Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WashPost Fact Checker Goes Deep on Judge's Decision regarding "An Inconvenient Truth"
Washington Post | October 17-18, 2007 | Michael Dobbs

Posted on 10/19/2007 9:34:45 AM PDT by cogitator

Context: last Friday, same day as when Gore and the IPCC received the Peace Nobel, the WashPost put out a "Fact Checker" article about the UK decision regarding the showing of AIT in schools. They got a lot of responses, in the blog and in the blogosphere.

Because of this, the Fact Checker published a follow-up, and a response from "Team Gore". The links are below; I can't post them due to source restrictions, and to read them in entirety you probably have to register.

I'm posting these for information only. There has been a lot of discussion about this, obviously. While I will certainly comment on other aspects of the topic, I won't participate in extended discussion on this thread, because it would likely take way too much time. So if you are so inclined, consider these as part of a careful consideration process over the entire issue of global warming and climate change.

In the first comment, I am posting the introduction from "Team Gore Responds".

Finally, regarding the fourth point: I invite interested parties to read point #5 in my profile. It's considerably more in-depth than anything RealClimate has produced on this topic thus far.

An Inconvenient Truth: Part II

An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 2takethingsaway; 4thearth; 4thechildren; 4thecommongood; 4theearth; climate; fakebutaccurate; globalwarmingscare; gore; itsonlyamovie; movie; starkravingsocialist; warming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
"The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex. Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years. He regularly seeks the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling."
1 posted on 10/19/2007 9:34:47 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cogitator

FAct Checker at the Washington Post? Oh My Sides........Bwahahahahaaaaaa!!!


2 posted on 10/19/2007 9:36:08 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Columbia = Ayatollah U.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

If he couldn’t explain it to us unwashed masses, then perhaps he should have foregone the lil movie altogether, hmmm?


3 posted on 10/19/2007 9:37:50 AM PDT by Shimmer (Life isn't fair, but it's still good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The WaPo doing its best to polish this turd.


4 posted on 10/19/2007 9:44:36 AM PDT by MoMagic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years.

No he has NOT!

All the stuff in his books is simply cut & pasted from others.

5 posted on 10/19/2007 9:52:43 AM PDT by capt. norm (Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I’m reminded of another movie’s tagline...

“Keep repeating: It’s only a movie! It’s only a movie! It’s only a movie!”


6 posted on 10/19/2007 9:54:56 AM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

How much of your profile did you write yourself?

You don’t do much bowling, do you?


7 posted on 10/19/2007 9:55:24 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Your theories, including the shrine you built for yourself (profile) are as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

You and Al Gore can go ahead and have your fun. As time proves both of you wrong, I am wondering what your reaction will be.

How long can you go on looking for loopholes, and ignoring many facts. In other words, I am wondering how long and how deep in denial will you sink.

8 posted on 10/19/2007 10:03:09 AM PDT by capt. norm (Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws.

A movie can't reflect the difference between AlGore's 20 feet of ocean rising and the IPCC's 20 inches?

9 posted on 10/19/2007 10:03:20 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

What is most incredible in the materials you have provided is the complete collapse of critical facilities with regard to the CO2 level/warming timing. If temperatures rise first, then CO2, as appears to be the historical record, how well the curves “fit” is entirely irrelevant, since the overall question is one of causation. Could the Fact Checker be so unintelligent as to not perceive this? More likely, he is trying to “polish the turd”.


10 posted on 10/19/2007 10:05:33 AM PDT by Iconoclast2 (Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Clearly, you have bought into the global warming myth in a big way.

One question for you: do you think the warming trend is so dangerous, and the science is so settled, that there should be no further skepticsm among climate scientists, and that skeptics of all stripes should be treated as dangerous and silenced and ostracized from their communities (whatever their community might be)?


11 posted on 10/19/2007 10:06:40 AM PDT by Nervous Tick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer; cogitator; Doctor Raoul
Of course Global Warming is this century's answer to The Great South Sea Bubble, or the Tulip Mania, or Internet Stocks.

However, the facts do not really matter here. What matters here is the interpretation of observed facts, the creation of emotionally appealing stories based on the observations, and endless repition of them until they become part of folklore.

Honestly fellas, you would be better off trying to stamp out nursery rhymes. You might as well try and talk to Muslims about Baby Jesus. What the Global Warmers have done (and rather brilliantly) is confuse two concepts in the public mind (Not all that hard, now is it?):

Pollution and Global Warming.

There simply isn't a shred of evidence that the former causes the latter. Global Warming? Yeah, it happens. Why once, Greenland was green and good Christian folk raised cattle there. Wine grapes grew in England. Rising sea levels have obliterated numerous civilizations all around the globe. Global Warming caused the retreat of the glaciers of the Ice Age.

Pollution can be very nasty. It really doesn't cause global warming ... or cooling. One healthy volcanic burp puts more crap in the atmosphere than 3 centuries of industrial development, and can actually kill people, rather than offer them useful work.

Big deal. This argument is over. You can point out that CO2 has got nothing to do with it until you are blue in the face.

That will merely be attributed by Al and the Warmers as yet another symptom of Global Warming.

12 posted on 10/19/2007 10:07:30 AM PDT by Zerodown (Draft Petraeus. Or how about Pace? What do you say we win this one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

They check the court’s facts, but never bothered to check Al’s? Why, I’m sooooo surprised.


13 posted on 10/19/2007 10:07:42 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MoMagic; cogitator
The WaPo doing its best to polish this turd.

So is Cogitator.

14 posted on 10/19/2007 10:07:55 AM PDT by xjcsa (Defenseless enemies are fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case."

Who placed such "restrictions" on Gore? Why nobody, but Gore himself! If there is "scientific evidence" to explain, you explain it, no matter how many "slides" and minutes you need. The fact of the matter is, Gore's method did a fine job of explaining his "scientfic evidence". The fact of the matter is, when you boil it all down and reduce it into as simple an explanation as possible and it looks like B.S., that's what it was in the first place. Al Gore is not a 'scientist'. Al Gore did not spend 30 years studying the science surrounding the earths climate.

He spend 30 years regurgitating idiotic B.S. and UN world government strategy, Gaea mother earth religion and ways of implementing it. In fact Gore, a fanatic Gaea worshiper, he participated in the carrying of it's "ark of the covenant" ceremony, the official UN launch of the new "one world religion" to replace all others. Climate change fearmongering is one of the methods used to sign up countries to this one world government 'earth charter scam.

Had he studied the science, then he could claim to be somewhat of a scientist. He studied B.S. however, so that makes him a B.S. artist. He studied Liberal elitist idiocy, which makes him an idiot. He studied UN Marxist on world government strategy and how to destroy the US constitution and sign the USA up to be governed by unelected, elitist UN marxists, which makes him a traitor.

15 posted on 10/19/2007 10:08:41 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Basic References:

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

Other References:

Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004:


This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). © (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science

16 posted on 10/19/2007 10:09:57 AM PDT by sourcery (Referring a "social conservative" to the Ninth Amendment is like showing the Cross to Dracula.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Mr Science gets the Nobel Piece Prize.

Why am I not surprised?


17 posted on 10/19/2007 10:14:34 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (No buy China!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Had he studied the science, then he could claim to be somewhat of a scientist

I've read elsewhere on this forum that Al scored a "D" in his college science course.

18 posted on 10/19/2007 10:15:04 AM PDT by capt. norm (Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I’m glad Al Invented the internet so we can check up on him.


19 posted on 10/19/2007 10:15:32 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

To check facts first you have to start with facts.


20 posted on 10/19/2007 10:18:04 AM PDT by bmwcyle (BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson