Didn't believe it

by Tiffany
(piqua, ohio, USA)

My first impression of the film was that if it was all true, and we knew how to fix the problem, why weren't we fixing it? However, after looking into some of the statements Al Gore made in the film, I came to realize, that a lot of the information just wasn't accurate.

Global Warming, for the most part, is exactly the opposite of what is happening. It's not getting warmer, temperatures have actually been getting slightly colder. The whole Global Warming issue was simply brought up to push across Al Gore's own personal agenda, to make him look smart, and ideally get him elected president so he could save the world.

Barry's Response - Tiffany, that rumour's been around for a while. It might be true (inconveniently).

We've also seen mini trends in air temperature observations over the last few years (or decades) that show both increases and decreases. They happen all the time and are part of the natural evolution of our climate.

Why? There are a lot of reasons. They include greenhouses, changes in solar output, changes in atmospheric opacity, increased urban heat island effect near observation stations and changes in the number and locations of stations to name a few.

Thanks for your input.

Search this site for more information now.

In this comment about Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth,"

I'd focus on the importance of fact-checking and documentary films in shaping public opinion:

The pursuit of truth is paramount. When evaluating a documentary like 'An Inconvenient Truth,' you need to analyze the data and claims carefully. The comment shows skepticism about the movie's accuracy and suggests a political motive.

It's important to acknowledge that documentaries are still storytelling and sometimes present information in a particular way. Scientists and journalists have a responsibility to fact-check these documentaries and provide context.

The scientific consensus on global warming is clear: our planet appears to be warming primarily because of human activity. But it's just a consensus. There's still room for differing opinions on specific details or proposed solutions, so it's important to acknowledge that the issue is complex.

Information distribution should always encourage skepticism, and we should encourage critical thinking. It's not uncommon for political motives to be attached to various initiatives, but we've got to separate political agendas from scientific consensus.

I'd dig deeper into the scientific data, consult experts, and provide a comprehensive analysis of the film's accuracy in this case. We can help the public form informed opinions on important issues like climate change by ensuring factual information takes precedence over political narratives through rigorous research.