so I have been hearing all about how al gore's movie isn't very accurate but not only is he saying all this but a lot of other people are saying the exact same thing. i watched 20/20 last week and it was on global warming and a lot of things i saw on there was also on al gore's movie. i personally think the movie and the book is wonderful (i have them both). so you have to think about what the government is saying about the movie first of all the government seems like they don't really care about the environment because they aren't doing anything about it so isn't very likely they would go against something they don't want people to hear?

Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'
By Sally Peck
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/10/2007

The 'nine inconvenient truths'

Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml#A

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. 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.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. 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.

11. 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.

----------------------------------------
BUT, BUT - "The planet has a fever"

Dear Mr. Gore - SHUT IT!
----------------------------

School District Refuses to Show Al Gore Global Warming Film

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: June 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the weeks preceding Earth Day on April 22, schools nationwide showed Al Gore's 2006 global warming film An Inconvenient Truth--some as a club activity, as at Newtown Middle School in Council Rock, Pennsylvania; others as background for classroom debates on the topic, as at Russellville High School in Russellville, Arkansas.

But not in Federal Way, Washington. School administrators there took a stand against the film, saying it could not be shown unless "credible, legitimate" opposing views were also presented, the district's school board decided on January 9.

The school board emphasized that a preexisting policy requires teachers to provide balance when presenting controversial issues.

Students Given Both Sides

Diane Turner, chief of communications for Federal Way Public Schools, said the policy has been in place for three years and pertains both to controversial subjects and the use of films and videos in the classroom.

"It's the teacher's responsibility to present all points of view, and allow students to form their own opinions on controversial topics. Students can choose not to participate in those discussions. A teacher may not present his or her own personal position as the only acceptable one," Turner explained. "The ability to have your children think critically about the broad spectrum of ideas presented is the emphasis--making sure they get the whole picture.

"In terms of our electronic video use in the classroom, they wanted to make sure the material being presented was indeed part of the curriculum and it did indeed have a connection with curriculum and instruction, so it would be a useful tool for kids--in other words, use as much time as you can for teaching," Turner said.

Film Criticized As Biased

Gore's movie, while vigorously applauded by global warming alarmists, has been criticized for a selective and often inaccurate presentation of the science regarding global warming.

"Gore's film is a colorfully illustrated lawyer's brief--one-sided advocacy for climate alarmism and energy rationing," said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The only facts and arguments Gore presents are those that support his 'scare-'em-green' agenda, and he often distorts even the evidence he cites.

"Gore's film is not balanced, and Federal Way has ample reason to insist that teachers fairly present the other side or not show the film at all," Lewis added.

Producer Outraged

Laurie David, a co-producer of the film, expressed outrage that teachers are required to bring balance to the discussion if they choose to show the Gore film.

"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision," David said in a news release. "There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."

Loaded with Inaccuracies

Science, however, calls into question numerous misleading and inaccurate assertions presented in the film.

Asserting that global warming is clearly affecting his hometown of Carthage, Tennessee, Gore claims, "Here on this farm, the patterns are changing. In the course as defined by this river, it's happening very, very quickly." Yet temperature stations at the nearby communities of Clarksburg, Murfreesboro, and McMinnville all show cooling temperatures during recent decades.

Gore asserts global warming is causing alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park to recede. However, temperature readings in the nearby community of Kalispell, Montana show temperatures fell 5ºFahrenheit from 1933 to 2000.

Gore claims glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains are rapidly melting, threatening the water supplies of hundreds of millions of people. However, just months before Gore's movie was released, Insurance Digest reported Himalayan Mountain glaciers are as big as ever.

Rife with False Claims

Also false is Gore's claim that declining rainfall (allegedly caused by global warming) is leading to a dramatic southern expansion of the Sahara Desert. The New Scientist reported as recently as 2002, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat," with vegetation reclaiming large expanses of barren land across the entire southern edge of the Sahara.

While showing an animated map of the planet purporting to depict ocean currents responding to a 5º F rise in temperatures, Gore claimed such an increase is "on the low end of the projections." In fact, a 5º rise in temperatures would be on the high end of projections offered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Gore claims the Antarctic polar ice cap is melting and that this is a "canary in the coalmine" demonstrating dramatic global warming. Actually, Antarctica has been cooling for many decades, and its ice cap is expanding, not shrinking.

Lewis noted, "Gore warns that half the Greenland Ice Sheet could break up and slide into the sea, raising sea levels by 10 feet. Yet the current rate of ice mass loss on Greenland translates into about one inch of sea level rise per century."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James M. Taylor (taylor@heartland.org) is managing editor of Environment & Climate News. School Reform News Managing Editor Karla Dial (dial@heartland.org) contributed to this report.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21234

This movie was very good statistics wise. It is a good start for informing everyone of what's really happening and opening their eyes to the destruction that is happening all around them. You will not take the movie or global warming for granted when you see the past and present pictures of places all over the world that have been effected by global warming in the past 30 years.

It was an excellent movie that really opens your eyes to the effects of global warming.

was a good movie and very interesring but al gore isnt helping at all.

impressive. did you write this for the message board or was this an essay you had written for school?

Global warming has become a hot topic among the media and politicians. Is it real happening? What will be the consequences? What should be done? These are just a few of the questions that arise when one delves into the incredibly complicated, mysterious, and sensitive realm of the subject. One should also take note that despite what some may say, global warming is widely debated. I took the challenge of investigating both sides of the arguments, and have drawn my own educated conclusion. To share with you what I have learned, I have to take you back a few months ago to when my parents had an American couple over for company.
As my parents and our guests carried on with small talk in the living room, I attempted to conquer my math homework at the nearby dining room table. I casually listened to their conversation as the topic of discussion morphed itself from office bureaucracy to recent books that they had enjoyed. My father mentioned Michael Crichton’s State of Fear and offered a quick synopsis of the Sci-Fi’s general plot. While I rather not take the risk of misquoting my father, he proceeded to explain to our guests that the author had done extensive research on the topic of global warming and used valid charts, character dialog, and scientific evidence to create a novel that depicted global warming in a way unlike its portrayal in the media. At this point of the conversation, I abandoned my verifying trig identities worksheet to chime in with a few words of my own.
I reminded my father that one had to keep in mind that State of Fear was after all just a Sci-Fi thriller novel, and that it didn’t provide a valid argument as a scientific source of facts in—say—my informative argument essay for my English class, which discussed this very same issue. To which my father credited that Crichton with a highly respected reputation as a doctor who thoroughly researches his novels before hand. As my father continued on with a monologue pointing out key pieces of information from the book that negated the global warming theory, I sat there listening, and came to realize that the information that I had collected up until that point, only began to expose the tip of a very large topic.
Researching the two opposing sides, one finds that “the environmentalists” believe that they have solid undeniable evidence that demonstrates global warming as a direct result of increased CO2 emissions, and that it presently occurs and will gradually get worse. The Third Assessment Reports given in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, “The Earth would warm up in the coming 100 years faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. And they pointed the finger of blame squarely at human activities, in particular fossil-fuel burning” (Amos). IPCC reports also predicted the Earth’s surface temperatures to increase 2.5˚C to 10˚C from 1990 to 2100 (Powell). The increased CO2 levels act as a “greenhouse effect.” This means that certain greenhouse gases have thickened the layers of the atmosphere, causing an excess amount of retained infrared radiation. This in turn makes the Earth’s surface temperatures and ocean temperatures become increasingly warmer (Gore 27). Environmentalists also rely on computer generated models, such as the “hockey-stick” graphic, to provide projections for the future that suggest grim results (Heilprin). They also claim that the “serious disagreement among scientist about global warming is actually an illusion that has been deliberately fostered…” (Gore 263) to create doubt in the conclusion reached by, “hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds [from all over the world]” (Is Man). Despite their claims that consensus has been reached on the extremely controversial topic, others would disagree.
On the opposite side of the argument lie “the skeptics.” This group, “[insists] that the evidence for global warming is still far from certain” (Amos), and that simply because a correlation between increased CO2 levels and a slight (Meaning a ~.5˚C to 1.0˚C.) increase in the Earth’s surface temperature exists, does not signify that one causes the other. When asked about the expected results of the doubling of CO2 emissions, the skeptics believe that the computer simulations of the environmentalist provide inaccurate and faulty predictions (Is Man). On the other hand, they anticipate a possible increase of global surface temperatures of .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade; in which case, most do not foresee major problematic concerns (Lindzen). In addition skeptics say the misleading term “greenhouse effect” gives a “false impression of the activity of so called ‘greenhouse gases’” (Real). But a mere summary of both divisions’ beliefs undermines the magnitude of the controversy.
Contrary to the commonly referenced, over simplified “greenhouse effect”, the greenhouse gasses, including CO2, water vapor, CFCs, and methane, among others, do not behave like a greenhouse. “An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid), while the atmosphere facilitates convection” (Real). This suggests that the energy that enters the atmosphere gets “stuck” causing the Earth’s surface to heat up. At the most, the energy’s return back to space may take longer, but not to the extent of trapping it. The idea also implies that Earth has an atmosphere transparent to sunlight, which is not true because portions of the radiated energy reflects off the Earth’s surface, clouds, and water vapor. With that information aside, however, clouds and water vapor reserve the majority of the infrared radiation in the atmosphere. This means that with the greenhouse gases removed, clouds and water vapor would still perform 98% of the “current greenhouse effect” (Lindzen). Therefore global warming does not occur in the sense that the Earth’s atmosphere compares to a greenhouse. Rather the fluctuation and recent warmer temperatures could reflect a number of other factors including the reversal of the magnetic poles within the predicted next 2,000 years, the mining of water tables that result in more drastic water vapor shifts, and/or solar activity. Yet the environmentalists have graphs from computer models that project CO2 emissions to increase at a shockingly high levels within the next 45 years, and they insist that “There is not a single part of this graph—no fact, date, or number—that is controversial in an way or in dispute by anybody” (Gore 67). These types of logical fallacies truly makes one ponder the science of the environmentalists.
The late scientist Richard Feynman once said, “The only way to have real success in science… is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory you must try to explain what’s good about it and what’s bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honest” (Hansen). Time and time again research demonstrates that both sides of the spectrum try to target one another’s integrity and credibility. Skeptics have openly discussed the pros and cons to their position, and readily admit that humans undoubtedly have an impact on the local environment which manifests itself in many negative ways such as habitat destruction, coral reef bleaching, over hunting, and many more. They do not deny the fact that environmental issues persist, nor that action should be taken. They simply question whether or not a direct link among human activities, increased greenhouse gasses, and global warming abides (Is Man). The environmentalist, on the other hand, approach things differently.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes determined that in the last 2,000 years the Northern hemisphere had been increasingly getting hotter with the most drastic changes happening in the last few decades. This produced the “hockey-stick” graphic (Heilprin). However, Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discovered an essential miscalculation in the simulation model that generates the hockey-stick graph. They realized that no matter what datum streamed through the system, the outcome would always create a graph with a hockey-stick shape (UC Physics). Does this mean they fabricated the data on purpose? In defense, Al Gore stated in his book that the mistakes were fixed, and the same type of graph appeared as the result of a variety of investigations including Thompson’s ice core record (Gore 65). Unfortunately other mistakes on the environmentalists’ parts have surfaced as well.
Gore, on one occasion, misinterpreted and misquoted prominent skeptic Richard S. Lindzen during a Senate hearing, and later in a newspaper article, despite advisories by other participants in the debate that he had, “confus[ed] matters” (Lindzen). As I read Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth, I came across a few passages that brought up some interesting questions on his standpoint. In the introduction of his book Gore wrote:
Although it is true that politics at times must play a crucial role in solving this
problem, this is the kind of challenge that ought to completely transcend
partisanship. So whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you voted
for me or not, I very much hope that you will sense that my goal is to share with
you both my passion for the Earth and my deep sense of concern for its fate. It is
impossible to feel one without the other when you know all the facts. (Gore 10)
This quote tickled me in particular for two different reasons. First, it follows a quote where Gore says, “…I watched with growing dismay as the opposition got much, much worse after the take over of Congress in 1994 by the Republican Party and its newly aggressive conservative leaders” (Gore . This only exemplifies one of the many political biases found throughout his book: a significant factor when considering an issue that involves both political and economical interests as well as personal and/or political agendas. Second, the excerpt also made Gore sound all-knowing and arrogant. How could he say things with such confidence when evidence from opposing members of the scientific community counters some of his statements? As previously quoted, Gore wrote that the skeptics’ solely wanted to establish doubt. But if one claims certainty about one’s position, one should have no problem defending it with evidence. After all, for something to be declared a scientific fact, it must be able to withstand the rigors of the scientific method.
As described in the on-line article “Is Man Caused Global Warming a Scientific Fact?” the first step in the scientific method calls one to take observations of some part of the universe. Then, one must form a hypothesis that correlates with the observations, and make predictions. Predictions are then tested by constructing an experiment. Depending on the results of the experiment, one should modify the hypothesis and repeat experimentation until the hypothesis is proven correct. However, every experiment requires the presence of controls, and the Earth’s atmosphere does not have controllable variables. This lack of controllable variables, referred to as an open system, interferes with the environmentalists’ simulation models that create projections of the future. Since the controls do not exist and the measurements of the atmosphere remain uncertain, the models—at best—can only provide estimates from speculated numbers and figures. This allows doubt to set in over the theory of global warming (Is Man).
Environmentalists do not analyze their position of global warming from all stand points like real scientists should. They maintain that their facts are correct and that it is common knowledge. One should note, though, that the common knowledge of scientist in the 1400s would have determined the Earth dwelled at the center of the universe. Exposing uncertainties in the scientific world is viewed as an enriching experience, but when brought to light in the political arena, uncertainties can often be polarizing.
Carbon dioxide plays a vital role in the industrial economy, and tampering with policies that control its emissions could possibly initiate the surfacing of other agendas such as, energy efficiency, reduced dependence on the Middle Eastern oil, international competition, continuing the culture of fear, and generating funds just to name a few (Lindzen). Many people see the global warming issue as a great opportunity to work things in their selfish favor, but the down side to this exploitation is rarely ever discussed. But rather than abandoning self interests for the greater common good, environmentalists stray away, and stick to their irrefutable and infallible facts that make them out to be the heroes in a crisis that may not even exist (Lindzen).
So what will happen next? Well, columnist Robert J. Samuelson offers one idea for the never ending global warming saga in his article “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” He predicts that global warming will proceed as a moral issue rather than an engineering problem, and that the world’s leaders will continue talking themselves in circles. Samuelson best puts his ideas into words in the following passage:
Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the [21st]
Century, but—regardless of whether it is or isn’t—we won’t do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done…. Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy” (Samuelson).
The debate on global warming may continue for many years to come. While no one can deny that humans do impact their surrounding environments, which often results in pollution, destruction, or loss, correlating these factors into as big an idea as global warming proves much more difficult. However, certain preventative measures which would benefit the global community regardless of the validity of the global warming theory must, undoubtedly, commence. Transitioning to alternative fuels, eliminating atmospheric pollutants, conserving energy, and cleaning up the world’s water ways include just a few measures that would reap constructive results. Until a sufficient alternative energy source is finally put into practice on a global level, empty promises will continue to pour forth from the leaders of the world.

Works Cited
Amos, Jonathan. “Global Warming ‘Not Clear Cut’.” 22 January, 2001. BBC News. 30
October, 2006.
Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus: Rodale, 2006. 8,10,27, 65,67, 263.
Hansen, James. “The Global Warming Debate.”January 1999. Education Resource
Materials. 8 January, 2006. NASA. 30 October, 2006.
Heilprin, John. “Report Global Warming Is Real.” 22 June, 2006. Discovery.com. 30
October, 2006.
“Is Man Caused Global Warming A Scientific Fact?” 1994-2006. Transtronics. 30
October, 2006.
Lindzen, Richard S. “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific
Consensus.” Vol 15, No.2, Spring 1992. Cato Institute. 10 December, 2006.

Powell, Alvin. “Some Don’t Like It Hot: James McCarthy Knows What’s Around the
Corner.” 2002. Harvard Gazette Archives. 22 March, 2001. HarvardUniversity.
10 December, 2006.
“Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’: Greenhouse, Global Warming- and Some Facts, The.” 2006.
JunkScience.com. 21 April, 2006. 30 October, 2006.
Samuelson, Robert J. “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” 2006. 5 July, 2006.
The Washington Post Company. 30 October, 2006.
“UC Physics Professor Says Global Warming Not Real.” 2002-2004.Technology Review.
26 October, 2004. StopThe Lie.com. 30 October, 2006.

I LOVE An Inconvinient Truth. I thought it was so interesting. I didnt like Al Gore told his like life story in it though because I wanted to know about global warming, not him. But besides that, it was great

My school's having a buy-out where we can pay $1 and get out of class to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" for earth day coming up. Im pretty pumped to watch it. I'll let you know what I think:)

<3