![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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
Anonymous: I found your reference to my edit as "ethnic cleansing" incredibly offensive. Derex 22:49, 15 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)
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>
</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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone nominameted this article for deletion? Ha.
24.107.66.62
23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Any idea on when this movie will be released in India? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.241.130 ( talk • contribs) .
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).
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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) .
Where is the presentation held? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this film rated as being of "top importance?"
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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
Anonymous: I found your reference to my edit as "ethnic cleansing" incredibly offensive. Derex 22:49, 15 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)
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>
</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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone nominameted this article for deletion? Ha.
24.107.66.62
23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Any idea on when this movie will be released in India? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.241.130 ( talk • contribs) .
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).
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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) .
Where is the presentation held? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this film rated as being of "top importance?"
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)