued against a report made by the National Enquirer. I did question the person raising the argument. In that case, it is because that publication has a history of reporting widely inaccurate information. However, if one is going to question who is making the argument, as is being done with Mr. Gore, he must look at the fact that Mr. Gore is not making these arguments himself, but reporting information from another source. Is that source credible?

If that source is NASA, then let us look at the actual claims being raised by NASA, and examine them for accuracy. And to do that, we need to know which claims are being made by NASA (and by whom at NASA).

So, if you want to kick the can down the road, show me don't tell me.

But don't discard the argument because it is from ... 'people who take the left side'. By the way, what is the 'right side' of global climate change?

 

[Cruentus]

I find it interesting, and in my opinion typical, of people who take the left side of issues that even though something like Gores movie might had factual errors (especially for trying to be a documentary), as long as it is biased towards their viewpoint, that is perfectly acceptable. And not only that, it should be used as an educational tool.

Reminds me of a time when I heard Jeneane Garofalo on Air America radio say that she is often wrong, but at least she is not mean spirited or a liar. I did not hear her on the radio any more shortly after that.

And I dont look at govenments and their agencies being the most fair-minded and objective of entities. As far as NASA is concerned, they showed that the facts used in the report on Climate change was inaccurate. And the EPA must justify its budget and show how bad things would be without them. Not exactly un-biased.

Your attempt to disrepute the discussion is in your labeling this as a "left" vs. "right" issue. "People on the left side of the argument do blah..." Then throw in an anecdote about Janine Garofalo. It's simple ad hominem.

And, in this case it is unfounded. First off, although I hate labels so I generally claim independance, I have to admit that I actually tend to be more conservative on many issues. If you read my comments on "Gun Control" here on MT, for example, one might consider me a staunch conservative.

But I think that is besides the point; I don't think that Global Warming is a debatable situation where one set of principles can be pitted against another at this point. That would be like debating in favor of a geocentric universe over a heliocentric one; in either case, the argument itself is out of date because science greatly concludes one over the other.

Yet, I find it amazing when people want to throw in criticisms over sources like NASA and the EPA and reputable scientific organizations to try to somehow level the playing field to make room for opposing, biased, and unscientific sources and speculations. It really does remind me of things that guys like these do: http://martiallaw911.info/

So, my main contention really has nothing to do with Al Gore. As I said before, there probably are inaccuracies in the movie for all I know, AS WITH MOST DOCUMENTARIES. Yet, no one makes a stink when "documentaries" on Nostradamus predictions and Davinci Code theories with all kinds of weird inaccuracies are aired, but people make a huge stink about Gore's film. So a reasonable person must ask, "why?" And the conclusion I come up with is that some people still want to disregard the large body of science that concludes that Climate Change is very real. Because if it is real, and it is our fault, then by gorsh, we might have to change our lifestyles.

But as I mentioned, if one wants to put some points from the film out there for discussions, by all means. I am just wondering how these points, right or wrong, are going to make a difference on the science behind climate change as a whole.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Your attempt to disrepute the discussion is in your labeling this as a "left" vs. "right" issue. "People on the left side of the argument do blah..." Then throw in an anecdote about Janine Garofalo. It's simple ad hominem.

Although I would admit that the use of left/right was my own interpretation, it is simplistic to take the ultimate gist of what I was saying and call it ad hominem.

The point I was making (which may, admittedly been clouded) was that I find it interesting that people will say that something should be used for educational purposes, even if it has factual inaccuracies which can be proven, as long as it fits the instructors bias.

And I have never claimed that Gores movie did have factual errors, although others have. Others who I tend to believe more than goal. My purpose in making that statement was described in my above paragraph.

But I think that is besides the point; I don't think that Global Warming is a debatable situation where one set of principles can be pitted against another at this point. That would be like debating in favor of a geocentric universe over a heliocentric one; in either case, the argument itself is out of date because science greatly concludes one over the other.

In this case, you are making an assumption that I do not agree with, specifically,that science states that modern global warming on earth is a man-made phenomenom.

So, my main contention really has nothing to do with Al Gore. As I said before, there probably are inaccuracies in the movie for all I know, AS WITH MOST DOCUMENTARIES. Yet, no one makes a stink when "documentaries" on Nostradamus predictions and Davinci Code theories with all kinds of weird inaccuracies are aired, but people make a huge stink about Gore's film. So a reasonable person must ask, "why?" And the conclusion I come up with is that some people still want to disregard the large body of science that concludes that Climate Change is very real. Because if it is real, and it is our fault, then by gorsh, we might have to change our lifestyles.

You conclusion is based on a false premise: that no one makes a stink about Nostradamus predicitions and Davinci Code Theories. There are just as many documentaries debunking these as might be for it. So, then the question, "why?" need not be asked based on your argument.

[/quote]But as I mentioned, if one wants to put some points from the film out there for discussions, by all means. I am just wondering how these points, right or wrong, are going to make a difference on the science behind climate change as a whole.[/quote]

The difference is whether climate change is a man-made phenomenom, and whether man can even do anything about it.

Origanally posted by Michaeledward
What facts are you claiming that NASA put forth that are incorrect?
What facts are you claiing the EPA put forth that are incorrect?

I will answer these in reverse order:

First, I never said the EPA put forth facts that are incorrect. In this instance, I was responding to someones dismissing of the SPPI based on its donors. As I said, for an organization that has to justify its federal spending (government donors) and therefor very existence, by showing that something is wrong, it to can also be considered biased.

I will attempt to find the data regarding NASA that I was referring to. Its late for me, so you have to excuse me not presenting the information at this time.

 

[Big Don]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

Then there is this:

Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.

The pair spoke at a conference in Oxford entitled Making Sense of Weather and Climate and organised by Sense about Science, a scientific trust set up to help dispel the myths surrounding polemic issues such as climate change.

Prof Collier said while there is "no doubt" that climate change is happening and is to an extent man-made, it is not yet proven by isolated climatic events such as the Boscastle floods.

He said: "There is always a danger of crying wolf. We have to be careful as scientists that we present the facts and don't exaggerate things because it can undermine credibility in the long term."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paClimateSat1530climatechangeud&show_article=1&cat=uk&catnum=0
ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, Not Failed Politicians...
and this:

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned.

"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.

http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
Of course you'd probably be more likely to believe Paul Hellyer http://rawstory.com/news/afp/UFO_science_key_to_halting_climate__02282007.html

 

[Cruentus]

Big Don: He said: "There is always a danger of crying wolf. We have to be careful as scientists that we present the facts and don't exaggerate things because it can undermine credibility in the long term."

That I do agree with. There is a tendancy to exaggerate claims when it comes to this sort of thing. There is also a tendancy for certain people to want to use a global warming "scare" to try to promote an unrealistic utopian view of how society, government, and economies should be run. However, the other side of the argument often exaggeratedly ignores good science because it doesn't support the idea that we should continue business as usual. So often, exaggerations are used on both sides of the argument, and that I do not agree with.

I think that we need to take an objective view of the research we do have out there, and take action accordingly.

5-0 kenpo: You conclusion is based on a false premise: that no one makes a stink about Nostradamus predicitions and Davinci Code Theories. There are just as many documentaries debunking these as might be for it.

I will give you that one. We still need to ask why so many people are ademently against the notion of climate change in light of overwhelming evidence and good science that states otherwise. But I concede, my analogy doesn't really fit.

5-0 kenpo: In this case, you are making an assumption that I do not agree with, specifically,that science states that modern global warming on earth is a man-made phenomenom.

The science overwhelmingly supports climate change. That is not debatable.

The evidence reasonably points to the notion that we may have something to do with it. That is not as clear as the fact that climate change is occurring, but it is reasonable to assume this based on considerable evidence.

So although our involvement and to what degree falls in line with strong theory as opposed to undeniable fact, the real question is why argue against it?

It seems pretty clear to me that we should be aware of our energy useage, and that we should be looking into alternatives to fossil fuels for economic and national security reasons to begin with. So why are we going to argue against a strong theory? If we find that the theory is wrong, how would that change what we need to do in regards to our energy expendatures?

 

[theletch1]

It seems pretty clear to me that we should be aware of our energy useage, and that we should be looking into alternatives to fossil fuels for economic and national security reasons to begin with. So why are we going to argue against a strong theory? If we find that the theory is wrong, how would that change what we need to do in regards to our energy expendatures?

That, my friend, is the wisest thing I've read in a while. Regardless of whether mankind has anything to do with what could very well be a simple cycle is up for debate among those more learned than I. What should, however, be evident to anyong with more than a single digit IQ is that our ability to fuel an ever increasing population will react to the supply and demand side of life. Unless you subscribe to the "oil is a naturally renewing resource" theory then an alternative must be found. We, as humans, aren't big enough to destroy this planet. We can, however, make it uninhabitable for us and if nothing else climate change should be a launchpad for reducing pollution at the very least.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The cost (literally and politically) of Gas is enough to convince me that we need to find new energy sources. Scaring my kids into thinking that they are going to live on a post-apocolyptic dust ball is another issue alltogether.

 

[Cruentus]

The cost (literally and politically) of Gas is enough to convince me that we need to find new energy sources. Scaring my kids into thinking that they are going to live on a post-apocolyptic dust ball is another issue alltogether.

lol. That is true too. That is why I am all for good science, not the political exaggerations that people often jump on.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Then there is this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...limatechangeud&show_article=1&cat=uk&catnum=0
ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, Not Failed Politicians...
and this:http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowS...ine=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
Of course you'd probably be more likely to believe Paul Hellyer http://rawstory.com/news/afp/UFO_science_key_to_halting_climate__02282007.html

So, if I read this correctly, you are backing up your claim that the 2006 movie, An Inconvienent Truth, has 35 errors with a quote from 1992. That doesn't seem to be a very effective evidence.

Can you link to a site with the 35 errors you claim exist, ennumerated. You know, listed out sequentially --- 1 - 2 - 3?

 

[Cruentus]

So, if I read this correctly, you are backing up your claim that the 2006 movie, An Inconvienent Truth, has 35 errors with a quote from 1992. That doesn't seem to be a very effective evidence.

Can you link to a site with the 35 errors you claim exist, ennumerated. You know, listed out sequentially --- 1 - 2 - 3?

This does point out the importance of up to date information with this argument. In the early and mid-90's, there was not as much scientific data available to support climate change. However, that is not the case now; recent data displays overwhelming evidence to support climate change.

I think what has happened is that people (most of whom are not scientests) are simply stuck in presumptions from a decade old debate, and are not "with it" when it comes to scientific data.

Data from the Joint Science Academies in 2001 made this into an open and shut case, and vast amounts of data has been presented since then. The 2007 IPCC 4th assessment report sums this up nicely:

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."

Although anything from Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt, this is an extremely good link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It sums up the recent data nicely, with many references so that you can fact check, as is very important to do with Wikipedia. If one goes through the vast amount of references and statements from scientific organization after scientific organization, there is no way that one can still believe that climate change "ain't real"...

 

[Cruentus]

Can you link to a site with the 35 errors you claim exist, ennumerated. You know, listed out sequentially --- 1 - 2 - 3?

It is in the report in the first link. Now, if one wants to seriously debate a specific point, then one has to bring it to the thread, as I am not going to go on a debunking mission for every looney claim that is put out there.

But, it is funny to mention some of the points from the report. One claim was that Coral reefs are being damaged causing flooding of islands not because of Climate change, but because of dynamiting of reefs or overextraction of fresh water by islands inhabitants. Another was that the melting of Mt. Kilimanjaro was not due to climate change, but due to imprudent regional deforestization. Another was that lake Chad is drying due to overextraction of water, not climate change. And the list goes on...

lol...what the hell!? :rofl: These are just a couple of the points, but I find it hilarious that the counter argument to events claimed to have been caused by man-made climate change is another man-made cause. Even if there was reasonableness to some of the claims, isn't the message basically the same, then, really? That message being that we need to stop ****ing up the environment?

Regardless, some of the supposed "untruths" are pretty ridicules, in my opinion, and to me points out the extent some will go to try to justify a poorly supported belief.

That said, if there are any REAL contentions, then I would hope that the naysayers would bring them to the table.