Jump to content

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Denial/skeptics

I think that piping to GWD is a bad idea, especially "hidden" behind GWS [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Have we considered piping that to Global warming controversy? The problem with the current link (and also with redirecting global warming skepticism) to the scientists page is that not all GW skeptics are scientists or fit the entry criteria of that page. Shouldn't global warming skepticism be a redirect to global warming controversy? Oren0 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal AIT discussion on the RfC

It has been brought to my attention that some editors feel that having the regular parties involved commenting within the RfC "amounts to trying to undue influence the commenters and if the bait is taken - lead to long discussions that have no place there."

I must agree, which is why I had created a section similar to this one on the The Great Global Warming Swindle. I simply didn't think to do it here until now. Consistent with WP:TALK#Others' comments I do not feel entitled to move other material from the RfC to here as some of it has become interspersed. I hereby grant other editors permission to make a good faith move of my material from there into this section as long as they do so for their's as well.

Moving forward I would request that any comments which are likely to lead to lengthy discussion be conducted here rather than there. --GoRight 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the opening sentence begin with "An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial ..."?

The relevant discussion areas in the talk page are here and here.

What about VOA does not meet WP:RS? And this is about the summary. The summary is to represent the contents of the article, so if this is something handled later in the article it is ok to mention it in the summary very briefly. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Your open mindedness and willingness to accept, or not, uninvolved outside input is duly noted. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You would more than one reputable source to say that this is generally "controversial". -- Reaper X 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I can dig up more if that's not sufficient for you. "Controversial" is really a common adjective when describing this film. It doesn't have to be in the opening sentence, but it certainly belongs somewhere in the lead. Oren0 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1. We've shown at least 5-10 sources from newspapers, etc that call it controvrsial directly. Do I need to dig them up again? 2. I still think that adding another sentence to the lead describing the controversies would be reasonable. As I've mentioned previously, the current article is 38% criticism/controversy, while the current lead is about 6% criticism/controversy. Clearly, the lead doesn't represent the contents of the article as is. Adding one short sentence to the end of the lead that mentions the High Court case and the controversies in schools would likely end this argument that's been going for months. Oren0 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I don't think anyone doubts that the movie is controversial to a segment of the U.S. political arena. What people are protesting is the undue weight that an inclusion of the controversial wording in the first sentence in the lead would give. Let me suggest that outside people who comment on this RFC, take a bit of time and read through the extensive discussions that are on this Talk page (and the archives), to get a feel for the various arguments for and against the inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    This is actually a bit non sequitur. If issue X has 51% of the world population agreeing with it and 49% of the world population disagreeing with it, is it fair to say that it is "controversial"? (Note I am using these numeric values to illustrate the point only.) But you will always be able to point to some subset of the 51% and say, "well it isn't controversial to them." I also think that unless you can substantiate that significantly less than about 15% of the population across the big pond are not skeptics, your premise is flawed as well. [EDIT: Here is a recent British poll which claims 56% of Britains "believe the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim." Presumably a reasonable percentage of these people would also be skeptical of the claims being made in AIT where the British court ruling argues "[the "errors"] do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration?"] --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment: I can see why people who like the film might not want it in the first sentence but that is really the best place for it because then it requires just a one word add. Otherwise you probably need a whole sentence in the lead and I like brevity. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, ridiculous, discuss critiques later. Neutralitytalk 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. This movie is controversial in the broad sense of the word (take a look at its talk page to make up your mind). Besides, I know few movies that have been the object of a Court decision, and even fewer that have been Court-declared as politically biaised. This movie is among the best examples of controversial movies that we can have. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. it's politically controversial in the US, but scientifically and in other countries its certainly isn't. Calling the movie "controversial" would be a clear example of US centricism. Jefffire (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I agree with KDB. The controversy the movie has caused in some segments of the US population is much less notable than e.g. the Oscar, the Nobel peace price, or the commercial success. In contrast to GoRight's argument, the fact that the movie is part of a controversy does not automatically make it controversial itself - for that it would have to be the subject of the controversy. The debate is adequately addressed later in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. No need to specify in the opening sentence whether it is controversial or not. Labongo (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Although the movie is controversial in some quarters, it is not a salient aspect of the movie. This selectively controversial nature is discussed later on in the article as is appropriate, but it does not belong in the first sentence. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:NPOV. It is no more necessary to begin this article with it being "controversial" than it is to begin the Saddam Hussein article with "Saddam Hussein was the psychopathic dictator of Iraq". If the film is controversial than the facts presented within the article itself should be enough to determine this and thus make the "branding" of the film as controversial unnecessary and POV. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I agree with Bobblehead and Labongo. To add controversial within the first sentence would immediately set a POV tone that suggests that the content of the movie is in doubt without ever presenting any facts as to why. Instead let the criticisms stand on their own and leave weasel words out of it. --Tao of tyler (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Question (and thanks to many commentators): I notice a number of you say that it is mentioned later in the article. It seems to me that wikipedia writing guidelines say that the lead paragraph should summarize what comes later in the article. Doesn't this suggest a mention of controversy should be somewhere in the lead? Either as one word in the first sentence (for brevity) or as a line toward the end of the lead paragraph such as "The film has been described as controversial due to the criticism it has received regarding its content or conclusions". --Blue Tie (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence in the intro states plainly that some people disagree with it, adding anything else would be slightly redundant IMO. Jefffire 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead sentence in question is about 10 words. We've proposed slightly expanding that sentence to include the word controversial and to mention the high court case, but those edits were reverted as well. As has been mentioned previously, the controversy/criticism are a WAY smaller portion of the lead then they are of the rest of the article. Therefore, it's not representative of the content of the article. Adding another 10 words to that sentence would be an acceptable compromise to me. Oren0 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. It is a time honored Wikipedia tradition to state the facts, not offer opinions. Present the genre of the movie, which is documentary, and can the opinion, which is that it is controversial. 199.125.109.58 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Oren0, it doesn't need to be in the first sentence, but it should be mentioned in the lead. I also agree with Kim D. Petersen. Read the extensive discussion here on the talk page and in the archives. A few different versions of the lead have been floated around. Elhector 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Controversy should be mentioned in the introduction, but not necessarily in the opening sentence. -- Vision Thing -- 14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. It is not controversial in a mainstream international context. 202.89.151.224 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. No statements in the movie are controversial in the scientific community, although, some facts in the movie were construed in a manner that was misleading, to the angst of many (myself included). However, over the past several years, none of the articles on global warming that appeared in peer-reviewed science journals reflected skepticism (somebody did a study on this, but I can't remember who it was). The funny part about the entire "global warming controversy" is that new studies suggest that we may be effected by CO² saturation in the ocean far worse and sooner than by changes in temperature and associated weather pattern changes. All kinds of fun experimenting with the environment! Daniel Santos (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. The meaning of the word controversial is "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." When a tiny minority disagrees, no matter how vehemently, it doesn't qualify for the term "controversy." The scientific community, the public, and the British High Court have all spoken. The film's message is accepted. It is not "controversial."

Proposed compromise

Replace the end of the lead with the following or something similar:

An Inconvenient Truth was well received by film critics, scientists, and politicians and won two Academy Awards. The film has generated some controversy, however, including a British High Court case regarding its proposed showing in schools. Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".

I don't believe this is undue weight as the High Court case is highly notable but received lots of press, and thus as a major controversy belongs per WP:LEAD. It also brings the lead more in line with the rest of the article. It uses the language generated controversy rather than controversial directly and it shows rather than tells. I think this incorporates pretty much everyone's opinions and seems like a fair middle ground to me. Thoughts? Oren0 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried this compromise a little while back and it didn't fly. I still believe this is a fair a compromise though. Elhector 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would find something along these lines acceptable. I personally might combined the last two sentences by joining them with ", and" but that is a small point. [On a side note, is it necessary to redundantly mention the Academy Award bit in the lead? It is mentioned in both the opening sentence as well as here which seems undue weight to me. This is only an observation since I only noticed it just now.] --GoRight 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The above statement is well-written and I like it. The only part that I disagree with is the "generated controversy." It seems to me to be semantics to say that "generated controversy" is somehow not saying that it is "controversial." As I've said above, the word controversy means "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement." What we have here is a relatively small minority of diehards who are trying to make it an issue and are largely failing. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take a quick poll on this compromise to see if anyone has any objections to it and why. Please sign and comment below:

I agree this or something similar is a fair compromise:

I disagree that this or something similar is a fair compromise:

  • Disagree. The film is not controversial. The British High Court ruled against the complainant. Mention of controversy does not belong in the lead. Sunray (talk)
The lead doesn't say it's controversial. It says that the film generated controversy, which I don't even believe to be a matter of debate. See a ton of sources, the High Court case (which is generated controversy regardless of the rulings), and even An Inconvenient Truth#Controversy. Oren0 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that is semantics. To be controversial requires "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement." This hardly qualifies. And it is not up to us to make the judgement call that AIT has "generated controversy." We could look for a reliable source that says that, but we will then get into an argument over whether some attack squad's blog qualifies as an RS. We need to respect the vote, above, which was 15/2 against making reference to controversy in the lead. No compromise is needed here, IMHO. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not what the above was. The above was 15/2 against saying the film was controversial in the opening sentence. If you actually read the comments instead of the votes above, you'll see that many people object to controversial in the opening sentence but not in the lead in general. That's the purpose of this compromise. This compromise has stood for a week (which is a long time on this article) with no reversions or changes from either side. You're new to this issue; please realize that this is something that has brought several talk page arguments, RfCs, etc. If we've found something that's stable and agreeable (though the pro-AGW crowd hasn't commented on this compromise, they all watch this page and show implicit agreement by not changing the lead in a week), please don't be the sole voice of dissent and then revert it. Oren0 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. It has stood without being reverted, so don't revert it. You may want to google for circular reasoning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it has stood without being reverted or even disagreed with. Therefore, attempt to discuss and change the consensus before reverting. Oren0 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A version standing for a week doesn't make it sacrosanct. We are trying to improve articles to be the best they can be. I brought in new information and raised some concerns. I pursued the matter below, and my concerns have, at least for now, been addressed. Compromise is not inherently a good thing, BTW. Collaboration, on the other hand is what WP is all about. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow... not sure what to say here. Elhector (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thought about for it bit. Sunray, you're correct when you say collaboration is what WP is all about. That's exactly what was going on above. An RfC was posted, some people wanted the lead sentence to have the word controversial and a lot didn't. Some also chimed in stating that controversial should be in the lead, but not in the lead sentence. Then another idea was pitched asking for comments on the new idea which addressed a lot of editors concerns, people commented on that and the consensus of the people who chose to participate in the colloboration was that the compromise seemed to address everyones concerns. The language was changed and nobody said anything about it for a week. Seems that collaboration triumphed and the arguments on this talk page had subsided. Then all of a sudden an editor who has not been involved in any of the collaboration or discussion pops in and changes everything that was discussed without any regard to any of the long discussions, work, or collaboration of the editors that were involved in trying to improve the article while trying to make a serious attempt to address everyone's concerns. I'm sure you could see how some editors would be peeved by this and have a hard time assuming good faith. I would encourage you to take another look at Oren0's comment's here and also the volumes of discussion on the talk page and the archives of it on this subject. I think you'll find the few concerns and issue's you've raised with this compromise have already been discussed and that this compromise was created to deal with those precise concerns as well as those of other editors. I understand that being bold is also a major part of WP, but on things like this that tend to turn volatile we find it's easier to discuss things point by point and reach an agreeable solution that ends uncivil debate and edit warring. That's almost what we had accomplished, but now it seems a freshly healed wound on this article will be re-opened now. Elhector (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial in Germany, too

The statements above by some editors, which imply that the film is controversial only in the United States, are false. I just took a look at the German Wikipedia talk page for the film. I don't think there are very many Americans that contribute to German Wikipedia, yet there is substantial controversy on that page, just as there is here, saying similar things. The film is controversial for a simple reason: it is being promoted as being accurate, and it is provably inaccurate. That fact can be observed by people who care to inform themselves anywhere, not just in the United States. Vegasprof (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"potentially catastrophic"

From [2] which I know isn't gold plated and 100% Al Gore and Laurie David approved but will hopefully suffice here:

Effects of Global Warming
Europe has just had a year very similar to the one we’ve had where they say nature has just been crazy crazy, all kinds of unusual catastrophes like a major hike through the book of Revelations.
Flooding in Asia, Mumbai, India this past July (2005): 37 inches of rain in 24 hours, by far the largest downpour that any city in India has ever received. A lot of flooding in China also. Global warming paradoxically causes not only more flooding, but also more droughts. This neighboring province right next door had a severe drought at the same time these areas were flooded. One of the reasons for this has to do with the fact that global warming not only increases precipitation world wide, but it also relocates the precipitation. Focus most of all on this part of Africa just on the edge of the Sahara. Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing. That has been complicating the other problems that they also have. The second reason why this is a paradox: Global warming creates more evaporation of the ocean that seeds the clouds, but it also sucks moisture out of the soil. Soil evaporation increases dramatically with higher temperatures. And that has consequences for us in the United States as well.

Here Gore is talking about events that are already occurring and labeling them catastrophes. Presumably the entire point of the movie is to convince the viewer that GW could make these types of things worse? A 20 foot ocean rise or shutting down the ocean conveyor wouldn't be considered catastrophic in comparison to these things?

Can you please put it back? Please? --GoRight 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be disproving your own point. I don't see why "dangerous" isn't good enough William M. Connolley 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Because "dangerous" seriously understates the level of potential impact that Gore clearly is trying to convey in the film. A loose board on the celler steps is dangerous, a 20 foot sea level rise displacing millions of people would be catastrophic. Shutting down the ocean conveyor and creating a mini Ice Age in Europe would be catastrophic.
Do you disagree that the major worst case scenarios hypothesized in the film would be considered catastrophes if they came to pass? And directly comparing the effects of global warming, that is what this section is titled, to "a major hike through the book of Revelations" isn't meant to convey "big things are gonna happen here"?
I have already agreed that he hasn't stated that these things WILL happen, only that they COULD happen. Hence my shift from catastrophic to potentially catastrophic. If AGW is NOT going to be catastrophic what is all the hoopla about anyway? This is a fairly worded characterization of his actual position in the film.
I once again ask you to please put it back. --GoRight 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


You appear to remain unconvinced so allow me to provide some additional evidence below. Now, could you pretty please with sugar on top put it back? Oh, and add the bit about a "planetary emergency" while you are there as well please?

References off of the movie’s official site:

(1) http://www.climatecrisis.net/: Click on “Reviews.”

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/?critic=columns: Click on the “About” tab.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/about.php

Note that the full text is copyrighted by Paramount Classics so I won't reproduce it here. I think fair use would allow the following:

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. A catastrophe we have helped create. [...] In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his “traveling global warming show,” Gore is funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our “planetary emergency” out to ordinary citizens before it’s too late. © Paramount Classics

(2) http://www.climatecrisis.net/: Click on “Download the free companion educational guide.”

http://www.participate.net/educators/: Create an account then download the full guide.

http://www.participate.net/educators/system/files/AIT_Curriculum.pdf

The following is found on page 30 of 59 in that PDF and is labeled as "Reproducible #4":

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?

Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening, and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitats, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.2

Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.3

The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.4

At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.5

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years—to 300,000 people a year.6

Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.7

Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.

Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.

The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.8

More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.9

(3) Since the above is part of a study guide, let's include here a letter from a student about his reactions to the film (not directly from the official site):

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/01/30/warming_trend/

A WHILE ago I watched "An Inconvenient Truth," and I became very alarmed. Al Gore gave scientific facts, numbers, and pictures to show global warming's catastrophic effects. This movie forced me to try to find ways that I can help and alarm others about it. This is why I want to address the children of our generation, since we are going to live in this changed world. We all need to act to protect our environment, because otherwise we are going to suffer the consequences.

Global warming is apparent all around us. Glaciers are melting and polar bears are threatened because of a lack of ice. Statistics say that in 50 years, sea levels could rise by 20 feet, which would flood Boston and bring billions of dollars worth of damage worldwide. Global warming is something we all need to be aware of and work against any way we can.

DIMITAR STOIL DIMITROV Chestnut Hill

The writer, 11, is a sixth-grader at the Edith C. Baker School in Brookline.


Guggenheim’s perspective:

(4) http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0624,conklin,73511,2.html

Guggenheim decided to attend some of the 1,000-plus multimedia tutorials Gore has presented since George W. Bush took office. "I was just blown away about how convincing his argument was," says the 42-year-old director. "It all comes from his core values."

Beginning in the summer of 2005, Guggenheim spent six months on the $1 million documentary, traveling throughout the nation to find the most suitable backdrops to chronicle the specter of drought, famine and catastrophic storms. And drowning polar bears? "Well, no, that was simulated."


Other informational resources

(5) http://environment.about.com/od/aninconvenienttruth/An_Inconvenient_Truth_Al_Gores_Call_to_Action_on_Global_Warming.htm

Information about "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary film that chronicles former U.S. vice president Al Gore's efforts to sound a worldwide alarm about the urgent need for action to prevent the catastrophic effects of global warming.


News outlets

(6) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

[…]

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

(7) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-truth13oct13,0,3934855,full.story?coll=la-home-nation

"Does it feel better than an Academy Award?" said Scott Burns, a producer on the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," a film version of Gore's multimedia presentation about the catastrophic effects of climate change. "It's interesting. I don't think it's a question that's ever been asked before." But the ultimate answer is that yes, it does.

(8) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html

In the slideshow presentation that is the central part of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore lays out what most researchers consider to be the worst-case scenario for global warming, with total melting of polar ice caps, a sea-level rise of 20 feet and catastrophic flooding and droughts.

(9) http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=8874

The documentary brings with it charges that Gore might be using the film as a platform for a 2008 presidential run. This is crass, really. But from Anderson Cooper's CNN show to a recent wishful New York magazine cover story (Al Gore is ``The Un-Hillary!"), the media is happy to explore the political possibilities, while leaving the film's catastrophic ecological issues alone.

(10) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/24/gores_truth_turns_up_the_heat/

Al Gore's new film opens in the United States today carrying the same scary message that he's been spreading for two decades: that the world is facing catastrophic climate change because of the negligence of mankind.

(11) http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/02/10/25m_offered_to_blunt_global_warming/

"We are now facing a planetary emergency," said Gore, who has become one of the world's leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

[…]

Gore and Branson said that although scientists are working on technologies to capture carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at power plants and other industrial sources, no one has developed a strategy to remove gases already released into the atmosphere. Those gases are contributing to an increase in global temperatures that could have catastrophic results in the coming decades, they said.


Miscellaneous movie descriptions and reviews:

(12) http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp

Nevertheless, the risk of a catastrophic melting and break-up of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets is very real, when we consider that sea level before the most recent ice age was 15 feet higher than it is now. Gore is right to draw attention to what might happen if sea level rose 20 feet.

(13) http://www.cinemattraction.com/?p=303

The scientific community generally agrees the planet is heating up, that we are primarily responsible, that the effects are catastrophic and that we have only a tiny fraction of time to reverse the coming cataclysm.

(14) http://movies.ign.com/articles/710/710758p1.html

Understanding the basic concepts prove fundamentally important since the film wastes little time in getting to scientific observations of shocking significance. With the rise of CO2 emissions has come a rise in global temperature, the consequences of which - from animal and plant extinction to the melting of the polar mantle to worldwide flooding and exodus - are both catastrophic and horrifying. Moreover, they are real. The film makes clear that should mankind continue down, as Gore puts it, a "nature walk through the Book of Revelations," these events are bound to happen - not "ifs" but "whens."

(15) http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/murie140207.html

The evidence, some of it amazingly concise, demonstrates that we and planet Earth are in deep trouble. We will have to think hard and move decisively. It is too late to turn back global warming, loss of species, spread of exotic diseases, and deaths of forests and marshes. However much we try, glaciers and polar ice and permafrost will keep on melting. Immediate reversal is out of the question, but there is a fighting chance for slowing things down enough to forestall a sudden shift toward more catastrophic consequences.

(16) http://www.newslocale.org/world/wnews/al_gore_and_ipcc_share_2007_nobel_peace_prize_20071012542.html

http://www.democrats.com/node/9036

http://www.progressivedvds.com/servlet/Detail?no=127

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced," Gore warns.

I was bold and put it back. Everything above is more than enough evidence for me to support the change. Elhector 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth/Archive_16&oldid=1136516839"