Al Gore faced a question yesterday about inaccuracies in his
film An Inconvenient Truth but he chose not to answer.
(An Inconvenient Truth)
Speaking in Madison, Wisconsin, Al Gore faced a question about inaccuracies identified in his film An Inconvenient Truth. The former vice president rarely takes questions during his appearances but at the annual conference for the Society of Environmental Journalists he made an exception.
Phelim McAleer, a film director and producer who is releasing a film titled Not Evil Just Wrong to counter Gore’s movie, was given the opportunity to pose a question to Gore. Watch the video below.
He asked Gore to respond to a British High Court’s finding in October 2007 that An Inconvenient Truth had “nine significant errors” and was shown in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” McAleer further queried Gore as to whether or not the errors had been corrected.
Gore chose not to respond to the questions directly saying, “I’m not going to go through all of those.” McAleer tried to press Gore to answer the question but Gore evaded and the organizers cut McAleer’s microphone.
Here is the video of the exchange:
Climate Change Examiner Facebook Page Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted.
Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
Comments
Gore was inconveniently untrue.
Gore is a FRAUD and until he debates the issue his words are lies!
Talk about a babbling idiot! Since we politicized the endangerment finding of Polar Bears, then his movie must be true. Forget the facts. That was the worst case of specious reasoning I've seen in a long time. And those other journalists at that conference should be ashamed of themselves. Especially Revkin of the NY Times. He's an alarmist at heart, but still, a little fact-finding every once in a while?
What caused the melting of the last ice sheet that covered most of N America 12,999 years ago?
Tony,
The answers to the claims of error from the Stewart Dimmock lawsuit have already been answered.
tinyurl.com/ywmd94
tinyurl.com/ybdxcjo
tinyurl.com/y89k63y
Al Gore.......BHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Facts have never mattered to Al Gore. The Hockey Stick graph that was the center piece of his sci-fi, comedy horror flick has been debunked and it doesn't seem to even bother him. I've personally met and interviewed Phelim McAleer and found him to be very concerned about his fellow man. His new film Not Evil Just Wrong addresses two very important issues. The cost of global warming hysteria and the cost of environmentalism gone wild. He also dares to speak about the apathy environmentalists exhibit when confronted with their policies causing the death of black people.
Ken,
Good references – thank you.
I think one thing that is lost in the discussion about the lawsuit over the film is that it really simply boiled down to the film being presented as science fact in British schools (and some here in the U.S. too). In reality it is more of a political film and that is what the judge found. While he said it was “broadly accurate” he also said, “albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.” He also noted that the errors “arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”
For me, what I would like to see people take away from this is that An Inconvenient Truth is a political film – not a science film.
I find it very disturbing that science is getting pushed into the courtroom. Seems to me that lawsuits will have a chilling effect, no pun intended, on scientific debate on any issue. I guess if one can't win the scientific debate, one hires a lawyer and sues the scientist one does not like. Or employs political appointees to edits their papers. Or donates money to the Cato Institute to create junk science. Or hires Penn and Teller to do a dog and pony show.
"A spokesman for Al Gore stated that, 'Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up.'"
Nine issues, from the whole film. That's all the skeptics were able to dredge up. What about the numerous other statements with which the Dimmock lawsuit was unable to take issue?
Tony, ya don't have to bat 1.000 in order to get several million a year in Major League Baseball, but the makers of "Inconvenient Truth" appear to be hitting .991 and some, including you, are declaring it politics rather than science.
I have been trying to have Al Gore respond to the article (Global Warming or Global Cooling? By Angelos Backus) for the past 5 years. Mr Gore please respond!
Toney -- the link you give about the court finding "nine inaccuracies" starts with the explicit preface that the court also found "Inconvenient" to be "broadly accurate." In other words, if the nine inaccuracies were material, they would prevent the finding of "broadly accurate." Shouldn't you mention that in your article in order to contextualize the line of attack based on the court finding?
To fail to do so, it seems, prevents your column from being "broadly accurate."
@Ron - If you believe the movie is 'broadly accurate' then you certainly should have no problem with this story. There are more truths in it than all of Al Gore's works put together.
Just read England & Wales high court decision which was conveniently posted by Ken Grubb, and it is evident and beyond clear that the judge is strictly upholding the wording in ss406/407. I am not sure how one could read the Judge's findings and opinions and come away thinking that was not a blow to Al Gore or An Inconvenient Truth. The fact is that the plaintiff's arguments were poor and he could not form his case adequately around the particular language of those laws. I realize this is not a case measuring the validity of scientific theory in the movie, but on the other hand, from the nine errors chosen by the Judge to expound on you would realize those were pretty serious errors. Furthermore, the judge ordered that corrections to those errors (in written form) and a statement representing the view of the government not being in accordance with the views and opinions of the Al Gore and AIT be included with the distribution of the film. Please, someone, show me a silver lining?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!