The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" cost very little to produce. So why doesn't Gore revise it to correct errors?

Question

Yes, the general message of the movie (and book) is correct -- and has been affirmed by courtroom judges and scientist review boards -- but the errors and gaffes are embarrassing! Why doesn't he simply drop some of the stupider statements (and the irrelevant whining about losing to Bush in the vote counting mess) and replace them with more facts of a less distracting nature?

[For anyone who doubts the errors, consider this one: His story about the proverbial frog in the slowly heated water. It is a lame but popular myth that no zoology professor would ever allow in the classroom or textbook. Didn't Gore have any scientists proofread his script? Why provide distractions for the GW deniers?]

Especially when one considers how the movie is now starting to appear more often on cable TV and in classrooms around the world, how hard could it be to produce a corrected version without the nonsense material? He even reiterates the confusion between weather and climate and blames Hurricane Katrina on global warming. And while showing Antarctica ice core samples, the voice-over even claims that one can see the introduction of industrial air pollution in the ice with the naked eye! (Ridiculous.) SO WHY NOT KEEP THE SOLID SCIENCE AND EDIT OUT THE GORE NONSENSE STATEMENTS?

Answer 1

You've more or less answered your own question "the UK government did not attempt to defend nine of the statements", if they're not defended then under UK law the Judge automatically finds in favour of the plaintiff. You could bring a case to court that a day is 48 hours long, if no one defends it then the Judge will rule that a day is indeed, 48 hours long. Of the evidence that the Judge did look at, he rejected the plaintiffs claim, refused to ban the movie and concluded that it was fundementally correct. In short, of all the evidence that the Court examined, none was rejected as being inaccurate. The 'study' you claim has found 35 errors is complete nonesense. It's the work of Viscount Monckton, he's a politician not a scientist and is well known for his unsupported and controverisial views. For example, for long enough he claimed that AIDS didn't exist, faced with overwhelming evidence he now concedes that it does and that every person should be compulsorily tested each month and anyone showing any symptoms should be quarantined for life. Here in the UK he's seen as something of a laughing stock and scant regard is paid to anything he says. The above isn't to say that the movie is error free - it's not. But if you want to know what the errors are it makes sense to ask a scientist and not a Judge or a politician. The movie is by and large correct and no-one has been able to produce any evidence to the contrary, excepting that there are some serious exaggerations, perhaps the most notable is the rate at which sea levels will rise. Ignore the movie, which is very one sided and presented by an ex-politician and concentrate on the science instead. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS 1) The UK government didn't admit it couldn't defend the nine statements. I advise the UK government on climatological matters so I have a pretty good idea what thay do and don't say. 2) The Monkcton study found 35 statements that he finds debateable, very different from being scientifically debateable. And as per my previous answer, Monckton is a politician not a scientist, and not a very credible one either (he was deslected by his peers in the very first round of voting for a seat in the House of Lords to which his response was to describe the electoral procedure as a "a bizarre constitutional abortion"). 3) If just those 35 statements are removed then there are still hundreds that remain. All that Monckton has been able to do is to pick out a few random statements. But then, he doesn't understand climate so it would be very difficult for him to address issues about which he has little or no knowledge. If you apply the principle of removing all the evidence then everything and anything can be disproven, it's a pointless exercise. Not many people are saying that we should get our facts from Al Gore. If you go back through some of my previous answers you'll see that I recommend people not to watch it because it's one sided and does have errors in it. However, with or without the 35 statements (or 9 statements), it remains fundementally accurate. To be quite honest, I, like many other climatologists, was horrified by the movie. Had Gore run his script by an expert then many of the errors could have been corrected. More importantly than that, because there are errors it gives those who know very little about the climate (e.g. Viscount Monckton) a platform from which to launch seemingly credible counter arguments. But... if they had any real arguments they would be discrediting the science behind global warming instead, such as disproving that greenhouse gases retain thermal radiation within Earth's atmosphere. This is the very basis upon which global warming occurs and no skeptic has ever been able to deny it.

Answer 2

I would recommend taking a course on environmental science. Does Al Gore really do say what is the truth that's happening with the earth or what not? The movie to me seems as if he needs to break down what is the science behind what is happening.

Answer 3

'Inconvenient Truth' is simply a marketing tool used by Gore and his cronies to stir up false fear in so-called catastrophic global warming. Creating such panic keeps him in high demand for speaking engagements for which he charges hundreds of thousands of dollars.



Simply put, he would lose a fortune if he did not keep the movie in its present form. Brainwashing young impressionable school children and many of the ignorant masses with such worthless tripe is the key to his success in collecting a fortune (tens of millions of $$$).



In the end, Gore will be remembered as one of the greatest con-artists of our time..... up there with Bernie Madof.

Answer 4

If I were him I'd do much the same as other similar movies do. I would put out the movie and put software out with the movie that allowed you to download updates. As the science finds new information or revises old information you would be able to see those revisions.

Answer 5

The producers of the movie don't see the need to revise it.

Answer 6

Al Gore, a fool, cannot go back on what he said. That would be against his political approach to a scientific problem. Politicians shouldn't try to explain science. They fail.

Answer 7

Probably because he would have to completely remake it and correct every ''fact'' he states because there is not one truth in it!

Answer 8

I completely agree. I'd guess it's because he could make more money elsewhere, and Gore certainly seems like the type to be money driven.

Answer 9

<>



Why don't YOU stop your irrelevant whining?

Answer 10

If he revised it then he would have to get actual Antarctic shelf footage, instead of using styrofoam, and may inconveniently find that Antarctic ice is growing.



That would be expensive.