Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 19

Fred Singer as a Reference
Adding content to this article based upon published work by Fred Singer is strongly discouraged. His work is widely dismissed by his peers as "fabricated nonsense", and he admits taking money from big oil. --Art Smart (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable_sources You need to source your "consensus", also, labeling him as "taking money from big oil" is weasel words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no rule against using weasel words on the talk page. Fred Singer seems to deal with the issues you brought up.-Wafulz (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If his comments were erased on the article page and he was labeled as "taking money from big oil" that would be weasel words. Since we are speaking here of whether or not he can be referenced in the *article* then the language used for his dismissal in the *article* does bring the rules for weasel words here.

Also, it does not — in any way — logically follow that since he has taken money from an oil company this has influenced his viewpoints. He could have had doubts about global warming *before* he took a dime. It is probable that any scientist who has contentions with the tenets of global warming would be approached by companies that stand to benefit from such a contention. There is no proof that his views have been altered by taking money from "big oil", or that this money was paid concerning anything even *about* global warming. Even if the man did take money from an oil company for his views concerning global warming, this would not prove that his views were influenced by the money. Point being, any efforts to accuse him of changing his views about global warming because he took money from "big oil" without *solid proof* is libelous, and we all know the Wiki policy concerning that. Supertheman ( talk  ) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Box Office
The box office performance of the film is stated in the opening paragraph and under the Box Office section. I moved any info that was in the first paragraph to the Box Office section and someone reverted it. Do we need to state the performance in two places? Why not three or four? It needs to be under the Box Office heading where other stats about it's performance are, and not twice in the heading of the article. Supertheman (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The initial mention in the lead was a short summary of the box office section. I can't see that it is contentious in any way or form, and its a common information to give in the lead for movies. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, therefore everything there will be a duplicate of information in the body of an article. I'm going to reinsert it for now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Catagorization
I propose that we add this movie to Category:American propaganda films, because the definition of propadanda is, "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.".  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to do this, we do not need a definition, but reliable sources describing the movie as propaganda. Moreover, since categories are all-or-nothing, we need a fairly high degree of unanimity among sources to avoid violating NPOV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're saying we can't just call a film propaganda without sources? Interesting idea. Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, note the difference between a description and a category. Due to technical limitations, categorization in Wikipedia does not allow attribution or discussion or dissenting views. In the article proper, attribution, references, and proper context can be used. However, the lede is supposed to be a summary and does not usually need separate references (those should be in the main body), although for contentious topics we do make exceptions. As for that other movie, why don't you discuss it at the other talk page? 10 seconds with Google netted me 3 reliable references calling it propaganda. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find some reliable sources that call it propaganda.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda is a heavily charged word, so adding that category to this article would be extremely contentious at best. You would have to demonstrate that there is a very broad consensus that the movie is more than an advocacy film.-Wafulz (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't ever be labled as propaganda, no matter how many sources you have. Because this site's Global Warming related material is owned by several activists who don't want anything but their side of the issue to be displayed. (William, Raul, Stephan... etc)--71.82.134.111 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Backwards Time Scales
They should be banned because most people look at a plot with time along the X axis and assume that time travels from left to right. However as with such plots as http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.png, time is traveling from right to left. In that particualr plot, CO2 is obviously responding to temperature - not the other way around. Honest plots should all be shown with time going from left to right as most people expect them to appear. 72.74.230.110 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are these images being used? Either way this isn't related to the article at hand.-Wafulz (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
The statement on the An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) article page says, "Earning $49 million at the box office worldwide, An Inconvenient Truth is the fourth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States, after Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins and Sicko.[4]" is incorrect. The records for Box Office Mojo don't go back before 1982, therefore it cannot be said that AIT is the "fourth-highest-grossing documentary film to date". This problem is raging on the Expelled movie page as well. On IMDB Pro.com An Inconvenient Truth is 16th (and those records go back [at least] to 1952). Since they have grosses on movies going back to 1917, it's fair to say that the documentary numbers go that far back as well.

What should be done? Should a disclaimer be added that the records don't go back further than 1982? Should the IMDB data be used (which isn't accessible to the general public)? Suggestions? Supertheman ( talk  ) 04:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its what reliable sources tell us, anything else would be original research. I see no reason to suspect that any documentary before 1982 could have grossed higher. Both because of inflation and movie prices. The question about IMDb.pro would be whether it has the same metrics for what it determines a documentary or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, a cite that is available to everybody is ok, even if it is not free. Books are not free, either. Can everybody register for IMDB Pro? As Kim said, you need to be careful about the details. If IMDB Pro really lists 11 pre-1982 or so documentaries that gross more than AIT, I would strongly suspect they use inflation-adjusted dollars, and/or some other metric. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of nominal dollars is also significant. KDP's recent edit summary says, "As new as the movie is - inflation is sufficiently small to have no impact on the figure - so the information is irrelevant." I think that this completely misses the point of adding that edit. It is NOT that the AIT numbers would be significantly altered by inflation, but rather that the figures for other documentaries, especially older documentaries, might be. So it is entirely possible that some older documentary should actually be listed above AIT if inflation adjusted numbers are used. Your source does not indicate either way, but the most plausible case is that these are simply total gross sales figures regardless of the years in which they were earned. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh! Yea, what Stephan said about the IMDB numbers. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on GoRight's behavior at Requests for Comments/GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle
I'm going to shorten this by taking out the Ofcom bit and merging the two parts of the criticism section. 1) It's likely to mislead as it stands (readers will think that Ofcom found that the programme was accurate). 2) The ruling doesn't seem to have touched on the matter in question here at all; this is an article about the Gore film. 3) It's given undue prominence. N p holmes (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial
Should the word controversial be added to the first sentence? In my opinion, it should. What do you think? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For context, see this RFC on that very question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Swindle Again
A complaint about my latest edit here on my talk page, copied here, in the hope any further discussion can go here, not there:

The source information provided was paraphrased from the referenced news article, and therefore not misleading. Your edit is speculative, and is an interpretation of the current reference. If you would like to debate the factual basis of the source information, you will require an appropriate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.121.193 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the text I changed was wrong; the true state of affairs is all in the article you referenced, and in more detail in Wikipedia's The Great Global Warming Swindle article. They did not judge that the film had broken rules by "containing myriad factual inaccuracies", they refused to consider at all the vast majority of the complaints about factual inaccuracy. If I understand the report right, they looked at only a few of the complaints, including the graph, where they said it was wrong, but that didn't matter (the actual Ofcom report is linked there).  Obviously The Great Global Warming Swindle is a work of spectacular dishonesty, but Ofcom didn't care. And all this has nothing to do with Gore's film. N p holmes (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One book or two?
In the opening paragraph, there is mention of a "companion book". In the 3rd paragraph of the intro, there is mention of a book by name. I don't know whether this is the same book or 2 separate books, but I'd suggest that someone who does know should clarify this intro. It's quite confusing as it stands. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Following the links, it seems to be the same. I've conflated the two mentions. N p holmes (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Athol Mullen (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "an inconvenient truth"
The phrase was obviously in fairly common use before Gore used it for the title of the film. For instance:


 * "Gromyko wrinkled his nose in a characteristic gesture of distaste for an inconvenient truth." -America the Baffling: How the Soviets See It. Monday, Feb. 11, 1985, Time
 * "Mr. Lysenko, convinced that commissioners were covering up an inconvenient truth, went back to the village and found more witnesses..." -Behind Stalin's Green Fence: Who Filled the Mass Graves? March 6, 1989, New York Times

I've modified the statement about the recent popularization of the phrase accordingly. --TS 01:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of the phrase "broad public condemnation"
This is regarding the following sentence about Federal Way: "The moratorium was repealed after broad public condemnation at the subsequent meeting on January 23."

Based on a reading of the source provided here, it seems "dozens" of people showed up at the subsequent meeting. This is in a city of over 83,000 people. How can "dozens" be a "broad" representation of 83,000? Also, it seems that not all of the "dozens" even disagreed with the decision. The article states that the group was mixed and includes the following: "We're looking for education, not indoctrination," said resident Bill Pirkle.

Is this really a WP:NPOV summarization of what the article actually says? --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "The moratorium was repealed after a predominantly negative community reaction was expressed at the subsequent meeting on January 23"? This seems better reflect the actual content of the source.  Any objections to using this instead?  --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrase as "The moratorium was repealed, at a meeting on January 23, after a predominantly negative community reaction" since it wasn't just at the meeting (the reference also states that there was a large mail response to the moratorium, which expressed the same).  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with this. Does anyone disagree with KDP's version?  --GoRight (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having heard no objection I shall make the change. --GoRight (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The nine errors
Kim D. Peterson has just reverted my edit of 00:22, 13 March 2009, in which I added a handy list of the nine errors in short sentences. Kim said: first of all these are 'errors' not errors, second please refer to the Dimmock case for detail. I disagree, because: First of all they a high court judge has said they are errors. Therefore it doesn't warrant quotes. (They are referred to elsewhere in the section as errors, without quotes, too.) Secondly, I came to the page looking for quick reference (on error number 8, as it happens). Future users may be looking for the same kind of thing. Must they go to the newspaper article? Why? 213.122.33.93 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills already covers what you're referring to in much more sufficient detail and for reasons of Undue Weight, doesn't need to be rehashed here.--The lorax (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was my edit you've just undone on "An Inconvenient Truth".
I was quite attached to it, seeing as it's already a compromise on what I was trying to do previously. Which part of the MOS should I be looking at? 213.122.26.223 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * this subsection is copied from my personal talkpage so that it's available to other editors. Doc  Tropics  03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted the proposed additional sentence for 3 reasons:


 * 1) it doesn't follow MOS guidelines for "see also" usage.
 * 2) it repeats information that's already in both articles (in fact, in the paragraph immediately below the header in question), and therefor seems redundant.
 * 3) by repeating the info with such emphasis it seems less than neutral.
 * In summary it seems both unnecessary and undesireable to add such repetition and emphasis, but I do understand why you might want to. Doc  Tropics  03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it - "see also" is like a reserved phrase for use at the bottom of articles. (I'll think about the rest...) 213.122.26.223 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know: how about if I just make "nine errors", where it already appears in the text, link to the page for "Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills"? I think you see the problem I'm trying to solve here, namely that I couldn't quickly find the information I wanted (about polar bears drowning, or not drowning) because I didn't know what to click on. 213.122.26.223 (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could even link to Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills#The_nine_inaccuracies ? 213.122.26.223 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x2) Please don't be discouraged; it's obvious that you could be a very valuable contributor, and I hope you'll consider registering and getting an account. It's easy, and you get to pick a cool username.
 * Regarding your suggestion to link it within the text...I think it's a winner; no NPOV problem with that, nor any other policy issue. It's a good idea, and you really really should think about an account :) Doc  Tropics  04:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww. I sometimes consider signing up, but you're all just so unbearably reasonable... :D 213.122.26.223 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. I'm going to leave a message on your talkpage...I hope your IP doesn't change before you get it. Doc  Tropics  04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, your link was perfect! If I had initially understood what you were trying to accomplish, that's exactly what I would have suggested (if I had thought of it in time). Well done 213. Doc   Tropics  05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Book" category
This article is about the documentary correct. So we have a category of "film". The book article has the "book" category. I am not currently drinking, but I am sure I could be totally wrong here. Can somebody help me see the light :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis discontinuity
The paragraph starts with the statement:

The film includes segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be insignificant. For example...

However there is no "example" following that explores the so-called criticisms.

Furthermore, and significantly more important, the section fails to point out that whatever feeble criticism there is, it is provided only by players selected by Gore and his staff, not for their convincing presentations, but merely as "strawmen" whose weak arguments were presented solely to crumble before those of the producers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radzewicz (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Polar bear drowning rate
Are there sources for their drowing rate? TIA, --Tom (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lorax provided this in an edit summary. --Tom (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the pdf of the original study.--The lorax (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is ample support for what Gore says about polar bears; I'll add this reference.--The lorax (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That study doesn't say polar bears are drowning at a higher rate? Where do you see that? I will revert, but remove the "claims" as weaselly --Tom (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The study shows that "between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area...However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore. The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," said the report."


 * To be more precise, lets change the text to: It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to climate change, like polar bears who unprecedentedly have drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice. --The lorax (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * unprecedentedly? Not sure how well that reads or if that is really accurate. It really seems like the drowning is caused by a number of different reasons and I still don't see where they know how many bears have drowned in the past. Anyways, my head is going to explode at this point so feel free to add whatever :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there really any evidence that the 4 polar bears wouldn't have been killed by the fierce storm anyway? Prokhorovka (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the study is that in 20 years of observation, they've never drowned before until now.--The lorax (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be a dick :), but how the hell would they know that? Its like the tree falling in the woods that nobody hears. It is very possible that bears have drown and the bodies are never seen or heard from again. This seems like a very inexact(sp) science. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is based on aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline which previously was consistently ice-covered. The difference is that a tree falling in the woods is a common phenomena whereas polar bears drowning is a significant anomaly.--The lorax (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete this addition about the "drowned" polar bears for the following reasons:

1. It's been awkwardly jammed into the synopsis of the movie. It simply doesn't belong there.

2. In addition to being a one-word tongue twister, the word "unprecedentedly" is inaccurate and clearly POV. In fact, the referenced article is careful to say "To our knowledge, we report here the first observations...". Also, the researchers are careful to avoid saying that the polar bears have definitely drowned. They "speculate" and "believe" this to be the case.Andonee (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee


 * Which part of the sentence reads awkwardly? If unprecedentedly is inapt, lets say "like polar bears, who scientists observe unprecedentedly have drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice.--The lorax (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, you've completely ignored my point #1. Unless the paper's results were cited in AIT, your addition does not belong in the synopsis of the movie. That's reason enough to delete it. Second, you only half addressed my point #2. The researchers did not do an autopsy on the dead bears. They don't know how they died. They have only speculated that they "drowned". Saying that the bears "have drowned" is an inaccurate representation of the paper's conclusions. As I stated earlier, unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm going to delete your addition. Right now I'm going to bed.Andonee (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
 * The paper's results are discussed in the movie which is why they appear in the synopsis, note the film's transcript:
 * "...there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."

On your second point, I agree, let's be specific in what was said in the study i.e. "polar bears, who scientists speculate have drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice.--The lorax (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the "unofficial" transcript, there was no direct mention of the paper in the movie so I don't think the way that you're presenting it is appropriate. The previous version of the sentence, ("It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to climate change.") seems to capture the movie's point adequately. Remember, it's a synopsis, not a transcript of the movie. If you want to put the information about the polar bears elsewhere, assuming it's written accurately as we've discussed, I've got no problem with that. Again, I move for deletion.Andonee (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
 * Okay, let's just do that then.--The lorax (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"The majority of climate researchers have rejected Inhofe's views."
I have looked at a number of statements claiming that Inhofe's views are rejected by the majority of relevant scientists, but have found no reliable basis for those statements. It has been claimed widely and repeatedly, but repetition does not make it true.

I believe it would be better worded as "Some climate researchers have rejected Inhofe's views." Perhaps, "Many" or "Prominent", but not "The majority". "Majority" is very numerical, and I think should be supported by numerical evidence.

The citation after that statement does not provide support for the statement.

Also, the truth of the statement can change with time. The percentage of support for a scientific view changes as research progresses, as paradigms shift, etc. This broad statement does not specify a given time at which it might have been true.

If it is based on a single poll of relevant scientists, then the details of the poll should be included to qualify the statement (eg date, location, pollster organisation, source of funding), along with the parameters of the poll (eg methodology, what types of scientists were polled, nationality, political affiliations, etc.)

It's just too easy to say, "The majority of experts believe such-and-such," without backing it up with data. This has been done in the mainstream media on this issue, but Wikipedia can be better than that, more objective. We don't have any vested interests. Do we?

&quot;Pij&quot; (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the quote in the given ref?
 * In March, the [National Academy of Science] issued a summary report with this conclusion:
 * "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation."
 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even Inhofe admits his views aren't part of the scientific mainstream.
 * Asked in writing whether Inhofe agrees that he's at odds with the scientific mainstream, his committee staff retorted, "How do you define 'mainstream'? Scientists who accept the so-called 'consensus' about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream."
 * Inhofe has conceded that the majority of scientists reject his views.--The lorax (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"What's wrong with the quote in the given ref?" It says National Academy of Science claims "In the judgment of most climate scientists,..." That's the stated point of view of an organisation, not an incontrovertible fact. They say that most scientists believe it, but where is the support for their assertion?

"Even Inhofe admits his views aren't part of the scientific mainstream." "Inhofe has conceded that the majority of scientists reject his views." These sound more convincing, thanks Lorax. The quotation from his staff comes pretty close.

But we still have the problem of whether most climate experts do have these opinions now, or did some years ago.

"The majority of climate researchers have rejected Inhofe's views," has a timeless sort of quality. Perhaps, "The majority of climate researchers rejected Inhofe's views," (remove the "have") would help the reader realise that it was the case at the time, without implying that it's a permanent situation. Recent statements by experts in the field (read around) seem to leave doubt as to the current state of individual opinions. If there is doubt presently, there could be increasing doubt to come. Things change.

I favour the wording, "Climate researchers at the time rejected Inhofe's views."

&quot;Pij&quot; (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The most recent poll of active climatologists show 97% agree that human activity is causing global warming. Perhaps that poll is a better source than what is currently given.--The lorax (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a good source. It gives the reader the chance to see the details of the polls. &quot;Pij&quot; (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Triana
A new editor has added the following text to a paragraph about this satellite:


 * The project (also dubbed "GoreSat") was killed due its lack of scientific merit.

I reverted this because it isn't sourced and it seems to go against all our sources at the article on the satellite.

An IP revert then had the edit summary: "See cited source, it was killed."

I have a couple of problems with this:
 * Neither the original editor nor the IP editor cited any source.
 * Although in 1999, the project was criticised by the Inspector General as not having been peer reviewed, Congress asked the National Academy of Science to investigate and they concluded that it was "strong and scientifically vital.".

To say that the project was cancelled "due its lack of scientific merit" is therefore incorrect. Politics seem to have resulted in the original cancellation of the mission. --TS 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Errors and distortions in "An Inconvenient Truth".
Why is this information not included? And even more serious errors in Gore's film. Full explanation of the errors is here. Shouldn't this be inlcuded in the Controversy section?--Auspx (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
 * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
 * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
 * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
 * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
 * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
 * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
 * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
 * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
 * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
 * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


 * No. Right wing blogs are not reliable sources. We cover the Dimmock case in An_Inconvenient_Truth and the main article Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Your second list is complete bogus, most of the counterpoints are simply wrong, a few are semantic quibling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article about the 35 Errors in An Inconvenient Truth is not by the author of that blog but from the Science & Public Policy Institute. If you think that their article is "bogus" and "wrong" can you please link to a factual rebuttal of their article?--Auspx (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SEPP is not a reliable source. See Science & Environmental Policy Project. Monckton is a clown. I don't know if anybody has gone through the motions of refuting this particular bit of propaganda, but you will find plenty of refutation in our own Talk:Global warming/FAQ, in the Royal Society's Climate change controversies: a simple guide and, of course, in the IPCC AR4. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but after thisyou can't call Wikipedia a reliable source of information on global warming.--Auspx (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Your original question is why those issues weren't in the article; but as User talk:Stephan Schulz noted, they are addressed in the Dimmock case about which there is AN ENTIRE SEPARATE ARTICLE. Your question has been answered. rewinn (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake CO2 graph
The CO2 graph in the movie is clearly a fake, as can be seen from it peaking backwards in time at 630,000 years in the past. This is directly visible in the movie and thus it can be verified by anyone. For your convenience, here is a screenshot: []. My latest edit to the article was reverted, claiming that there are no reliable references. How is a primary source (the movie itself) not a reliable reference? My edit simply stated what is seen in the graph and made absolutely no analysis on it (i.e. I did not suggest that the graph was fake even though it being shaped like that is physically impossible). Tronic2 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You’ll need a more reliable source than some site that just has random jpgs of faces, someone’s computer screen, and other stuff --CurtisSwain (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is not the source, the movie is. The picture is provided only for convenience. I can add the same text to the article without that screenshot if it is good then... Tronic2 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You still need a source for your claim. The movie does not say it is fake, and the movie does not say it is "peaking backwards in time" - I have no clear idea what you mean by that although I do have a suspicion. What you are doing in called WP:OR and is explicitly forbidden by our policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have little doubt that the graph is "not adequately researched", we would need a reliable source to include that fact in the article. Even if you were to include the graph (as a "fair use" extract from the movie) and a real chart, it would be WP:SYN to note the difference.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the chart is based on Science's 11/05 peer reviewed article, Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene.--The lorax (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look similar to me, although the scale on the "screen shot" is conveniently off the screen. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a graph with all the data sets from EPICA and here are some clearer screenshots.--The lorax (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Those do look similar.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is probable that the graph in the movie has been replicated by hand from the paper and that because of this there are some mistakes such as the one that peaks backwards in time. I agree on the graphs being very similar, albeit there are some slight differences suggesting that a mistake may have occurred in replication. Directly reading a diagram shouldn't require a reliable source to do that, only analysis of the data (such as the assertion that the graph is fake) should. Tronic2 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
Global cooling (despite sounding really exciting) isn't relevant to the scientific basis of AIT. Try reading it some time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Improvement of the introductory paragraph.
The first paragraph reads:

An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film, directed by Davis Guggenheim, about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate, he has given more than a thousand times.

I think the portion "campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show" should be replaced with: "campaign to persuade citizens of the validity of man-made global warming theory via a slide show"

"Persuade" 1. The slide show/film uses techniques not typically found in an educational film and that are intended to dramatize. For example, the hockey stick graph is presented on a large screen while Vice President Gore rides a forklift to the top of the blade end of the graph. This scene dramatizes the graph which would simply be presented on its own in an educational environment.

2. There is heavy use of anecdotal imagery.

3. Proponents praise its persuasiveness.

4. The film / slide show is intended to spread a message.

5. The film / slide show is intended to influence behavior.

"validity" Only because of the change from "educate" to "persuade"

"man-made" Because the film calls for action on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

delete "comprehensive" I doubt even the makers would describe it as comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusArthur (talk • contribs) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes in last two sections
I've done some substantial reorganization of the last two sections of the article, which shouldn't have removed anything important. By making the use in schools a separate topic I've been able to eliminate the need for a "controversy" section, as the controversies listed in it were all focused on school uses. I was also able to reduce a little bit of redundancy in this. If there are any complaints please let me know. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View
I have added a npov tag because I believe the article does not sufficiently address recent developments refuting many of Mr. Gore's tenets. Wlmg (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You will have to be rather more specific than that. What are we missing - what has been shown wrong - etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For example in the article there is a graph of the Keeling curve. The graph suppresses the origin. This is straight out of the playbook of How to Lie with Statistics Wlmg (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you mean by "suppresses the origin." More importantly, you'll need an actual reliable source that specifically addresses concerns about the Keeling curve.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Suppresses the origin" means that the graph's y-axis starts at 310 instead of at zero. This is a standard way to bias a graph to support a specific point of view. I don't see that a RS is required to say that. Q Science (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be the origin of an atmospheric CO2 graph? It is certainly not 0. But then again it is moot since we show it with exactly the same origin and scale as the vast majority of scientific sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Kim is right. Why would the graph start at zero?  When Keeling began measuring atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in 1958, CO2 was at 315 ppmv, that's why the graph starts there.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's probably misleading, per How to Lie with Statistics, but one with a 0 origin would not show any effects over recorded history, so the graph should remain. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it is misleading - but a 0 would certainly be - since 0ppm has no meaning for the Earths atmosphere. Logical 0's could be ~275ppm (lower bound over the Holocene) or 175ppm (lower bound over current ice-age (and quite probably the lowest bound in the last billions of years)). But as stated: Its a moot discussion since we present it exactly as the vast majority of reliable sources do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you would make those comments if you read "How to Lie with Statistics". It was required reading in my statistics course. Q Science (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly would - since i've read the book in both Danish (several times - its on my bookshelf), and English (have the PDF). The thing about lying with statistics, is to show an graph or statistic that minimizes information content. A CO2 graph with 0ppm as origin is a "lie" - it minimizes what happens. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I don't understand why you say "since 0ppm has no meaning for the Earth's atmosphere". It seems to miss the point. (I am not arguing for a change, but just trying to understand why that graph does not contain "origin bias". If I wanted a change, it would be to plot the log of the concentration since absorption is typically related to the log. However, it is not clear that log is appropriate in this case since the increased absorption is based on the change in line width.) Q Science (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag back. The science section is largely a defense against anything wrong Gore may have done without even talking about what he might have done wrong. If people want to write puffery they should go do it on their own blog. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become a joke in the real world. Some parts are good, but parts like this is soooo NPOV it's a can't see the forest for the trees. Sad, Wikipedia could be so good, yet a political agenda is destroying. Ex.? Why no mention that this movie is called controversial my some, many, significant percentage. But no, we can't have that... Oh well, the real world just keeps going anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.2 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand
Hey, you guys might want to see this new development occurring in New Zealand over this movie. Truthsort (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably worth a mention in the "Use in education" section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

No Borenstein, it is your people that are fighting the uphill battle. In the open market of public opinion, its your people that have lost. But that fact should come as no surprise. When Al Gore refuses to engage in an honest debate, while flying around in private and heavily polluting jets and living with a $30,000a month electric bill, most people will are intelligent to see through such hypocrisy. But be that as it may, my original contention of the Vostok ice cores stand. Al Gore did indeed misrepresent the data from Petit, Jouzel et al. When you reply, please do not respond with rhetoric and stick to the hard science for the betterment of this article. --Scipio-62 02:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

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)


 * I think that this page needs some counter arguements. This movie is implicitly tied to the Global Warming movement. The movie offered one side of the arguement and some of the criticisim has explicitly stated that the movie misrepresented data, did not explain assumptions or other possible assumptions. I believe when we were shown the movie, we were informed it was considered a political movie, rather than a scientific intellectual movie. Since there is verifiable counter evidence, that should be mentioned. Rather than simply put it in reception, this movie caused a great amount of contraversy and a catergory should be created involving that. 71.231.189.195 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already adequate coverage of this subject in multiple points in the article. The place for great detail on Global Warming is at Global Warming. rewinn (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Addition: Also should it be mentioned how much money is being made by Gore during this? Not that such information would take away from the validity of the film, but that was a major controversy. 71.231.189.195 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article already describes this movie's remarkable financial success. Which investor reaped the profit is not noteworthy; can you point to any other article about a movie that lists such information? rewinn (talk) 17:37, 23 August 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: . 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)
 * Uhm, no, sorry - it's just that wikipedia is not a science forum; it's an encyclopedia. Feel free to locate another survey of climate scientists and let us know if you find any different results; until then, the survey cited is the most authoritative. We don't do science here, but encyclopediaing. rewinn (talk) 01:41, 2 June 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)

Out of date
This article is out of date, in that it fails to include the more recent findings on many of the topics raised by Mr Gore. It has already been mentioned in 'Science' above that the Vostok core data does not, in fact, prove that CO2 causes temperature change, rather it is now understood as proving the opposite, that temperature rises liberate oceanic CO2.

The article fails to mention Gore's lack of understanding of polar bear zoology, his depiction of a bear drowning when ice breaks being an iconic scene from the film, but utterly inaccurate as these animals are strong swimmers.

Mann's 'Hockey stick' graph has since been shown to have arisen through faulty computer modelling, which would have produced such a graph regardless of input data.

The Keeling curve is quoted as proving a match between CO2 levels and temperature, but it is now understood that this arose through 'cherry picking' of 1970-2000 data. A comparison of CO2 data and BEST temperature data between 1880 and 1970 shows a very poor match, as does a comparison of 2000-2011.

The film's 'High-school science experiment' - Recent video forensics, coupled with a replication of the experiment under better-controlled conditions indicate that the experiment could not have been performed as shown, and that even if it were correctly performed it would not return the claimed results. As far as I am aware, Mr Gore's team has not offered any refutation of this finding of malpractice.

The article fails to mention that the projections for runanway warming have not materialized, 2005-11 having shown a levelling of temperatures. (BEST data)

There are more examples, but I think I've made my point that the article makes no mention that much of the information presented in the film is now known to be inaccurate. --Anteaus (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is well up to date, you're repeating talking points from the least reliable source for climate information on the internet (WUWT). Rather than addressing all of your points, I'll just respond to one of them, which is the "2005-11 having shown a levelling of temperatures."  This point was recently addressed in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, which shows that warming is almost uniform over the past four decades in all temperature series (FYI, BEST is almost identical to the GISS temperature series) when known large sources of natural variation (El-nino/la-nina, Volcanoes, solar irradiance) are accounted for.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The temperature data I refer to is available for download from BEST, GISS and others, and these bodies are the accepted arbiters of temperature measurements. Plot your own graph of BEST or GISS month averages for 2000-2010 and draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it. You don't have to.


 * Then plot the whole range of month averages for 1880 to 2010, and ask yourself how Foster and Rahmstorf got the results they claim. By cherry-picking a specific date range, that's how. Outside of that range, the correlation vanishes. I could equally well cherry-pick a range which shows that increasing CO2 reduces temperatures. That would also prove nothing. But, at least I admit it. --Anteaus (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is completely up-to-date in that it describes Gore's movie as it was made. It's not this article's job to be a pulpit for the preachings of people with extremist views today. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, and that is why it should not be presenting the views of an extremist in a style of writing which suggests that these views are anything other than sensationalism. --Anteaus (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, give up now. Gore made the movie. It presents his views, along with the evidence HE used to support them. You make a successful movie, and we might report your views too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about a movie about global warming; it is not about global warming itself. Your comments should go on the talk page of that article. rewinn (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, my comments relate to this article, which may violate Wikipedia's editing standards, in that it describes a work containing a substantial amount of fictitious content as if that work consisted entirely of fact. In doing so it makes no mention of the fictitious nature of such content, or that some of this content was known to be fictitious at the time of the film's release.


 * The fact that the writer (or Wikipedia editors) believe AGW to be real makes no odds either. I believe space to be real -and I can support my claim with verifiable research- but that does not make it OK to write a Wikipedia article purporting the events of Star Trek to be real. A work of substantive fiction is NOT a documentary, not even if it is arguably based on fact, and should NOT be quoted here in documentary style. --Anteaus (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a read-up on WP:FRINGE. Climate science is overwhelmingly supported by evidence.  How about you read this paper which shows directly the change in Earth's greenhouse effect from 1970-1997 (i.e., directly shows observationally that Earth is trapping more heat due to CO2 and other GHGs). .  I've been looking for a way to include that utterly damning evidence into the main global warming article, but I've run into a roadblock trying to parse the data they used and re-using their graphs I don't think falls under fair use.  Sailsbystars (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate science is supported by evidence, but the claims of AL Gore are not, e.g. no mainstream scientist supports a sea-level rise prediction of tens of feet. The majority of the claims made in AIT fall uder the Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience which supports a mainstream theory is still pseudoscience, e.g. the fact that astrologers can accurately predict the positions of planets does not make astrology mainstream science. Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that articles should not present pseudoscience as if fact.


 * As for I can't access that page as I'm not a subscriber, but I think this data has been analyzed on several other sites, and the consensus is that what small differences there are most likely arise from the two satellites using very different measuring equipment. We know that CO2 has increased substantially in the relevant interval, and the fact that only tiny changes are detectable in the absorbtion spectrum in spite of this large change of input variable tends to confirm the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing, and that we are presently well-advanced into the flat section of the curve where further increases have minimal effect. I find it hard to understand why AGW proponents cannot accept this, it is after all mainstream science based on sound principles, and has been known since 1905. Those who support an exponential or runaway CO2 forcing are the ones engaging in pseudoscience which goes against both the math and the experimental results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anteaus (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Anteaus, you appear to be an AGW proponent: most of the real scientists I've read on the topic are opposed to AGW, and think we should do something to reduce or halt it. Taking the first of your spurious arguments, "e.g. no mainstream scientist supports a sea-level rise prediction of tens of feet" misrepresents what Gore said: he set out the projection that IF the ice caps of West Antarctica or Greenland were to melt, "sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet." One mainstream scientist recently stated "Two degrees of warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic and sea-level rise in the tens of meters, Hansen told LiveScience. "We can't say how long that will take, [but]it’s clear it's a different planet." You may not realise this, Anteaus, but a metre (or meter) is 3.28 feet. Neither he nor Gore put a time on it, a couple of recent papers show projections of between .75m and 1.9m this century. The rise in future centuries will of course depend on whether AGW accelerates unabated. . dave souza, talk 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please take your argument to a Climate Forum somewhere. You're wasting your time and ours here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point, just found it interesting so have fed the troll a little. Will stop now. dave souza, talk 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The only trolls in here are the ones deflecting the discussion away from my original point, which is that the article fails to mention that a large part of the film's material has since been dismissed as pseudoscience. Anyway you are right, HiLo48, there is no point in wasting my time here. --Anteaus (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And the major problem with your assertions, are that you aren't citing any reliable sources for them. In fact all you've done so far is to assert and claim ... which is unusable here. Claiming that AIT (or parts of it) is pseudoscience, will require serious reliable sources --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have quoted sources, and one was dismissed as "..the least reliable source for climate information on the internet." Which is a strange remark to make regarding a site maintained by a meteorologist (Anthony Watts) with twenty five years experience of professional weather forecasting. Did the makers of AIT have comparable scientific experience, or indeed any? --Anteaus (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a weather forecaster in no way equals being a scientist. Aside from that, Watt's website doesn't make it under the reliable source guidelines --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it seems to me that Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines are somewhat inaccurate. How can a science-dabbler politician be regared as a reliable source of information when a professional in that field cannot? Does this makes any sense at all? --Anteaus (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I think I'll close-out this section now as it has served its purpose. Which, was to test-out a 'conspiracy theory' put forward to the effect that Wikipedia coverage of climate issues is subject to editorial bias. My findings are that the latter is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact. It is indeed true that material on climate issues cannot be trusted to show a balanced view of the issues involved, AND that verified factual material such as recent temperature data from BEST, GISS or other reliable sources (reliable by Wikipedia standards, note!) is being intentionally kept out of pages where that material would conflict with the views of certain highly-active Wikipedia editors. --Anteaus (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Add review
99.181.142.236 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Threat to the Planet July 13, 2006 by James Hansen in The New York Review of Books
 * Why? Seems a non-notable review.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A well sourced review from an expert in the topic area, and it's already included. I've added the point that the film's story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public". . dave souza, talk 12:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Coelacanths were killed by humans?
Why does Gore let a Coelacanth die in the movie? Coelacanths are alive and were not killed by humans. 93.211.29.66 (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Coelacanths were killed by humans just about every time one got caught. Reliable source needed for any relevance to this movie. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gore means maybe that Coelacanths were eradicated by humans. A picture of a mammoth is also shown in the movie. 93.211.56.3 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is just supposition or synthesis? Anyway, a good source is needed for anything added to the article. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a picture. 93.211.46.110 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a nice picture, but meaningless without context and attribution. Also, American Thinker doesn't look like a reliable source for anything but its own conservative opinions, and certainly not for science matters. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay and this (at 1:12)? 93.211.60.52 (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from possible copyright issues, it's a primary source: you need a secondary source for any interpretation or commentary on what Gore is saying. . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is an attack on Glenn Beck appropriate for this article
I've been reverted by two different people on this, so I'd like to know what the justification is for an unnoticed blindisde that doesn't occur with any other criticism is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, I reverted your puffery of Beck's non-notable "one-hour special". Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a non-notable special, should we just remove mention of it outright? I'm not against it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Move file to commons
I need this image in Commons so I can use it in Wikipedia en español. Thanks. --Hiperfelix (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hockey Stick
Where's the giant hockey stick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look right. . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section
I can't believe there isn't a Criticism section for this documentary which is labeled as a "good article". Many people state that An Inconvenient Truth is a political and globalist propaganda movie, a complete hoax. 85.240.129.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An_Inconvenient_Truth Sailsbystars (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find this section to be sketchy, at best. Given the nature of the controversy, this film deserves nothing less than a complete Template:Criticism section.Clepsydrae (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally concur. Obviously, since this debuted around 2006, some, if not many, of that statistics have been proven erroneous. As a side note, is it really within the bounds of a known "lifer" politician, be be a designated "game show host scientist" for such an important topic?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.83.19.229 (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your snide note, for anything to appear here it needs a published reliable secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. As a scientist (bacholors and masters of science), I find it unthinkable that any scientific subject, particularly one surrounded by as much controversy as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and the broader topic of global warming/climate change/climate disruption, would ever be put forth in any body of knowledge, much less one purporting to be an encyclopedia, without room for critique or criticism. Attempting to do so is viewed with great disdain in the scientific community, as it appears misleading, at best, if not outright deceptive. If the theory proves to be sound, it will stand up to critique and controversy. If not, then it's not as sound as the public has been lead to believe. Here's the template: Template:Criticism section. I highly encourage all denizens of Wikipedia to use it in any Wikipedia article surrounded by controversy, including An Inconvenient Truth.Clepsydrae (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources? . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

10th year Anniversary.
ok, so just a couple of days ago marks the decade anniversary of the documentary. Surely, since ten years has past some interesting information has come to light. did the predictions prove to be mostly accurate, or not...etc. Gizziiusa (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)gizziiusa