Inaccuracies in the Inconvenient Truth - TAT for TIT
Posted 17th October 2009 at 02:02 AM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
Updated 18th October 2009 at 11:36 PM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
Updated 18th October 2009 at 11:36 PM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
I just came across this information on the inacccuracies in the acclaimed documentary "The Inconvenient Truth" (TIT) by Al Gore. No doubt, Al Gore raised mass awareness on Climate Change issues through this documentary. Al Gore deserves our admiration for the strong commitment he has for this common cause. No doubt, Climate Change is a Global issue.
A British Judge hearing a case on the documentary came out with the following eleven inaccuracies:
1.The Inconvenient Truth (TIT) claimed that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro was due to global warming. British Government's expert conceded that this is not correct.
2.TIT suggested that evidence from ice cores proved that rising CO2 caused temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. TIT used emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggested that Katrina had 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.TIT showed the drying up of Lake Chad and claimed that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5.TIT claimed that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6.TIT threatened that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: this is a scientific impossibility.
7. TIT blamed global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The British Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.TIT suggested that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
9.TIT suggested that the Antarctic ice covering was melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10.TIT suggested 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. TIT claimed that rising sea levels had caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The British Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Indeed there are a few more inaccuracies in the film, like the one on Mumbai rains....rains and clogging of drainage in Mumbai are not new.
Does this diminish the stature of Al Gore ? In my opinion, a big NO. All poets have the freedom to use "exaggeration" to bring home their points. I think Al Gore has the poetic freedom to exaggerate !!!!
A British Judge hearing a case on the documentary came out with the following eleven inaccuracies:
1.The Inconvenient Truth (TIT) claimed that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro was due to global warming. British Government's expert conceded that this is not correct.
2.TIT suggested that evidence from ice cores proved that rising CO2 caused temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. TIT used emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggested that Katrina had 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.TIT showed the drying up of Lake Chad and claimed that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5.TIT claimed that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6.TIT threatened that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: this is a scientific impossibility.
7. TIT blamed global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The British Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.TIT suggested that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
9.TIT suggested that the Antarctic ice covering was melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10.TIT suggested 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. TIT claimed that rising sea levels had caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The British Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Indeed there are a few more inaccuracies in the film, like the one on Mumbai rains....rains and clogging of drainage in Mumbai are not new.
Does this diminish the stature of Al Gore ? In my opinion, a big NO. All poets have the freedom to use "exaggeration" to bring home their points. I think Al Gore has the poetic freedom to exaggerate !!!!
Total Comments 5
Comments
-
Everyone in the world exaggerates to some degree. And we are talking about a Court Judge here, not necessarily who one would want interpreting scientific data. I also noticed that the Judge cited "British Government's expert conceded that this is not correct". Umm, that's one person's opinion/interpretation of the facts/data and doesn't make it 'right' or 'correct'.
It's a book. People who read it have to judge for themselves whether the book's content is accurate or not.
I don't even understand why a British Judge is hearing a case on the documentary. Does the British government vet each book that is published in Britain for content?Posted 18th October 2009 at 03:23 PM by Marc 
-
The case was filed by a British Truck Driver, Stewart Dimmock, questioning the screening of "The Inconvenient Truth" in Public Schools in Britain. The judgement, a direction to the British Government, in a nutshell is the following:
"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".Posted 18th October 2009 at 11:18 PM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
-
Thanks for sharing the info!
Posted 22nd October 2009 at 12:48 PM by bobdoering
-
But the correct title is "An Inconvenient Truth".Posted 28th October 2009 at 09:12 AM by CarolX
-
You are right. I have also taken the literary freedom to bring in "TIT for TAT".
Posted 28th October 2009 at 10:03 AM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
Total Trackbacks 0
