There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.
The papers in GeoJournal agree that it does an excellent job of raising public awareness of man-made global warming and explains why increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to warming.
They also agree that its main weakness is that it tries to use individual extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, to prove the existence of global warming.
In the first opinion piece, Eric Steig from Washington University states that the film gets the fundamental science right. The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film…
There are several articles in the GeoJournal [registration, subscription]. True Believers who reject peer-reviewed science will continue to be upset.
# 217 Mr. Catshit
“So, I guess Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth just isn’t that important anymore.”
Yeah it is. VERY! But Turd won’t stop busting my nut.
Actually Al Gore is not very important anymore as the facts are coming out and contradicting him. The GW commies are getting really anxious to get freedom legislated away before they’re exposed for what they are. Hitler was a walk in the park compared to what Gore is pushing.
I’ve looked and can’t find a website discussing the sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 levels. From memory, it used to be .054 percent and now it is about .358 percent but water vapor and methane are in greater concentrations, have greater green house effects, and are within reason, totally uncontrollable?
Just for fun===can anyone name a prior scientific orthodoxy that was turned on its head? As close as I can get is stomach ulcers but that had no where near the study of Global Warming.
How do you know what you know, and how do you change your mind?
Hey, if people want to save the planet, go for it. However they have no right to take everyone else’s freedom, such as the freedom to drive what you want, when you want, and where you want. (and yes taxing fuel to “discourage” consumption is really taking of freedom. No one can remove the freedom of living in urban sprawl, in whatever size house you want to build, etc. burning what ever light bulb you want, etc. If the government stays out of of it , go for it.
Me, I’m looking forward to Greenland being green again in my lifetime. Cold kills far more people that heat does. To be “Global Warming” is desirable and something to actively work toward.
#221–or just the opposite.