Jump to content

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Keynote, PowerPoint & Apple cross-promotion

Under "Promotion" I added this note, which was later removed by user Crust: "In the film, Al Gore, who sits on the board of directors of Apple Computer, is often shown with his Apple notebook computer. Apple Computer carries the trailer for the film on its Web site." This is factual, and I think that this is materially important as it may indicate a potential conflict of interests. Any thoughts/comments? --Johnlogic 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it may just indicate that:
  1. Gore has better things to do with his time than dink around with Windows, or
  2. Apple gives all of its Board members PowerBooks. Atlant 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gore owns a Powerbook, and didn't bother to spend money to edit it out of the film. 75.153.221.227 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Apple carries many upcoming movies on their website(in fact, a lot of people I know go there just to get movie trailers). The idea that that would be part of some conflict of interest is a bit odd. Also, it would in any event need reliable sources that make the accusation. JoshuaZ 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, JoshuaZ, perhaps my use of the term "conflict of interest" goes a bit too far, but it is certainly a vested interest in Apple and, as such, his display of Apple product is notable. I'm not trying to make an accusation, just stating the facts: Al Gore sits on Apple's board of directors (source is right here on the Apple Computer and Al Gore pages, neither by my doing) and the trailer was on Apple's site. In any case, I think to leave out this disclosure could be deemed "lying by omission." (BTW, I try to waste as little time as possible dinking around with Windows, too.) --Johnlogic 06:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As Johnlogic noted, I deleted this subsection. Here was my edit summary at the time: delete "Cross-promotion" subsection which insinuates the movie is an ad for Apple or something; if someone wants to put this back in sourced to some critic that's OK with me. To my mind, Johnlogic's comments don't address this. I think the heading "Cross-promotion" is indicative of endorsing the POV that Gore was advertising for Apple. I think the opposite case goes something like this: Sure he is shown working on his computer and giving a Keynote presentation, but that's what the documentary is about. The fact that his presentation is often incorrectly described as a Powerpoint presentation (a Windows program) suggests that if this was an advertising campaign, it was a particularly unsuccessful one. I'm deleting again. Like I said, if you want to find a third party making an accusation based on this and put it in a controversy section or something like that, that's OK with me.Crust 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely cross-promotion: one promotes the other and vice-versa. But, I'm clearly in the minority on this one, so will accept the delete and move on. Thank you all for your comments. --Johnlogic 14:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The revision of this article I read was erroneously promoting Microsoft describing it as a Powerpoint presentation. I removed the reference to Powerpoint as innappropriate advertising. The review by Brightlights linked also referred to it as a Powerpoint Presentation. The Times online review also referred to it as a Powerpoint presentation. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8210-2353378,00.html I have read and I'm sure I can find other reviews which have made the same mistake, I suspect lazy journalists have been referencing older revisions of this article. Although it would be my preference not to mention either brand name it is an unfortunate necessity to clear up this disinformation. At the very least making it clear that Apple Keynote was used will help avoid the incorrect reference being added back in or the error spreading any further. If I recall correctly Apple claim not to pay (at least not directly) for Product Placement and wouldn't you know it is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Apple shows trailers for all kinds of films on their website, this case is no different. Horkana

As one of those who reverted your edits, all I can say to you is "chill"; as it stands now, the article correctly identifies Gore's presentation as using Keynote. The only references to PowerPoint are in external linked articles, which are obviously not subject to our control. So those religious warriors who are trying to promote either one of the great religions (Mac or not-Mac) can relax. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not promote either but if someone was calling a drink Pepsi when it was clearly Coke and they could just as easily have used the generic term cola you would be calling it stupid too. Horkana
The question is whether the reader will be better informed about __this movie__ by a discussion of a reviewer's product error. I believe the answer is no. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. It is intended to inform the reader about the subject of the article. Derex 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous: I found your reference to my edit as "ethnic cleansing" incredibly offensive. Derex 22:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have; I was referring to the removal of the review with "PowerPoint" in its title by that other editor. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
alright. sorry i snapped at you. the phrase has been a peeve of mine for a long time. it drives me nuts that the media have adopted the word 'cleansing' for such a barbarous, repulsive, & often genocidal practice. i'd rather not see it used lightly (or at all), but it was no reason to jump on you. Derex 10:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by Horkana that the disputed review contains a "glaring error" about PowerPoint vs. Keynote: if you read the review, you'll see that the only error is that the reviewer mistakenly says that Keynote is the Apple version of PowerPoint. To which all I can say is: BFD. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a crappy poorly written review with nothing particular to recommend. If as you say the Powerpoint/keynote discussion isn't relevant then there is no point linking to that review. You cant have it both ways. Horkana

Indent citations

In other articles, it has been noted that citations to webpages should be expanded as footnotes that include the author/group, title, and date of a reference, so in case the webpage expires in a few months, the reference can still be hunted by title or author, perhaps found on other webpages or in print journals. The problem caused by expanding most citations to have author/title/date is that the citations can become huge within a sentence and clutter the text of the article, unless formatted to avoid the "mass-of-text" appearance. I have found that ref-tag footnotes can be indented (with restrictions), similar to a block-structured programming language, to improve readability of all the added details, without totally obscuring the original sentence with a "mass of text" about the cited author/webpage/publication. The following is an example of an indented ref-tag (where "ref-tag" will be "ref" in the actual citation):

<ref-tag>

John Authore, "Title of Topic Story," MyOrganization, May 10, 2006,
webpage: [http: //www.sourcewebsite.org XXX-Story].

</ref>

The main restriction is to never split a bracketed link "[xx yy]" across 2 lines using a carriage-return newline (or the link could appear as unlinked text); however, each separate text line (after carriage-return) can be indented (such as by 5 spaces), similar to a computer programming language where each line has a carriage-return. Also, the lead ref-tag cannot be separated by a blank line from the prior sentence phrase, or the Wiki-formatted line will split. There is no reason to impose a standard indentation: it could vary, throughout an article, such as indenting the author name by 5 spaces, or 7, with no strict limit. Indented ref-tags can make it bearable to have a dozen footnotes in a paragraph without appearing, internally, as a complex mass of text. -Wikid77 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

If a handful of self-appointed censors are going to remove "inconvenient truths", then we're just going to have to live with the tag until we reach some sort of agreement. --SpinyNorman 05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are my current concerns (though this list will probably grow)

  • I object to the characterization of Gore's original presentation as an "educational campaign" as Gore doesn't seem to have any professional qualification for educating anyone on the subject of climate science - or any science for that matter.
  • The discussion of Naomi Oreskes' un-refereed editorial in Science without any discussion of the mistakes she made in it.
  • The discussion of the statement by the US Senate on Gore's film limited to the inclusion of Inhofe's outlandish remarks and excluding any discussion of the factual errors made in the film as well as the AP article which is mentioned just above it.
  • The inclusion of an unqualified criticism of Richard Lindzen.
  • The censoring of material from the CFP article.
  • The censoring of movie reviews critical of both the film and the contents of it.
  • The removal of physicist W. R. Johnston's critique of the claims made by Gore in the film
What—"we're" going to have to live with the (totally disputed) tag because you—seemingly alone among editors here—object to the article? That's rich! Talk about a "manufactured (non)consensus".
What you're basically doing, Spiny, is trying to hold the article hostage. Ain't gonna work. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is disputed. Deal with it. I'm not holding the article "hostage", I am requesting some balance and NPOV and, until it happens, the article will be accurately labelled as disputed. --SpinyNorman 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you point to specific diffs where each of the above happened, and whether they were supported by any editors at all other than yourself? You are the only one I can see on this thread with even a shred of doubt about the central theme of the documentary, and hence a disputed tag is not correct, as it is simply one person doing the disputing against general consensus. Ansell 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Note the following from WP:NPOV#Undue weight by Jimbo:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Ansell 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That means wikipedia only shows consensus ideals? Whomever came up with that policy might do good to read Thomas Kuhn. Tristangreer 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems you need a course in basic logic first. "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong" != "only shows consensus". And if you don't like the policy, its better to discuss it on the policy page, not here William M. Connolley 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting facts about "our hedgehog"

(I've taken to calling him—or her—that, after they were so labeled by another editor in an amusing edit summary; I leave it to those involved in recent dust-ups here to figure out who I'm talking about.)

Interesting: I went over to a couple of related articles (Global warming controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change) and looked at the histories, expecting to find lots of edits by O.H. Imagine my surprise when I found not a single edit by them on either article. That ought to tell us something, since those are the proper venues for the objections he/she has raised here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't "belong" to any of you, so it is highly inappropriate of you (or anyone else here) to refer to me as "our hedgehog" and I will thank you to never do it again. Second of all, the objections I have raised, while they may or may not be relevant to the larger discussion of global warming controversy, are absolutely relevant to the discussion of Gore's film. I wonder why you have failed to grasp this simple fact. Maybe you're too busy thinking about summer homes. --SpinyNorman 06:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as we're being pedantic about an obviously flip comment, I don't consider myself to own my wife, my street, my country, or even my cat. I certainly don't feel I own my annoying neighbour or my horrible pain in the neck. Somegeek 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a simple fact, it's an opinion. And it seems to be a minority opinion. Does anyone else agree with nobody's hedgehog on this point? I think we should consider a poll on the matter. Derex 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiny just pulled a weeklong block for a 3RR violation. Just posting notice here, because most of the recent discussions involve Spiny, and so will be interrupted. Derex 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe; how much you wanna bet that 64.230.48.114, who has been putting back the metallurgical GW-denying stuff lately, is actually Spiny editing anonymously? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm; maybe I take that back, since among other stuff the anon editor put in this: "Yet the debate rages on even as Gore trains hundreds of follows to spread the message of his film." At least Spiny can write better than this. Unless he's being even more clever and disguising himself as a semi-illiterate editor ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this editor is Spiny or not. But the user went over 3RR and I have just reported them on the board. JoshuaZ 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Political response - Australia - John Howard

Currently this article says that Australian Prime Minister John Howard would not meet Al Gore to talk about the issue. That is refuted by an interview that Al Gore gave for the TV show 'Enough Rope', in which Gore claims that Howard is a friend of his and that they had a discussion earlier in the day.[1] Could someone make sense of how to include this addition into the article? Thanks. Stuart mcmillen 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD release in Europe?

Anyone know if/when the DVD will be released in Europe (i.e. region 2)? Or will it be region-free? It is not currently available for pre-order on any of the European Amazon sites, and the US site does not specify whether the DVD has a region code. Mtford 20:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the documentary is currently released on theaters in France since last week. Hence a DVD release would be ready 6 months from now, I guess. Lilliputian 13:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The disc I rented was region-1, though it plays fine on a region-0 player. I think DVD movies may be required to have them. The only DVD I've ever seen not have one was a collection of images (not a movie at all; not even any dialogue) by an independent filmmaker.75.153.221.227 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No. By the official DVD consortium rules, Movies can be region 0 (i.e. not region-locked), and all players should play them. I've got few independent and European movies released this way. DVD drives are required to be region locked, but since the market really hates locked players, nearly all can be unlocked rather easily.--Stephan Schulz 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF? No "Criticism" section?

As I understand it, controversial works always have a "Criticism" section. I have no idea why everyone is arguing about whether the SCIENCE is controversial, since we should be arguing whether or not the FILM is controversial. Even if what you people say is true and there is a consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming, there is certainly not a consensus among the viewers of the film, the public, politicians, etc. Therefore, since there have been numerous and well-documented attacks on the FILM (please don't turn this into an argument about the science) by many people in the public sphere, not just scientists, this page still deserves a "Criticism" section. Honestly, it's shocking to me that anyone would be arguing over whether it belongs in this article.128.253.190.173 19:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so a scientific criticism section is out of the question as sources for it would be hard to find and would violate the Undue weight section of the WP:NPOV policy. However, in popular terms there has been a wide degree of discussion about the film. Maybe it would be appropriate to develop a suitable paragraph here so that other editors can comment on it before it going live, as it is very likely to generate discussion either way. Ansell 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, there is no rule (at least there should be no rule) that any article needs a "Criticism" section. Such a section should be included if it's warranted. The question is, is it?
If anyone can demonstrate (and provide citations for, natch) that there is significant controversy over this film—and the usual right-wing axe-grinding, talk-show-hosting, global warming-doubting, oil-company shill characters don't count—then by all means create such a section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say "the usual right-wing axe-grinding, talk-show-hosting, global warming-doubting, oil-company shill characters don't count"? Certainly, they are pretty important, mainstream people criticizing this film, and are partially the ones influencing, by the film's admission, 53% of the American population, which, in America at least, would mean the majority of the public believes that global warming as a science is controversial, which would mean that the many people who did not see this film would nevertheless have criticisms of it, much like GW Bush (who, whatever your opinions of him may be, still carries weight as a mainstream figure due to his office) and others. Additionally, the aforementioned people you described have large audiences and followers, so yes, their criticisms definitely should be taken into account and added to this article.128.253.190.173 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
the public skepticism figure is actually about 19%. Derex 21:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where anyone gets these figures, short of pulling them out of one's ass. (Supply some citations and I'll temper my skepticism.)
ILike2BeAnonymous: Lovely language, gentle sir. And a good day to you as well. What, you think no one's ever though to ask that question in a public opinion poll? They do have an entire industry devoted to those, you know. Here's one on world opinion (yes there are humans outside the U.S.). Here's another of only the U.S., which states "19% feel it [global warming] is due mostly to natural causes". Exact figures vary by poll, but there's not a whole lot of skepticism that global warming exists, is a problem, and is at least partially attributable to human activity.I recalled the figure from a poll I saw not too long ago, for which I don't recall the source. I obviously would have felt a need to carefully cite things in an article, but this is just a discussion. But, you might try flexing your Google fingers for about 5 seconds before basically flat calling me a liar. Derex 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To explain my proposed exclusion of the opinions of those from certain quarters, upon which I was (probably rightly) called above: what I should have said is that we can discount the "controversy" emanating from the usual suspects whose job it is to manufacture the illusion of such controversy; I think everyone knows of whom I speak. If it can be shown that the public at large has real doubts about this film (not global warming), and that there is a corresponding lively ongoing discussion of this topic, then we can safely say that there's controversy surrounding this film. Otherwise, no. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I also wonder why possibly disengenous (or whatever you might call it) criticism should not be included. When reading about a person, I often check the article's backlinks to get more information about what they've said, done, etc. that might not have made a mention in their article. All too often, it's to track down some stupid thing some talking head said. It might not add a lot to this article, but it does add to Wikipedia as a whole. Somegeek 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
128.253.190.173: it is an interesting philosophical thought to believe that controversy at a public level means anything at a scientific level. If we believed everything the media told us we would possibly still think smoking was healthy and beneficial, as the media tried to tell us for many years after scientists first decided it was harmful. In the same vein, what is the difference with us not putting down opinions which do not actually rebutt the film, simply voicing the same things that these people have always said. If they made relevant comments about the content of the film then there comments may fit. It is not to me so much a question of not having what is possibly an influential mainstream media section, "represented," more being a question of whether their commentaries show they relate enough to the subject of this article to deserve representation. Merely naming the film in this sense does not to me give relevance. Ansell 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The film actually does have some factual inaccuracies/misrepresentations. In the film I remember it was implied that the Aral Sea is shrinking due to global warming. This isn't actually the case, it is shrinking due to massive water diversion for irrigation. I have been hearing criticisms of the movie, mostly certained around the fact that although much of what Gore says is true it remains a propogandized and politicized film. I know theres is criticism along these lines out there and it is worth including in the article. (Topkai22 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)).
It probably also should be pointed out that more then the 19% mentioned above find themselves at odds with the movie. There is certainly evedence that global warming works in cycles, and that we will eventually see global cooling, that said, even us "right-wing axe-grinding, talk-show-hosting, global warming-doubting, oil-company shill characters" recognize that human contribution is a real factor. It's just in light of the fact of self-rapairing ozone layers and enviromental cycles, it is viewed as a highly overstated issue, which some feel is being played up to help legitimize a hardline enviromentalitst platform. Piuro 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Self-repairing"? I refer you to the Montreal Protocol, like the Kyoto Protocol, except it was actually implemented and did some good. Ozone levels will remain seriously depleted for at least another 30 years, due to very long-lasting CFC's. What in the world political sympathies have to do with interpretation of basic science escapes me. Yet right-wingers tend to scoff at a fairly overwhelming scientific consensus. And yes, it actually is an overwhelming consensus. Go figure. Not that left-wingers don't do the same thing with, for example, food irradiation. Derex 01:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The ozone, the environment, and the world in general have NOTHING to do with whether or not there should be a criticism section for the MOVIE. Denying the fact that there is criticism from mainstream figures as well as the commmon public is simply denying the truth. A piece was done by the Canadian Free Press citing a (non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobbying) professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia, who calls the arguments made by Gore as absolutely ridiculous. The article cites numerous climate experts who say that what Gore is claiming is misleading. The article can be found here if you must have a citation. The idea that this movie is somehow noncontroversial, or worse, above criticism, is ridiculous.

But that very argument is flawed. How can the movie be contraversial without the science behind it being flawed? What's left to be contraversial? The whole movie is based on educated people about the possible effects of this global warming phenomenom. That is the movie. If you argue that the movie is contraversial, you argue that the science is wrong, which is just incorrect. The only arguments made against the movie are right-wing extremists who believe that by adding in some completely unscientific section to make it seem that as opposed to scientific fact, which global warming is, is just an idea by a minority which is wrong. Any how can you claim that the ozone, the environment and the world in general have nothing to do with whether or not the movie is contraversial. The movie is about environment, so this article has everything to do about environment. The only way the movie could be contraversial is if the science were somehow flawed, which just isn't true. Claims that a criticism is needed are attempts to further a political ideology. Leave political criticism for political articles. This article is about a documentary done into science, NOT politics. He states that Washington itself has not done enough. Keep attempts to further your flawed political ideology away from science. You should also avoid openly admitting that the political right wing is willing argue against a scientific consensus, because the Wikipedia deals with fact, not opinion. I could find an article against basic mathematics and say that I disagree that 1+1=2 or that blood carries oxygen to the heart, but because I disagree does that mean that suddenly that article needs to have a criticism section? No, because opinion aren't opinions when they directly contradict fact, and that fact is that the average temperature has risen with the average amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air! Oh yeah, and the Canandian Free Press is a biased organization. Stop Me Now! 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"How can the movie be contraversial without the science behind it being flawed?" For example, people may say that the film is boring. Or people may not like the inclusion of personal aspects of Gore. Or .... 87.163.67.34 14:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, those would be critiques, but they hardly make the movie contraversial, they make it a bad movie. The arguments here have been about the science, which are flawed and biased. Stop Me Now! 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Political

I liked the film except when he makes all of these snide little political remarks, and then says 'its not a political issue, its a moral issue'. By making fun of Bush he is making Bush supporters hate him and not take his theories seriously. If he were serious about wanting to stop global warming as opposed to getting revenge on the guy more people voted for, he wouldnt have to make those snide remarks. 140.159.2.31 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as you'll recall, more people voted for Gore. But that's all pretty much a non-sequitur to this article.
Atlant 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah dude, way know what happened. And I don't think he makes snide remarks because he's trying to get revenge, I think it's because, generally, Republicans tend to play down, if not completely ignore Global Warming. 24.107.66.62 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If Al Gore hadn't been so busy trying to invent the internet maybe he could have won the Presidential election, but probably not. This is not a movie its more like a how to on using powerpoint. (Reiland, 2007)

Where are the Sources??

Is there any comprehensive list of the studies Gore references in his movie? The closest I can find at climatecrisis.org is the "Science" section:

1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."
2 Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
3 World Health Organization 4 Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frefick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J, Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
5 Nature.
6 World Health Organization
7 Washington Post, "Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change," Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006, Page A1.
8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Also quoted in Time Magazine, Vicious Cycles, Missy Adams, March 26, 2006.
9 Time Magazine, Feeling the Heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.

I think some of these are vague, and do not mention the authors, etc. For example it references the WHO but not the name of the WHO study. Is there a better list available somewhere? If so, it should definitely be included.--72.75.82.125 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just ordered the companion book & will be able to read it within 3 weeks. It is a 345 page length text from which the conference was shot as this documentary. Sources are to be referenced there. See you, Lilliputian 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

For no obvious reason, User:Ab.angadbhat nominated this for deletion [2] as "vandalism". This is incomprehensible, so I've speedy-kept it. Discuss here... William M. Connolley 11:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely just a bad-faith nomination.
Atlant 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Someone nominameted this article for deletion? Ha. 24.107.66.62 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

India Release

Any idea on when this movie will be released in India? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.241.130 (talk • contribs) .

Sympa's edits

Umm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this article is not the place for a page-by-page hostile critique of the book. Summarize criticisms and link to critical authors in the appropriate section of the article. Also, Sympa's criticisms are a mix of well-founded, adequately sourced criticism, along with some questionably reliable sources, some original research, and some unsourced patent nonsense (for example, it's actually not "paradoxical" that GW could cause droughts in one area and floods in another). In any case, this is not the place for a blow-by-blow of the GW controversy, and major additions/changes need to be discussed here first given the controversial nature of the article. MastCell 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

Not to dispute your comment, but the "unsourced patent nonsense" you refer to is actually Gore's own words; he says "Global warming paradoxically causes not only more flooding, but also more drought." 24.60.196.65 04:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's absolutely true. It's the use of that "paradox" (floods and droughts in different areas) to argue against the existence of global warming that I had in mind when I used the phrase "unsourced patent nonsense". I should have been more clear; thanks for pointing that out. MastCell 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A section on scientific support is OK but how about a well documented one on scientific rebuttals?

Answering MastCell's constructive criticism, I have eliminated my small section on inconsistencies that he did not like. I have also cut down to size my proposed section on scientific rebuttals. To seek your collective editorial approval before I include this section in the article, I am passing it by you all. I think this section would provide a more balanced NPOV as to the overall scientific basis behind "An Inconvenient Truth" including both the pros and cons.

So here it is:

Section DRAFT:

Al Gore relied extensively in supporting his arguments on the summary statement from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, the science within the body of the IPCC Report chronically contradicts the Report’s own summary. This theme is thoroughly described in the book: Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming edited by Patrick J. Michaels.

Many scientists, based on their independent research, have not observed a correlation between CO2 concentration and rising temperatures. Professor Tim Patterson, paleonclimatologist at Carleton University in Canada discovered that the Earth was a lot colder than now 450 million years ago with CO2 levels 10 times our current levels as quoted in the Canada Free Press: [3].

Here are just a few more specific statements included within the An Inconvenient Truth book that scientists have rebutted. This list is not exhaustive. Many other scientists have rebutted many other pages of this book.

  • On page 25, CO2 is stated as the most important greenhouse gas. It is not. Per the climatologists at [RealClimate.Org] "water vapor is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66%) of the greenhouse effect, and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%."
  • On page 75, he mentions the heat wave of Europe in 2003 who killed 35,000. But, this heat wave was not due to global warming but unusual low barometric pressure that eliminated seasonal cooling winds. This conclusion was reached by the scientists staffing the United Nations Environment Program and Rasool (2003). The death toll in Europe was terrible, but part of the blame falls on Europeans lack of use of air conditioning. In the United States, heat-related mortality has fallen as urban temperatures have risen. See Robert Davis study that documents the decrease in heat related mortality for major cities in the U.S. in chapter 8 of [Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming].
  • On page 80, he makes a causal link between rising ocean temperatures due to global warming and increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado found that once hurricane damage is normalized for changes in population, infrastructure, and inflation, there is no long term change in hurricane damage. See also Randall Cerveny study that indicates there has been no increased frequency in hurricanes in chapter 5 of Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.
  • On page 190, Al Gore describes the prospect of 40 feet rise in sea level (20 feet each due to the melting of ice cap in Antarctica and Greenland) within this century. This prospect contradicts even the United Nations' IPCC, source of the "consensus" analysis which still overestimates future warming, only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8 meters (4 to 30 inches) in the next 100 years. Additionally, per Patrick Michaels, as described in his book Meltdown, the Antarctic is gaining ice mass, not loosing. And, Greenland's ice formation is nearly balanced. Additionally, Greenland’s ice is almost entirely contained within a bowl of seashore mountain range. Thus, little melted ice would reach the ocean. So, the prospect of experiencing sea level rises of 40 feet within this century is not realistic.Sympa 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, here are the problems I have with the section as proposed:
  • "Shattered Consensus" is questionable as a scientific reliable source for the purposes of this article; it's non-peer-reviewed and seems to be made up of articles that didn't make it through the peer-review process and so were published in book form. These articles did not emerge spontaneously from a scientific process; they were collected to make a point after, apparently, failing to make it into the peer-reviewed literature. Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm basing this partially on the WP page on Shattered Consensus, most of which you authored. Certainly, presenting it as equal to, or "debunking", the IPCC report is inappropriate. There's a pronounced over-reliance on this one somewhat dubious source in the proposed section.
  • The Canada Free Press is a partisan media outlet; it's a double-no from WP:RS (popular media covering science, and partisan agenda). You could cite it as political criticism of Gore or the book, but not as scientific criticism.
The AP is infinitely more biased than the Canada Free Press. Ymous 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The tone implies that a vast "silent majority" of scientists disagree with the film's conclusions and makes significant use of "weasel words". Stick to what's citable/sourceable, and avoid "many other scientists think..." etc. Further, characterizations such as "it's all computer guesswork" are POV and misleading; computer modeling is a central scientific tool. If specific criticisms of its use in this context exist, cite those.
  • Again, there is a problem with reliable sources throughout. RealClimate.org is a non-peer-reviewed blog; citing it as the last word on scientific matters is at odds with WP:RS. The overarching problem is that you're presenting a bunch of non-peer-reviewed books, popular media coverage, websites, blogs etc as categorically debunking peer-reviewed research, the IPCC, etc.
I'm not against a section summarizing scientific criticism, but the proposed addition has problems with POV, weasel words, and reliable sourcing (certainly the sourcing does not back up the tone, which suggests that Gore's arguments have been decisively debunked). Thoughts from the more regular contributors to this page? MastCell 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's really not OK. This should state that there is some scientific debate. It should then point to the relevant articles on that debate. Let's not re-invent the wheel here. Derex 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is with much disappointment that I am leaving this article. I can tell that despite the best of goodwill, my coeditors irascibly will censor any mentioned valid scientific criticism.

  • A statement from an established paleonclimatologist, Professor Tim Patterson, is immediately dismissed because he was quoted from a media source not to the liking of editors.
  • Book sources are deemed unacceptable. That's even though the book itself is written by scientists for scientists with tens of pages of references.
  • Additionally, even statements within An Inconvenient Truth such as a prospective rise in sea levels of 40 feet within a century is going to remain unquestionned when it is in stark contradiction with the IPCC itself.
  • What Al Gore, a benevolent politician, states with (most of the time) the support of the IPCC summary (that contradicts its own science) is unquestionable. What scientists state is barraged by immaterial technicalities.

Do you ever wonder why only 19 scientists out of a 100 answered the request to comment on Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Along the same line, peer-reviewed articles are considered the gold standard of scientific discovery. However, in numerous domains the current scientific process is bankrupt. This is because anyone who challenges the current global warming groupthink does not stand much chance to get published. You can investigate the topic yourselves.Sympa 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia. I'm sorry that we didn't immediately all agree with you, but working together to come to a consensus is how articles get better here. Leaving in a huff because your suggestions were challenged is your prerogative, but I'd encourage you to stay and work with us. I know it seems like people are being arbitrary and repressing you, but please read WP:RS (again). Specifically, the section entitled "In science, avoid citing the popular press." It has nothing to do with my likings, and everything to do with Wikipedia policy. The book source is not completely unacceptable; I objected to the way it was counterposed to peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC as if it had equal validity, when WP:RS holds that it does not. The number of references a work contains has no bearing on its quality or correctness (if anything, they can be inversely proportional). Your comment about sea level rise may be correct, but consitutes original research; again, please review the relevant policy to understand why I objected. Next, the 19 scientists who responded agreed with Gore's interpretation. We can speculate endlessly about what the other 81 think, but not on the article pages of Wikipedia. Finally, please understand that every proponent of a discredited, minority, or pseudoscientific concept claims that the "mainstream" is conspiring against them and hence the lack of published peer-reviewed literature. That's not an argument that will cause us to lower the bar for what we accept as source material. Again, I'm not dismissing the validity of the criticisms; I'm talking about how these things can be framed in a manner that meets WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and all the other policies that guide us on these controversial articles. MastCell 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
MastCell, your points are well made and well received. I just think this article has a POV within the Scientific basis section that is unbalanced. Just a single rebutting scientist is mentioned. But, he is immediately dismissed by a link to a biogeographer that disagrees with him. The last nail is hammered into his coffin by mentioning that he works for an organization that is in part supported by energy corporations.
An Inconvenient Truth offers ample opportunities for an objective pros and cons informative sharing of the current state of global warming studies as conducted by credible scientists. I think I am the second editor who gave it a try. And, I think it is time for the third one to give it a go. Heck why not you, MastCell. You have an excellent handle of all the relevant Wikipedia policies. And, you obviously know the subject well.
Over the years, I always looked at Wikipedia as an excellent source on double checking the truth behind many movies I had seen. I really love that about Wikipedia. I hope this intellectual tradition does continue as it provides a huge educational value to the general public. In some cases, it is easier said than done.Sympa 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you in general about the movie offering an opportunity for scientific discussion; but there is a general feeling that re-fighting the global warming debate is an inappropriate use of this page, since the controversy is covered in much more detail elsewhere on Wikipedia. In general, the best "criticism" sections are developed by a genuine critic who is familiar with the arguments in question. The section is then passed through regular contributors, people of other viewpoints, etc to get it into appropriate shape for a WP article. I know I sound like an ass quoting a bunch of policies, but they are the only thing that keeps these controversial articles from degenerating into free-form tit-for-tat pedantry (of course, sometimes that happens anyway). MastCell 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your points are well made. The internal link you refer to is most interesting and relevant. I just find it POV-like that there is plenty of room to support the opinion of the author/director in this case; but, there is no room allowed for any dissention. Regarding many other movies (period pieces, historical and nonfiction types), I found Wikipedia very forthcoming in disclosing where such movies had diverged from the facts or had glossed over the complexity of certain issues. Why is it different in this particular case? Would we treat a movie about the Holocaust or the Viet Nam war with similar lack of NPOV due diligence just because the issue is treated elsewhere? I hope I have reasonably convinced you or others that a short rebutting section would significantly enrich and rebalance this article.Sympa 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a relevant list of scientists that dispute some of the mentioned scientific claims made in the movie. Someone else removed it for unexplained reason. As is, the article reflects the dissenting view of a single scientist (that is again quickly dismissed by a rebuttal). I think this smacks of POV.Sympa 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a list of scientists, it was a std.skeptics recital, almost without doubt copied in from elsewhere. We shouldn't be re-running all the pro- and anti- GW arguments and lists on this page. But if there is a pro-science section there should probably be an anti-. But that list was rubbish William M. Connolley 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing the list you question, it seemed appropriate. The list disclosed specific names of scientists, their discipline, degree, and universities they came from. I am not sure what else you would expect from such a list. You just make an egregious assumption to censor that list on a wholesale basis. I invite you and other editors to reconsider this list or come up with your own. Right now, the article suggests that 19 scientists wholeheartedly support every aspect of the movie and only one does not. The 19 receive ample additional support for their views through text, links, etc... The single one that does not gets a single link that rebuts what he stated. Even though many of us may think this reflects objectively the current state of knowledge on the issue (it can reflect what the Media conveys to the public); it does not reflect objectively the consensus level within scientific circles (95% most probably not). A movie/book article should reflect the complexity of the issue and not be a thinly disguised endorsement/advertisement for the movie. OK, someone comes up with a list we can agree with. I think the original list just mentioned had some good names that do not need to be automatically excluded. Sympa 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. Please be a bit more careful before flinging accusations about. As to the list: I don't see any source for most of those names. Of them, several are definitely not sci by credential. And what is that "Phil Jones" bit at the end - is that sourced from this? If so, how reliable are the rest? William M. Connolley 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you accept my apologies. I interpreted your comment as commission instead of association.Sympa 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia lists the Canada Free Press as a conservative website. Is it really fair to list a website that has such a contraversial background as fact? 24.107.66.62 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gore family

The fate of Gore's relatives is one of the human interest points in the film. There should be at least small explanations of the roles of his father, sister and son. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) .

Location

Where is the presentation held? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) .

In various venues, all over the world.Crust 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Earth as a dot image

The image that shows Earth as a dot circled in blue is practically invisible in the article. Could someone enlarge it so it will be easier to see without clicking on it? Thanks. AstroHurricane001 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, and you could have. It the XXXpx part of the image tag (the original is large, it gets scaled down for the page).--Stephan Schulz 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Inhofe quote

Discussing the nature of Inhofe's campaign contributions before one even quotes what he says is clearly poisoning the well. The intent is to plant in the reader's mind the implication that whatever his quote is about to say, it should be discounted; I don't know of a more dishonest way of quoting someone. I could very well go around and every time Al Gore is quoted, note that his various campaigns have received N amount of dollars from environmental groups A, B, and C who advocate radical positions X, Y, and Z. Let's play fair, please? - Merzbow 02:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's what poisoning the well means, taken from the linked page:

"Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say..."

The sentence I reverted is as blatant an example of poisoning the well as can be. - Merzbow 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be class A already?

well-referenced, broad coverage of topics under the film, good lead, etc. etc. IMO. what do others think? Berserkerz Crit 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth was nominated for Good Article status at WP:GAC by Berserkerz Crit. I think it meets the criteria at WP:GA? therefore it passes. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to keep it's status, it's going to need to fulfill the two citation needed requests. Either sources need to be added or the statements removed.--Nehrams2020 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, although I still think it meets the criteria. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That was quick. I didn't expect GA nominations to be that swift. =D. I wasn't a significant contributor or a frequent visitor of this article before but ever since having watched this film, this article is on the top of my WP priorities. Berserkerz Crit 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually it is swift when an article advances the obvious left wing agenda of this web site. ONe is allowed to post criticisms of any/all conservative topics - Christianity, Creationism, Republicansm, Gingrich etc, but counter points are not allow on left wing talking points - evolution, communism, socialism, global warming, etc. Ymous 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've delisted it; there are still citation requests, sections that need turning into prose, and POV disputes. Jkelly 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your delisting. For one, the article hasn't had much time to be totally different from the reviewed article assessed as GA by JamesKidd. Second, the citation requests aren't requests per se, the request is for the existing references to be listed under one format (ref instead of sup and external jumps). Third, I don't see any sections needing to be turned into prose. And POV disputes will always exist because Global Warming at present is controversial, with people either believing it or skeptical about it. This is not a Featured Article that demands the strictest standards, GA status is still apt for the article's current form. And really, there isn't much edit wars for POV disputes in the article, it is only here in the talk page that there are POV disputes, and that's because the purpose of a talk page is to talk about how the article should be written. Some of the comments here aren't even about the improvement of the article but just comments on the article's topic which is Global Warming. Berserkerz Crit 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bush's comment taken out of context, leads to POV

I was reading through the article and got to the An Inconvenient Truth#Political response section and read through Bush's comment which says: 'He later stated that "we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects."' My first impressions were, what a moron and what should we be focusing on then? Interested in what else he said I followed the reference and found sure enough that the quote was shortened to give this exact POV. What he actually said was: "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment." That second quote doesn't really make him look stupid because he's talking about trying to solve the problem by developing new technologies, which is just another take on how to minimize human contribution to Global Warming. I've added the rest of the comment to minimize the POV. --Codingmonkey 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Berserkerz Crit 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we do not need to "set this aside", as the source of greenhouse gases is not under any reaonable debate. This question is really settled among anybody with a shred of knowledge, even the usual deniers/sceptics.--Stephan Schulz 12:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the quote is abridged is to point out Bush's audacity in not seeing the film, while at the same time saying we need to "set aside" whether global warming is caused by man. The lorax 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well as I stated before, when you read the original abridged quote, you get the impression that Bush is a moron because he doesn't seem to care about Global Warming as he says that you need to set it aside, but doesn't say anything about tackling it. The full quote shows that he does actually have a plan. --Codingmonkey 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you are right, we all know that main source of greenhouse gases is naturally produced (i.e. not anthropogenic) [4]. Anyways, I don't really think that your comment is appropriate to this particular discussion. If you want to comment about the topic of the Bush quote, go ahead. --Codingmonkey 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In Mr. Bush's full comment he was referring to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate plan, therefore I added a link to that article. --Codingmonkey 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Top importance

Why is this film rated as being of "top importance?"

That rating is subjective. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berserkerz Crit (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Because liberals run Wikipedia. That's all there is too it. They even go so far as to delete conversation on talk:pages that provides documented evidence of their left wing bias. Ymous 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Who is "they"? Derex 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. There's no doubt that it's an important movie, but it doesn't rank up there with the likes of Casablanca and Citizen Kane. It's a good documentary and all, but there's nothing much groundbreaking about it. All of the information in it has been established and all the film does is show Al Gore giving a slideshow presentation.

Agree with Berserkz.. this should be a Mid article, information already exists, how woudl this happen? Elementalos 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well. I've changed the parameter. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth/Archive_2&oldid=163048771"