entertainment

Climate change film 'An Inconvenient Truth' gets a sequel

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

This idea of total acquiescence to authority and experts is faulty thinking and arrogant.

This idea of not trusting the scientific method and peer-reviewed science simply because one lacks the intelligence to understand the science is faulty thinking and ignorant.

we have thrown off that dogma for a new one - science.

Science is not a dogma. It is a self-correcting process of determining how our world works.

If you doubt science so much, how can you use the internet? How can you watch TV? How can you fly on planes? These are all products of science - if it's so flawed, you should be avoiding it all.

True science requires skepticism.

Of course - that's the whole point of peer-review. Skepticism is built into the process. But simply doubting it because you prefer the status quo is not healthy skepticism, it's simply destructive ignorance. If you want to practice productive skepticism, you find the problem with the given science, prepare a paper supporting your arguments, and present it for peer-review. Simply saying 'their wrong' is an entirely useless stance, and in the case of climate change, is destructive to our planet.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strangerland: Not for being of lesser intelligence, but for being too ignorant to accept their lack of intelligence, and instead trust in the scientists who study climate change.

This idea of total acquiescence to authority and experts is faulty thinking and arrogant. Not because they are right but because they are too often wrong on very consequential societal issues. When the Church was considered the expert witches were burned at the stake. But we have thrown off that dogma for a new one - science. But science can also be horribly destructive as well. The science of eugenics from American scientists and advocates of the early 1900's had horrendous consequences over the course of the early to mid 20th century. Religion and science suffer the same fatal flaw - misuse by the faulty humans that practice it. True science requires skepticism.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You would think all the polar bears would have drowned by now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Tokyo: thats the whole point. To keep everyone poor and never let the 3rd wirld to prosper while they invest of their carbon credit making scheme into china where there are no regulations. Big scam.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

From a geological point of view, has Gore ever done glacier core sampling?

If he did, he would find out that the earth has and will be for a long time a dynamic living organism. Temperatures and CO2 will continue to go up and down as they always have. Different species will die out, others will change, and new ones will arise.

Go away Gore.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Too bad Mother Nature has other things in mind.

Remember 2014? Wait a tick.

US preps for 'dangerously' cold temperatures http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/12/12/polar-vortex-snowstorm-winter-weather/95329504/

Yes, it's weather.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Tokyo-Engr, well said.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

...so Trump met with Gore, in order to remind the public that he (GORE) was indeed still alive... and now a word from our sponsor.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

One person, George Carlin will debunk this: https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatsnext....I am all for taking steps to curb any climate change caused by human activity. However there is not much that would convince me a regressive carbon tax is a good idea. This tax would primarily impact the poor, also impact the middle class, and have little or no impact on the rich and those in power.

I think there are other mechanisms, rather than taxing people, that can be used to address climate change resulting from human activity.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Only doing this because trump will be president. Unfortunately it will only speak to its base and wont change the minds of people who are against carbon taxes.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

albaleoDEC. 11, 2016 - 08:35PM JST Is there the same level of acceptance in other scientific fields (e.g. meteorology)?

Meteorology is not really all that related to climatology. The time-scales involved make the predictions of the former pretty irrelevant to the latter. But since you asked, here's a meteorologist to share their expertise on the matter. http://fusion.net/story/374184/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change/

If not, why should I accept the opinions

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why science education is so crucial.

Anthropogenic climate change is not an "opinion". "Green beans are tasty," is an opinion. Opinions have no inherent truth value - depending on who espouses them they can be true or false and there is no way for anyone to research and come to an objective truth value for them. Anthropogenic climate change is a conclusion. It very definitely has an objective truth value - either it's happening or it isn't, and the only way to find that truth value is to study the world. Declaring it to be untrue because you don't want it to be true is a waste of everyone else's time. If you want to wade into the scientific debate, you need evidence, not excuses or propaganda.

a what is effectively a self-appointed group of experts? (The peer-review thing doesn't add much if the peers come from the same group. The climategate e-mails didn't really do much for the reputation of some climate scientists.)

Yeah... there is nothing "self-appointed" about science. Ever been to a dissertation defense? PhDs don't get to just stand up and say, "I have a PhD in climatology now!" they get gruelingly grilled by experts in their field who were themselves gruelingly grilled by past experts in their field. You don't get through the process by giving opinions or even by knowing accurate answers - though there is no hope of getting through the process without knowing the science that informs your research area in the minutest detail. The only way anyone has a chance of getting through a dissertation defense is to perform original research and to know the observations, the methodology, and the implications of the outcome so backwards and forwards that people who have been practicing your science longer than you can't find a single mistake you've made.

They can totally disagree with your conclusions, by the way. It happens all the time. But if there is a disagreement, you have to have an air-tight case based on evidence for why you think something different from a member of your dissertation defense committee. Opinions are irrelevant. It's all about the factual evidence.

You know who are self-appointed though? The people who go onto right-wing propaganda media and manipulate graphs to say global warming isn't real.

Oh, and on the subject of peer-review- again, peer-review committees evaluate based on the process used for the experiment being described, not the ideology of the person performing the experiment and what it's conclusions are. The science-illiterati often enjoy portraying peer-reviewed research as some kind of stifling thought police where everything that does not conform to the chosen belief is rejected, but that's pure fantasy. The fact is, peer-review journals reject research only when it has been improperly performed or insufficiently explained. Most magazines would love to be the ones who publish a well-researched article that upends the established paradigm because of all the kudos that would bring, but they're disciplined enough to avoid doing that unless the research they review is top-notch, at least to the best of their ability to understand. They do it because the shame of being another Lancet is strong motivation to stay disciplined.

It actually happens quite frequently that scientific paradigms get upended by new research. That's how science evolves. That there are energy companies funneling billions of dollars into propaganda efforts to undermine research into anthropogenic climate change and the best they can do is get their beliefs into Breitbart should tell you everything you need to know about the scientific rigor they use for their "research".

Does the 99% include the scientists on the list of names below?

Again, you're showing the dire need for improved science education in our society.

Science isn't a vote because science isn't the rutting town hall, with apologies to a certain fictional rogue. Science is a process. A tiny handful of people disagreeing with the mainstream doesn't mean a damn thing. What matters is if the people who disagree can come up with scientific evidence supporting their position, and if that evidence can make it through a peer-review process. That hasn't happened, so what they believe is irrelevant.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Strangerland

I fully agree humans adversely impact the planet's climate. I have no doubt about that. However, I respectfully disagree with you that people "deserve" derision. They need to be heard and where their arguments do not hold water scientifically, the rationale as to why needs to be clearly explained and they should be debunked. Likewise when those who believe humans are causing climate change make statements which are scientifically untrue they need to be debunked also. I believe that is what science is all about (at least it was the way it was taught to me).

In addition to humanity, the Earth, in and of itself, also impacts the climate. The earth and the environment surrounding the earth is extraordinarily complex. I have friends studying and working in this field and they openly admit that due to the amount of variables and complexity of our planet, an accurate computer model of the earth's eco-sphere, while not impossible to achieve, is years away and this is one reason the predictions of temperature rise, sea level rise, etc. are constantly being revised. These scientists have little use or time for people like Mr. Gore or Mr. DiCaprio as they see this as detracting from their true mission.....to study and determine the true extent of this problem.

It is my belief that "deriding" other people is not science and does not advance the cause. Mr. Gore is not a climate scientist and I do not think his productions help the matter. This is a long term problem in need of a long term solution implemented over time as technology advances to reduce the necessity and dependence on carbon based energy.

What we have now (for example California is now going to tax cow flatulence) is a ridiculous over-reaction that impacts the poor and middle class with relatively little payback to the environment.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/

On the other hand GREAT strides have been made (such as LEED legislation) which are common sense in nature and I think this could be taken a step further. One example would be that solar panels be required on new structures (where there is adequate solar input) and utilities be required by law to buy back this power (at reasonable FIT rates) which would reduce the impact of such legislation on the poor and middle class. These are rationale common sense solutions that have been put in place (and can be put in place) not because of people like Mr. Gore or Mr. DiCaprio but in spite of them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Anyone denying that humans have caused the climate change we are seeing deserves derision. Not for being of lesser intelligence, but for being too ignorant to accept their lack of intelligence, and instead trust in the scientists who study climate change.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I consider myself to be an avid environmentalist and also have followed the climate change issue for over a decade. It is foolish to think human activity has no impact on the climate. On the other hand it is still debatable to what level. As an engineer and scientist it bothers me to no end when politicians or actors claim "the debate is over", "the science is settled". I believe humanity needs to address the impact human beings have on our environment and climate.

When I see Mr. Gore (and other world leaders) taking private jets to climate change conferences or actors (such as Leonardo DiCaprio) taking a private jet to a climate change event and then taking the private jet back and jumping on a yacht it disgusts me as it does a dis-service to the message. These elitists, who are rich enough to afford to buy "carbon credits" rationalize their travel in this way while the average citizen cannot afford to run off and buy such credits (nor can they afford such luxuries).

I pride myself on keeping my personal energy use and consumption as low as possible. On the other hand these folks use more energy and resources in a day then several families do in a year. It seems to me the end game is to enact a global carbon tax which would be used to fund further global governance.

At the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference the attendees (from the U.S. and all over the world) flew in on private jets. There was not enough space there to park the private jets so many of these jets flew back (or somewhere else) empty and then returned to pick up the attendee.

If these guys are serious

Practice what you preach...

End the practice of blackballing / ostracizing people that disagree with climate change (that is not what true science is)..

End the practice of buying "carbon credits" (which made Mr. Gore a very wealthy man)..

End the talk of a global carbon tax....which would be extremely regressive

It is nice to see this issue brought to the table, however the first Inconvenient Truth contained many scientific errors and claims that are simply unrealistic. Even the UK government found the original version to contain major errors.

Mr. Gore, in my opinion you do a very big disservice to people who truly want solutions to something that is a long term problem and that can be dealt with using incremental changes over time.

The elites want normal folks like us to sacrifice "for the sake of the planet" however I see none of them foregoing their lifestyle or luxuries.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Keep up the hype to condition dumb masses into being happily taxed for the man made GW scam to enrich the elite scumbags

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"An Inconvenient Lie" about Climate Change?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Climate change "denier" is a perfectly accurate term

No it isn't. As virtual no one denies climate change. What they QUESTION is the cause and how best to respond to both the changes and causes.

that something like 99% of all scientists with an actual background in the field support

No they don't. The 'scientific' paper that made the 97% claim was complete BS and has been thoroughly debunk even by many AGW supporters.

You can't stop me, deniers

Who has made any comment about stopping you? Go see any fictional story you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to act on your fantasies.

Which would be a stinging rebuttal if not for the tiny problem that climatology is a science where conclusions are derived from the experimental process based on measured observation of the world and published through a peer-review process

No actually most of climatology, at least as it applies to climate change, is derived from computer models and NOT measured observations. And the models they use consistently fail to match real measured obsertvations.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Gotta hand it to Mr. Chump; he sets up a meeting with Mr. Gore, to make it look like he cares about the environment, and then hires a climate change denier to head up the Environmental Protection Agency, thus ensuring that that agency won't do anything to protect people.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@katsu

You are not addressing the original points I made. Is there the same level of acceptance in other scientific fields (e.g. meteorology)? If not, why should I accept the opinions a what is effectively a self-appointed group of experts? (The peer-review thing doesn't add much if the peers come from the same group. The climategate e-mails didn't really do much for the reputation of some climate scientists.)

Does the 99% include the scientists on the list of names below? I'm fairly sure they all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But they differ in various ways on the more alarmist mainstream views - the level of climate sensitivity, the quality of the various models, the methods used in climate reconstructions, the effects on weather events, etc.

Shunichi Akasofu, Sallie Baliunas, John Christy, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Chris de Freitas, Richard Lindzen, Craig Loehle, Nils-Axel Mörner, Roger A. Pielke, Ian Plimer, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Henrik Svensmark

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The name of this sequel will be: "An Inconvenient Lie"

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

albaleoDEC. 11, 2016 - 06:04PM JST So why didn't you say that the first time, instead of using the "99% of scientists ... in the field" argument?

Because I assume people I discuss things with online are acting in good faith and informed enough that we can take for granted basic facts about how science works. I apologize if I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@katsu78

Which would be a stinging rebuttal if not for the tiny problem that climatology is a science where conclusions are derived from the experimental process based on measured observation of the world and published through a peer-review process

So why didn't you say that the first time, instead of using the "99% of scientists ... in the field" argument?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

albaleoDEC. 11, 2016 - 05:10PM JST Statements like this are not very helpful. I'm fairly sure that a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners support the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments.

Which would be a stinging rebuttal if not for the tiny problem that climatology is a science where conclusions are derived from the experimental process based on measured observation of the world and published through a peer-review process, and homeopathy is a giant pile of rubbish sold by people who want to take money from the gullible and where not a single experiment through a peer-reviewed journal can support that any of the effects claimed under homeopathy.

But go on, do continue comparing two utterly dissimilar things as though they were the same. It's delightful.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

albaleoDEC. 11, 2016 - 05:10PM JST Statements like this are not very helpful. I'm fairly sure that a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners support the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments.

Which would be a stinging rebuttal if not for the tiny problem that climatology is a science where conclusions are derived from the experimental process based on measured observation of the world and published through a peer-review process, and homeopathy is a giant pile of rubbish sold by people who want to take money from the gullible and where not a single experiment through a peer-reviewed journal can support that any of the effects claimed under homeopathy.

But go on, do continue comparing two utterly dissimilar things as though they were the same. It's delightful.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just after writing my above post, I found this recent blog post on climate heresy at Judith Curry's Climate Etc. web site. It seems relevant.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/climate-heretic-to-be-or-not-to-be/#more-22571

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Enjoyed the first movie, so I'll probably see it. You can't stop me, deniers."

Sure, I enjoyed it, too, in the same way as "Reefer Madness", for the alarmist nonsense it was.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

There is more afoot then we know and every day new information comes to light. Maybe no matter what we do, there is nothing we can do to stop it. I do my best to reduce, reuse and recycle but I'm not fanatically by any means, it's just common sense.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/underground-glaciers-contributing-to-glacier-melt-in-antarctica/29260/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Enjoyed the first movie, so I'll probably see it. You can't stop me, deniers

4 ( +7 / -3 )

America has suffered 8 years of this extreme left garbage. The people are smarter now, and will not fall for this propaganda a second time

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

WolfpackDec. 11, 2016 - 09:42AM JST

I wonder if Al still thinks the ice on the north pole will disappear by 2012?

And just like that, Wolfpack wins the Comment Game! Congratulations, and well played, sir!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The first iteration of this alarmist propaganda has been roundly debunked. Don't be dopes.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/04/detailed-comments-on-an-inconvenient-truth/

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

something like 99% of all scientists with an actual background in the field support

Statements like this are not very helpful. I'm fairly sure that a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners support the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments. Does that make it an incontrovertible fact? In other fields of science, I think eyebrows would be raised if one group, say physicists, showed a stronger level of belief in a physical concept than another group, for example chemists.

The term 'denier' is ugly and doesn't help move the science along. There are a range of issues and questions. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Have global temperatures risen over the last 100 years or so? Has man-made CO2 in the atmosphere increased over the same period? To what extent is increased CO2 in the atmosphere responsible for the temperature rise? How urgent is the issue? Will the steps proposed for mitigation actually halt climate change? What will be the social cost of mitigation? There are many scientists who will answer yes to the first three of those questions and who are included in those 97-99% figures of supporting scientists, but who have been dubbed 'deniers' by others because of their differing opinions on the other questions. If someone says they think the issue may not be as serious as made out, it's best to ask them why they think that. If they say it's a plot by the Chinese/MSM/Soros/etc., you can probably stop listening. If they point to a scientific paper or explain a statistical process, and you refuse to listen, then we might wonder who the denier is.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The label "denier" is a dishonest term, but that's to be expected from the warmunists. They are also the sufferers of TARD: Trump Acceptance Refusal Disorder.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Call him a skeptic by all means, but "denier" is a loaded term not fit for serious news.

Par for the AP these days. They are panicked about losing control over the masses, so they have stopped even trying to be subtle in their propoganda. Look for the Russian stooge tag to be applied at a future date to anyone who questions the party line.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Never saw the first one. I remember a long time ago, I think it was SUN CLASSIC PICTURES or GOLAN GLOBUS put out Chariots of the Gods and Kon Tiki and other kind of pseudo science stuff. It was produced with a panicky background and everyone, if appropriately credulous, would walk out of the theater with a doomed look on their face. I get the feeling that these Al Gore movies are similar. MIchael Moore kind of works on this level too. Would this be called DOCUTAINMENT these days?

Funny thing is that I happen to agree more or less with Moore and Gore. I just don't think that video presentations... well... they are too predigested, probably containing acceptable amounts of distortion and scare mongering just to sell tickets. So I avoid them. People need to respect themselves a little more and look a little harder for their news and information. If something is being handed to you, it is probably worthless, or at least designed to persuade you, not really inform you. In short, these movies and internet news... they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

kyronstavicDEC. 11, 2016 - 08:01AM JST Is this news or opinion from the article's author? Call him a skeptic by all means, but "denier" is a loaded term not fit for serious news.

Climate change "denier" is a perfectly accurate term for the phenomenon under discussion, someone looking at the incontrovertible evidence supporting anthopogenic climate change that something like 99% of all scientists with an actual background in the field support, but then turning around and declaring, "nuh-uh!"

It's an editorial policy made by the AP, and like decisions to no longer conceal neo-Nazis under the label "alt-right" I totally support it. It's about time our news stopped playing the equality fallacy game with people who don't know a damn thing about how climate works.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

With the Exxon CEO lined up for head of state your fantasies that America and the world is run by a) a Chinese ruse or b) a "liberal" global elite intent on enslaving us under a policy of resisting global climate change will be take a severe knock. Though I suppose you will be comforted that "science" and big business and "freedom" will win out.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I wonder if Al still thinks the ice on the north pole will disappear by 2012?

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Al "show me the money" Gore is still at work I see.

Funny that Gore has made many millions from climate change, it is, after all, a trillion dollar industry. The worse climate change can be made to seem, the more money he makes.

His company, Generation Investments Management was one of the first companies to trade in carbon credits. Gore, DiCaprio, the Academy awards, and counties other companies and celebrities all paid money to this company to "offset" the carbon they produced with their palatial homes, private jets, and car collections. A bit of every dollar collected made it back into Gore's pocket.

Yes, much of what was shown in Gore's original "An Inconvenient Truth" has been debunked, primarily the "hockey stick graph," but like other religions, the science and opinion of "deniers" is not to be believed. Especially when billions of dollars of other people's money is to be had.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

It is a delusion. It is what the globalist use to divert funds from and control over the sheep.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Good news - people such as Kyronstavic really need to understand the seriousness of this issue which unfortnately has been both politicised and hijacked by corporate lobbyists.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Ho-hum. I wonder how many corrections they'll have to issue to this edition of the alarmist propaganda so it can be shown in schools without polluting the minds of impressionable children?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

And please JT, if you're going to publish newswire articles, could you at least screen for ridiculously biased language?

Several days later, Trump picked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a climate-change denier, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Is this news or opinion from the article's author? Call him a skeptic by all means, but "denier" is a loaded term not fit for serious news.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites