Entry 666, on 2008-01-06 at 20:08:41 (Rating 2, Politics)
Over the last year or two I have been involved in an ongoing debate with a friend over global climate change. Recently the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (which supports the idea of warming) has been criticised as having inaccuracies after it was used as an educational resource. But I had never actually watched it, so I couldn't really comment on how accurate it was. Of course, few of the people who criticised it had seen it either, but two wrongs don't make a right!
I copied the movie onto my iPod and watched it during my spare time while on holiday, especially while flying between Australia and New Zealand. So what was my conclusion? Well Al Gore is quite a skilled presenter but he is still a politician so sometimes his credibility could be questioned. But I think the movie is basically sound. There are a few errors but they aren't significant and don't affect the overall balance of the message.
On the other hand the major movie which is skeptical of global warming, the Great Global Warming Swindle, is quite unsound. I don't think it could really be used in education of the subject because there are too many errors and misrepresentations of the facts in it.
The subject is complex and often subtle, and it is often hard to choose between two sides when neither is free of bias, but the fact is that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that global warming is real and that a significant part of it is caused by human activity.
Its possible that scientists are wrong, or that they are deliberately misrepresenting the data, but that is very unlikely. There has never been a time in the history of science that scientists as a whole have deliberately perpetrated a myth and on the rare occasions that the scientific consensus has been wrong it has been quickly corrected.
I recommend watching An Inconvenient Truth to anyone interested in the topic. Be aware that there are errors, but try to look at the movie's message as a whole and then decide which side is most likely right.
How do you answer the many people and groups who have shown that the data global warming is based on isn't valid? I think there is good reason to believe that it is all just really exaggerated just to keep some scientists in a job and make sure they get their grant money.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-01-15 at 17:36:15:
I think I have made the point many times in this blog that its possible to create what looks like a strong case against any theory if you are selective about the data you present and ignore the best points presented by the other side of the argument. People who deny that global warming is real tend to be non-experts in the area and often use arguments which have already shown to be wrong.
The alleged evidence against global warming is usually only present in informal forums and not in real scientific literature. Basically the deniers aren't experts and want to deny warming because it suits their political, religious, or social beliefs to do so, not because they really understand the issues involved.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-01-29 at 01:54:52:
"Recently the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (which supports the idea of warming) has been criticised as having inaccuracies after it was used as an educational resource... Of course, few of the people who criticised it had seen it either"
Yes, I am aware that the high court judge had seen it and had found nine inaccuracies. I accept that as true, which is why I said above the movie wasn't free of bias. But nine errors in a movie of that type isn't bad and that doesn't really detract from the movies essential accuracy. Although I have some misgivings about the way Gore presents his case I still think the movie is worth watching.
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2008-01-30 at 00:48:15:
Yes well thats all fine, but it wasn't clear in your post so hence the (inconvenient) truth that I highlighted :-)
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 12:30:18:
I think by saying "Be aware that there are errors" and "his credibility could be questioned" and "neither is free of bias" I was making it fairly clear that I was a bit skeptical of the movie. What more do you want?
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2008-01-30 at 23:50:49:
Haha. Okay OJB fair enough on that point (and the post as a whole). I was only taking exception to the bit "Recently the movie ... has been criticised as having inaccuracies ... Of course, few of the people who criticised it had seen it either" ... hence my initial comment.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE