Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 13

Singer quote
Why is Fred Singer quoted here, out of all those that appeared in TGGWS? Raymond Arritt 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply trimmed the section to remove redundant details from the TGGWS page using the same logic being employed to revert my edits on the Singer page relative to Monbiot and his BLP.


 * If the information removed is reverted then I plan to copy the complete list of TGGWS contributors to this section to offset the POV pushing. This section is clearly contained within the criticism section of the page.  The commentary I removed was not consistent with being in a criticism section. --GoRight 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:POINT, threats like that serve no purpose and may result in a block. Vsmith 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What threat? I am simply indicating that if the critics of TGGWS are to be referenced here so should the supporters to KEEP things neutral.  This comment is directly in agreement with WP:POINT as far as I can tell.  Let me make the relevant points more clear:
 * I removed redundant information from the article using the same reasoning that was used to remove information on Singer's page.
 * I consider the current the redundant information to be POV pushing.
 * If people insist that the critics of TGGWS be listed here then I think we should also copy the full list of TGGWS supporters here as well to AVOID the POV pushing bias.
 * Does that make it more clear to you?
 * --GoRight 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your comments make the situation clearer, but probably not in the way that you intended. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that the quotes from this film's critics have been systematically removed from the article while the text that was probably at one time counterbalancing those critics still remains. The result is a skewed perspective of TGGWS's legitimacy.  I wish to restore the balance on that point.  I am happy to include the critics of TGGWS here but then I think that we should also list the names of those that appear in the film for balance. --GoRight 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But why do we need to mention any more than the fact that it's a film with a contrary take on the subject? If we're going to go into details like the contention that temperature is forcing CO2 in present-day climate (which we know is absolutely, unquestionably wrong because of isotopic analysis, etc.) then we have to note that which details are correct and which are bunk. Otherwise we mislead the reader, which you surely wouldn't want to do -- would you? Raymond Arritt 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mislead the reader? Of course not.  As I said that is what I am trying to avoid here.


 * The film makes several points all of which are fully discussed in the TGGWS article along with their critics responses. Of all of the points made in the film this one (the fact that the CO2 lags the temperature in the ice cores) is not actually in dispute, is it?  I think your side accepts this as a valid scientific point, correct?  I just think it makes sense to somehow summarize here the most sound or significant point made in the film.  I know that you don't think that this is the current relationship in the current warming period though.  I'll add a comment that the results presented in the film are widely disputed and the criticisms are discussed in detail in the TGGWS page.  Would that satisfy your concerns?


 * It is moot for now as Raul654 just conducted a drive by revert. --GoRight 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I reverted Raul654's revert and made the change I proposed above. Raul654 then conducted another drive-by revert (i.e. a full revert without any mention or discussion here) so I will leave it for now.  Does the proposed addition satisfy your concerns?  --GoRight 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Raymond, I don't know what you mean. This seems to be an argument about expertise.  The pro-AGW people on this talk page and others seem to be operating under the assumption that only scientists are qualified to discuss any aspect of global warming related issues.  Remember that this is a page about a movie, not about science.  While the folks at RC are qualified to discuss the science of AGW (and thus the science of this movie), I don't see why they're any more qualified to judge the politics of this movie or its distribution in schools than lots of other people (Milloy for one) are.  Oren0 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I obviously agree. --GoRight 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Stream
Did Gore really say that reduced THC would "halt" the Gulf Stream? That's wrong -- though its intensity would be reduced, the Gulf Stream will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates and the North Atlantic is unfrozen. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I'd think I'd remember if he said something that bad. What were his exact words? Raymond Arritt 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was reference to a possible shutdown of thermohaline circulation, but don't remember the exact reference in the film being to shut the Gulf stream down. Vsmith 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you ask? --GoRight 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I want the article to be accurate. If he didn't say "halt", we shouldn't say he did. Conversely, if he really did say "halt," that's motivation to include material that criticizes him saying so (as well he should be). Raymond Arritt 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see where it is referenced. Given the stated cause and effect I would agree that this has to be a typo of some sort.  I think Vsmith is correct about what the proper reference should be.  Although, if Gore really DID say Gulf Stream be sure to let me know!  That could be a handy quote for elsewhere.  --GoRight 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand he might actually have said it. I haven't followed the details but a quick Google search turned up a site that you won't like which had this related commentary: Gulf Stream Will Not Shut Down, Science Magazines Admit.


 * "Since 1998, global warming alarmists have claimed rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheet could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt, dominated by the Gulf Stream, and thus shut off the supply of warm water and air that keeps northern Europe extremely mild for its high latitude.


 * The resulting advance of ice sheets across Europe, alarmists argued, would quickly spread throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and plunge the Earth into an already overdue ice age."


 * So maybe he was refering to something related to that? I'm not suggesting that you rely on this or anything, just trying to give you additional good faith info for your search.


 * Here's a source that will be more to your liking: Ocean changes 'will cool Europe'. It does discuss the Gulf Stream so if Gore did mention it he was probably referring to this.


 * --GoRight 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all very nice but it's not relevant to my question -- which is, what did Gore actually say? It would be good if there were an actual transcript available. Raymond Arritt 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always buy a DVD off of him, after all that's why he made them ... oh, and that's also why you probably won't find a transcript. Maybe you should buy his book too.  :-)  I can't help you because, needless to say, I don't own either of them.  --GoRight 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. That is a sudden jump. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We’ll come back to that one." Source. Iceage77 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a reasonably good Meteorology 101 summary of current views on the Younger Dryas (one can quibble over details; e.g., recent evidence is that drainage was mostly to the north rather than through the St. Lawrence). Back to the original point, he doesn't say the Gulf Stream was halted so we shouldn't misreport him. I'll reword the text accordingly. Raymond Arritt 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I would eliminate that reference to Gulf Stream. It is not really spurious as you claim.  If you follow the reference provided by Iceage77 here is the paragraph proceeding the one he quoted:


 * "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the Earth’s rotation. Isn’t it interesting that the whole ocean current system is all linked together in this loop. They call it the ocean conveyor. The red are the warm surface current, the Gulf Stream is the best known of them. The blue represents the cold currents running in the opposite direction. We don’t see them at all because they run along the bottom of the ocean. Up in the North Atlantic, after that heat is pulled out, what’s left behind is colder water and saltier water, because salt doesn’t go anywhere. That makes it denser and heavier. That cold, dense heavy water sinks at a rate of 5 billion gallons per second. That pulls that current back south."


 * I guess I don't have a major problem with your change, but the original text WAS accurate, IMHO. If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream which he specifically mentions, right?  I defer to your judgment on this point.  --GoRight 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream..." Nope. The Gulf Stream is primarily wind-driven and will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates, the North Atlantic ocean is liquid, and the continents stay roughly in their current positions. In the popular imagination the Gulf Stream is the whole current system from the Gulf of Mexico to Scandinavia, but that's wrong. The North Atlantic Drift is largely a thermohaline circulation and would be affected by freshening of the North Atlantic. Gore's mention of the Gulf Stream is a little confusing, but he doesn't specifically say the Gulf Stream itself would shut down. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --GoRight 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, you might be interested to know that there's an unofficial transcript of AIT at http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm . -- ChrisO 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"
This word should not be in the opening sentence to describe the film, and used very carefully elsewhere. It should not be necessary to tell people it's controversial, rather, if it is indeed controversial, then it should be shown that it is controversial in the article, and the lead. The same for the "counter" film - "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - I have recently removed the word from the opening sentences of both these articles. --Merbabu 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether the word is in or out, but it should certainly be applied consistently between the two films. Each side considers the other's to be "controversial".  --GoRight 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither "side" should have the word (or any article in the manner presented in both), but articles should not be interdependent. Creating a bad edit in one article doesn't mean we should repeat in another. That's just stupid. Sorry. As I said above, earlier I removed it from both articles simply 'cos neither article should have it - not for some misguided notion of balance between articles.
 * See WP:PEACOCK. regards --Merbabu 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that you considered votes to be "fundamentally bogus", has your position changed or does it simply depend in the topic of the vote or who initiated it? --GoRight 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And exactly how is "strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion" different from what I indicated I was doing? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Stick to the topic at hand - this discussion has no place here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right, we should stray away from discussions that some of us might find uncomfortable. --GoRight 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL and finally WP:AGF. All wikipedia guidelines that you should familiarize yourself with. And strikingly enough all relevant to your comment. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with all of these and my comment is completely consistent with them. In fact it quite clearly summarizes the spirit expressed in these references, does it not? --GoRight (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the following comment over on the TGGWS talk page:


 * "I googled controversial "the great global warming swindle" (i.e. searching for the full title). This got 51,600 hits. This includes the Spiked interview with Martin Durkin in which, in an interview about TGGWS, when discussing how he's been censured in the past for his techniques (i.e. misleading and selectively editing interviewees, although he doesn't say that), he complains about how "seriously controversial" work is censored by Ofcom. Although he never actually says he thinks of his work as controversial, surely the context is a a tacit admission that he recognises his work is controversial.


 * In any case, it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition. --Merlinme 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

A similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits. So by this logic should we not assume that AIT is WAY more controversial than TGGWS? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please keep the two articles seperate? Each has its own merits - and each have their own problems. Stick to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not conflating the two films, I am merely applying the same criteria to each to maintain a NPOV overall. The obvious point was that "a similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits" so if we apply the same logic/criteria here it AIT "it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition" in the case of AIT (which is applicable to this page).  Is English your first language?  --GoRight 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular sentence: "I am merely applying the same criteria to each to maintain a NPOV overall", rather clearly shows that you are trying to conflate the two movies - and are trying to avoid arguing each article on the merits of each - and in stead are falling back to a position where you assume (incorrectly) that there has to be an equal weight between the two. Sorry - we do not conflate the evolution and the Intelligent design articles and assume that there has to be a balance between them - and with very good reason.
 * So please desist - and argue each movie seperately and on their own talk pages. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nb: Something that creates controversy is not controversial. Do you think trains are controversial? Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the film (or films) is controversial or not, rather how we represent that fact here. If any controversies are adequately described, we can then let the reader make their own assessment. Again, show don't tell. See this too.--Merbabu 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merbabu - please take this discussion to TGGWS - where the case whether the film should be introduced as controversial or not - has been discussed almost to exhaustion. I do not think that there is a consensus for it here. (but of course i may be wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim D. Petersen, I did not know that there was another discussion; I feel that another article is the wrong place for it - these shouldn't be interdependent, rather seperate - but if the consensus is to discuss there, well OK. (btw, i don't support the inclusion of "controversial" in either article - your post implies to me that you think I might). thanks. --Merbabu 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Merbabu, and would also argue that neither film should be labeled as controversial. But I also feel that it is important that the same standards be applied to both films to maintain an NPOV overall.  So if the one film has criteria applied to it I believe that the same criteria should be equally applied to the other film to maintain a NPOV. --GoRight 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see where your idea comes from, and understand it, but I can't agree. That is like suggesting because we've editorialised and POV'ed one article, we neutralise that by editorialising and POV'ing another article. Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly across seperate articles. --Merbabu 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree with you that neither film should be labeled and that the content of the article should allow the reader to make their own assessment.  This would clearly be the NPOV position.  Agreed? --GoRight 10:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * lol - of course I agree: no "the film is controversial". But maintaining this depends on (a) others agreeing, and harder (b) making sure the article does indeed correctly and fairly shows these controversies (that may or may not exist - lol). --Merbabu 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Once more - please take the discussion to TGGWS, where this not only is an on-topic discussion - but where others can also join in, without going off-topic. (as a hint: One of these films is designed to be controversial, while the other isn't - guess which one?) --Kim D. Petersen 10:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We are discussing AIT which IS on topic. There is no reason we cannot compare and contrast how AIT and TGGWS are being treated in order to improve the AIT page.  That's all we are doing.  --GoRight 10:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Each article is treated according to its own merits - on its own article and talk space. The useage (or non-usage) of the word "controversial" is determined on merits and specifics of each - not on whether they are both films - or they are both talking about global warming. If its much broader than that - then it belongs as a discussion in the manual of style. In all cases - it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that each movie has its own merits. I am just saying the each movie should have its merits assessed along the same dimensions and criteria.  You wouldn't have a reason for wanting to use one set of criteria for this movie and a different set for the other, would you?  Because doing so opens the door to POV pushing.  Both movies should be assessed using the same criteria, not a cherry picked set to make this movie come out us NOT controversial and a different cherry picked set to make TGGWS come out as controversial.  You agree with this, right?  --GoRight (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is: TGGWS is significantly flawed - its scientific arguments are to say the least extremely misleading - and in many cases 100% wrong. TGGWS represents a fringe view while AIT represents the mainstream view. The response from both the popular media and from science on TGGWS has been overwhelmingly negative. These two movies are not the same. And an argument that they should be weighted equally is a misunderstanding of the wikipedia rules for weight and neutral point of view. And once more - this doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS has been debunked. AIT, aside from a few details that deviate from the mainstream, is largely an accurate portrayal of the science. One is widely controversial. The other has minor controversy among certain circles. The term "controversial" should only apply to material that meets a clear standard for its usage. Else, it's POV and we could put "controversial" in almost every article. "Gone With the Wind, a controversial book/film..." or "gravity is a controversial...". TGGWS clearly meets this criteria. AIT doesn't. -- Gmb92 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is disagree, TGGWS debunks AIT. Just why do you feel that you can claim this debunked status?  You have some credible experts claiming X.  We have credible experts claim "not X".  That sounds like a standoff at best, clearly not a debunking.  That's just like the use of the word "refute" on the TGGWS page.  Dualing credible experts do not a refutation claim justify.  Using the same logic that you all like to use, since TGGWS is the more "recent" production obvious it debunks AIT not the other way around.  :)  Debunks is a clear POV push and should be reworded. --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you've seen the High Court's decision (among other things) and you think that only "a few details" ot AIT have caused "minor controversy," I think you're not looking at the situation objectively. The hockey stick, 20 ft, the Gulf Stream, Lake Chad, etc etc.  I feel like we've done this so many times before.  I can point to sources that call AIT controversial until I'm blue in the face:
 * 'An Inconvenient Truth': a Controversial Film
 * 'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial
 * “An Inconvenient Truth”—the highly acclaimed and controversial documentary...
 * 'An Inconvenient Truth' film causes controversy


 * I could go on and on. WP:LEAD mandates that we mention relevant controversies in the lead section, and I still believe we're doing the reader a disservice by not adequately doing so.  If we don't want controversial in the opening sentence, I propose adding a sentence to the lead that explains the controversies as related to schools, the High Court, etc. -- Oren0 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this. I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence of the lead, but there should be a sentence somewhere in the lead.  I'll put a draft of a sentence together tonight when I get a chance. -- Elhector (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I third this. :) --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, i gave it shot. I put it at the end of the lead and tried to put it into context.  Let me know what you guys think -- Elhector (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Too much focus on the controversy in the lead out of proportion with both reality and the article itself. Since we all here know that the lead is a "hot" item - could we attempt to get consensus first - before changing it? Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I formally disagree. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The high court decision is being overspun here. First of all it really does talk is about minor detail (in toto something like 3 minutes of the movie). And at the same time emphasizes that the movie seen as a whole is "broadly accurate" and agrees with the films 4 main main scientific hypotheses. And may i ask why you are referring to the "hockey stick" as that one has nothing to do with the court ruling. You seem also to be spinning a controversy on whether or not the film should be shown to a specific target - into a generalized controversy.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a question so I can get some perspective on where you're coming from. What is your definition of controversial?  What in your mind makes something controversial?  Please don't take my question as me being a jerk.  I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from. Elhector (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition of controversial can be found in a dictionary. But in reality there is no real clearcut black/white definition that will cover everything. Most of the discussion on "controversial", that have been flying around here though, can be illustrated by trying to call Trains controversial, i think we can both agree that they aren't? But if we look then we find lots of controversy that has been generated by trains (both previous, currently and in the future), none of which make the Trains (or a particular train) controversial. And this is as far as i'm willing to go against WP:TALK guidelines to present my views. Please address the issues - not the editors. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was addressing the issue; I was in no way addressing anything about you. You and I are obviously from different parts of the world so I felt it necessary to ask in order to better ascertain where you were coming from on your side of this debate.  I apologize if you thought I was in some way trying to infer anything from that question, I tried to explain in the same breath that I was not trying to be rude or anything of the sort.  Back to the topic at hand though, I believe the train example is an apples and oranges situation.  There is obviously a big difference between trains, and a film created by a political activist.  Political activists tend to do and say controversial things, and this film is an example of such.  You may not think so because you stand behind the film.  And you also rightly point out that a majority of scientists stand behind the film.  This film was not made for scientists though, it wasn't even made for people like you who already believe in the points the film makes.  It was made to convince people who are still unsure on the issue and also people that reject the theory outright.  That's the kind of film a political activist makes.  In this vein, I think it's safe to say that everyone in the intended audience of the film that saw it did not agree with it.  People argue about it all the time, in the news, in politics, Wikipedia, coffee shops, in movie reviews, articles, all over the place.  That's why we get the kind of Google results that were discussed above.  The film might not be controversial to the majority of scientists who've seen it, but to the general public and the audience that the film was made for it has been highly controversial.  I also believe that the WP:WEIGHT argument is actually a non argument.  My reasoning on this is due to the fact that calling the film controversial in no way pushes any sort of POV nor does it say anything about the actual scientific accuracy of the film.  No agenda is being pushed by calling it controversial.  It just accurately describes the reception of the film by its intended audience, and also accurately describes the amount of debate the film has generated.  Calling the film controversial is the same as calling a dog a mammal, it is what it is.  Elhector (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it personal - but questions like these do not belong here (use user-space for this). When you ask a fellow editor to explain their personal views on a particular subject - you are addressing the editor and not the article.
 * That aside that "something" (no matter what) can generate controversy is not an argument for the "something" being controversial. You seem also to be confusing debate and controversy. Also that something is political is also not an argument for it being controversial - otherwise we have to label every political debate as controversial. You also divulge in WP:OR here, by stating that this movie wasn't made "for people like you who already believe in the points the film makes" - how exactly do you know this? AIT has 3 major sides: biographical, scientific and politics. The british court ruling was addressing the latter two parts - on the science it was ruled broadly accurate, with the caveat that 9 specific items should be explained further. On the politics is was not considered in violation of the Education (No 2) Act 1986 when accompanied by teachers guidance. When looking at the reception by its audience - the overwhelming majority of critics considered the movie non-controversial - so stating that its "controversial" in this aspect is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated above I tend to flout the rules per WP:IGNORE when I feel the application of them is silly or when strictly following them would be a detriment to Wikipedia. So, to answer your question about how I know who the film was made for, I believe it's basically common sense after you watch it.  It's blatantly obvious that the film was made to educate people about a cause Al Gore feels is extremely important.  If you are a person who already believes these things the film wouldn't be of much real use to you except maybe as a tool to show your views to other people.  If you already believe these things then the content of the film is nothing new to you.  So that's how I deduce the intended audience of the film.  Is that original research?  I guess by strict definition yes it is.  Do I think that's a big deal or a valid argument against what I stated above about why some people find it hard to understand why the film is controversial? No, I really don't.  Obviously you and I have a difference of opinion on this and simply debating points about the article is going to get us nowhere.  That's why I asked you about your "personal view on a particular subject".  In my opinion the only way we can reach any sort of compromise is to figure out where everyone stands and why they take issue with certain edits.  I guess this could be construed as addressing the editor, but I honestly didn't think it would be of any harm.  When I ask questions like this they're asked with respect for the editor and not to try in anyway to demean an editors personal beliefs.  I don't see how any dispute could be resolved in any fashion without this kind of open dialogue.  I think    all of us here are very very familiar with Wikipedia Policies.  I think we can all agree that this flinging around of Wikipedia policies is not getting us anywhere. Can we just debate these things on there merit? Elhector (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As said: i didn't take it personal, but such questions still belong in user-space (ie. on the respective users talk-pages). As for your argument that the movie was made to convince the sceptics.. I believe that to be in error, as the movie simply doesn't address the sceptics (quite the opposite actually) - as i see it, the movie is intended for the audience that may have had some exposure to the basics - but haven't seen the entire argument - or simply want to learn more. To summarize: While the movie may convince the "unconvinced", it target audience is (imho) the large majority, who while they may have some knowledge, simply haven't had exposure to most of the scientific data. Which btw. is also the audience that i've shown my copy to. With subsequent debates.
 * You fail to acknowledge one thing though. The majority of people (and scientists) around the world have (mostly) the same opinion as Gore - and you cannot just focus on a single group, and say there is a controversy about the movie here, which ipso facto makes the movie controversial. That is taking things entirely out of weight and NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if people are actually debating the merits of trains then, with all due respect, they are controversial. Take light rail here in the US, these are clearly controversial in a number of communities with factions on both sides of the debate.  --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And once more you misunderstand what is the controversy. Its not trains that are controversial - but the specific application of them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "among other things." The hockey stick is shown prominently in the film, and you and I both know the controversy around its accuracy. As for the idea that the high court's errors are "minor," I suggest you watch the movie's trailer. In 2:30, it manages to hit 20 feet, the Snows of Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina, 3 of the nine errors. The 20 feet number and Katrina are the two main points of the trailer, and they were both found by the court to be inaccurate. I think a lead similar to what Elhector placed is appropriate. As for your trains example, I just showed you numerous sources that say in plain English that AIT is controversial.  I don't think you could find the same for trains.  Oren0 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oren0 - while the M&M papers have some controversy (as can be seen in Hockey stick controversy, you must also know that the controversy is over the methodology, not the results. That is what the NRC committee concluded (and the Wegman committee didn't address). What is used in the film is the results - Gore could of course have gone with the spaghetti graph - but that wouldn't have changed much for AIT.
 * The simple fact remains that the statistics used in the original hockey stick graph were flawed and the movie was based on the original graphs. That's an error.  And strictly speaking your statement is in error as well.  The subsequent "results" were different from the original "results' in that the graphs are different and precisely BECAUSE the original graph was faulty.  --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The statistics may have been flawed - but the result is the same as all later reconstructions have come to . You may want to read the NRC report (or even watch the 2 hearings). Had Gore taken the Moberg reconstruction (one of those that fluctuate the most between MWP and LIA) - the movie would have been exactly the same. The methodology to generate the graph is irrelevant here - its the results that matter. Finally "based upon"? No - the hockey-stick part of the movie is insignificant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the rest - you call them errors - but that isn't what the court calls them.... it calls them "errors" (since "errors" is what the claimant calls them), and in most cases they hinge on Gore, not saying enough - for instance: 20 feet is 100% correct, and Gore's statement on the 20 feet is also 100% correct - and so on.
 * What are your error bars for that? Scientific facts are not facts and are NEVER known with 100% certainty, as you no doubt know, or at least should.  So by your logic above for Steven Milloy are you incompetent to discuss this point, or are you simply being misleading?
 * Its a physical fact. Volume/Mass of ice-sheet converted to water => ~20 feet. Anyone with a calculator (and a conversion table) is able to calculate this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a bit surprised by this response, but let me probe a bit further then. Can you please refer me to you source that claims to know the Volume/Mass of the Greenland (and Antarctic?) ice sheet(s) with 100% accuracy and therefore no error bars?  I was under the impression given the different techniques being used to gauge this particular value and the differences expressed by them that this might be a matter of some uncertainty.  Likewise I would like a pointer to your source which claims to know the surface size and area and the pertinent topographic features of the entire planet with 100% accuracy, as these would be required as well to compute the value of 20 feet of rise, correct?  --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are confusing certainty with precision. The sea level rise is 100% certain and given with a relatively low level (one sigificant digit) of precision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote from her statement above: "20 feet is 100% correct". How are you interpreting this statement?  I interpret it to mean exactly what it says, that the sea level rise would be exactly 20 feet with 100% certainty in the quantity stated?  This would suggest the quantity is known with infinite precision, not just a single digit as you claim, correct?  Can you please demonstrate that we know the relevant quantities in terms of ice mass, surface area, and topographical features with sufficient precision in their own rights to justify even a single significant figure with 100% certainty with a precision calibrated in feet? --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you obviously misinterpret it then. Interpret it reasonably, and your point vanishes. Also, AFAIK, you misinterpret Kim's gender. Not to rub it in, but you seem to be rather given to accept assumptions that fit your world view based on insufficient evidence ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue on this page, for the record, is NOT whether the "errors" or the science behind them is controversial or not. This page is about the movie and if people are debating the merits of the movie as we are here THE MOVIE is controversial.  Please stay on topic where the topic of this page is the movie and not the science in question.  The high court rules that the MOVIE was politically biased which is exactly what makes it controversial, not the science.  --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not enough to find X articles that state that something is controversial - you actually have to demonstrate that this is a generally applied attribute. We can all play the Google game. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As the existence and the ruling in the High Court case clearly does. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No - anyone can sue in court. And the ruling specifically states that Gore's presentation is broadly correct, and that all of the 4 main hypothesis taht Gore presents are correct and within the consensus view. Perhaps this is the time to actually read the court documents? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)