Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

POV summary?

I appreciate what Pulveriser did to make the summary more or less NPOV but I still wonder if it is as neutral as possible. Or maybe I'm just imagining things? iKato 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be qualified that Al Gore is not a Scientist. Other than that, it's POV fine to me Piepants 09:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Piepants

It still isn't neutral enough... an article tends to follow its first form... this article should be written again while its still small. Pulveriser

Articles may follow their first form, but the point of wikipedia is to improve articles, not replace them.. Mathiastck 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will charge this page with biased POV, the AGW politicos have destroyed any semblance of nuetrality or balance here, it is just a political add for Gore and AGW, disgusting.

Agreed: POV is still non-neutral in tone if not in content. Example: "So much for Gore's assertion that climate change is "irrevocable."" (Section on Scientific Inaccuracies in Film). We need a some clean-up here. Gunnk 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

links Not working

The source link in the trivia section (no. 6) is apparently only for subscribers... plz someone fix

Also not working is the CNN link about Bush's response, and Gore's response to Bush's response. What is the policy for dealing with expired references? Let them be (since they still serve as URIs)? Annotate them? Replace if possible and delete otherwise? Somegeek 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay — should be working now... The lorax 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Global climate change" vs. "Global warming"

Should we change the term to "Global climate change" throughout? That is the more accurate term, since we are talking about more than just temperature, e.g. precipitation patterns. Also while the global mean temperature is expected to continue to rise, there will be likely be locations that actually get colder as weather patterns shift. Crust 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the 2 terms are interchangeable, particularly outside the U.S., I have added a single refereence that Global Warming is also referred to as "Climate Change". Mattwilkins 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Gore as Arch Druid?

This came from the Talk:Druid page; I wonder if it's not better suited in this article:

Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Source seems to be a single quote[1] from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; I'm not sure it warrants an inclusion here, but maybe in the article for An Inconvenient Truth. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly noteworthy as a reflection on the person or organization saying this, but just like comparisons of Gore to Hitler and Goebbels[2], these kinds of silly ad hominems don't merit mention here in my view. Crust 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This interests me exactly becuase of it's similarities to comparing Gore to Hitler. It seems strange to me that people think Arch-Druid is a slur. It might not be encyclopaedic, but I had not bring it up somewhere :) Mathiastck 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re whether "Arch-Druid" is a slur: fine. But there is no question that Fred Smith thinks it is a slur. If you really want to bring it up somewhere, perhaps an appropriate place would be at Fred L. Smith or possibly Competitive Enterprise Institute, maybe under a "Trivia" section. Crust 13:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kyoto

Korny O'Near made reference to a resolution that passed the Senate 95-0 that had the effect of stopping US ratification of Kyoto. Apparently, that unanimity may overstate the degree of opposition to Kyoto in the Senate at that time. I switched to a shorter, vaguer formulation in the article rather than getting into the weeds. Here is Gore on the subject in the second 2000 presidential debate:

A lot of supporters of the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because of the way it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to it in the Senate.[3]

Crust 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine. As long as it's not made to seem like just one party's responsibility, it's fine with me. Korny O'Near 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to fan any flames here (and I'm actually in the midst of reading this book as we speak, so hopefully I don't come across as anything I'm not trying to be), but I have an issue with the passage regarding the 95-0 resolution against Kyoto. I feel that the words "Republican run" are getting us into trouble. Yes, the Senate was run by a Republican majority, but the bill was introduced by Democrat Robert Byrd and, at 95-0, it's hard to make a case for party-affiliation being the determining factor. I know this paragraph isn't trying to imply more than that, but at the same time, in the quest for NPOV, "Republican run" seems to me to be a jab that doesn't need to be thrown. Opinions? Lanford 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As it is, it sticks out awkwardly...the Senate opposition is already noted appropriately enough. On a side note, the vote was merely a comment on the direction of the Kyoto proceedings which were happening at the same time. The lorax 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the wording as it is currently (simply saying "but it was not ratified due to opposition in the United States Senate"). I agree saying "Republican run Senate" is potentially misleading, because it suggests that views broke down on party lines. On the other hand I think simply quoting the 95-0 vote could also be misleading because as The lorax says that vote was not a direct vote on ratification and it overstates opposition (see my previous comment in this thread). Crust 18:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism / Endorsements / Factchecking

I saw the movie yesterday, and am very curious to see whether there has been any serious and unbiased factchecking done by a third party about the movie. I could not find anything of the sort on the net; just people taken in by its message, but not having checked anything on their own, or conservatives out of hand rejecting it, usually without even seeing the movie. I know such a section might invite controversy and/or vandalism, but if someone is aware of some kind of serious factchecking effort, could you add it? Thanks. Hatzitaskos 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hatzitaskos, click on the RealClimate link under "Reviews" ([4]). They find some minor errors, but on the whole say it is correct. (RealClimate is a blog maintained by mainstream climate scientists to inform and educate the general public and the press on climate issues.) Crust 13:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is very critical of the film and cites a number of scientists. I don't know if it'd fit into this article, but it's there if someone smarter than me wanted to check it out and possibly add it to the Reviews section. --Age234 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. That article has a lot of weird stuff in it. For one thing it tries to claim that most climate experts don't believe in anthropogenic global warming; this is pretty creative, see Scientific opinion on climate change. I've never heard of "canadafreepress.com" before, but it doesn't seem like a reliable source. Crust 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You could go read a sort of review of the movie (or its basis) at A Real Inconvenient Truth Although being doubted as to motives as a source don't make what is being said correct (or incorrect) there is a lot of, um, discucussion shall we say, about this Clear Profile and Source Watch for example. None of this proves anything, but there you are.

junkscience is not science, it is precisely that; junk science. If you want to know if the movie got it right, go to www.realclimate.org , those guys know their stuff and they will more than likely provide external links in case you need more stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.148.248.208 (talk • contribs) .

Whois canadafreepress.com

If you go to http://www.networksolutions.com and do a Whosis they claim to be a right-wing news source right there in the Whois. "conservative, Toronto, Canada, US, newspaper, website, news, International, world, right wing" I would not trust their article one bit.--8bitJake 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, way to judge by appearances. If you take time to verify the sources then you will see that these quotes are not just made up. E. g. see this article[5] by Tim Patterson[6] who is a professor at Carleton University and publisher of articles such as "Late Holocene sedimentary response to solar and cosmic ray activity influenced climate variability in the NE Pacific" in the journal Sedimentary Geology. He is just one of the prominent critics of climate change orthodoxy that were quoted in the Canada Free Press article. Also see, by the same journalist, Tom Harris, this article[7] (also criticizing An Inconvenient Truth) in the Canada National Post (canada.com). Is the National Post an untrustable source?

Please ensure you sign your comments. Anyhow, Patterson's claim that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is interesting, since it directly contradicts the claim made by the film. I'm not sure how relevant the lack of correlation over 450 million years is, and I'd much rather see someone directly refute the data presented by Gore, which shows a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temps. The Patterson quote is convenient for Tom Harris, but I'm not convinced it's relevant. ChrisLawson 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisLawson, as you suspect the 450 million year point is pretty much a red herring. A lot was different then, in particular the arrangement of the continents. I say "pretty much", because in a way there is an underlying valid point, namely that CO2 is far from the only determinant of global temperature, especially over longer time scales. The graph that Al Gore shows is correct. It is over a time frame of approximately 650,000 years (which is how far back our direct ice core measurements of CO2 go). So there's no direct contradiction here, just a difference of time scales; Gore's is obviously the more relevant one. Astrophysicists think that Earth will be engulfed by the Sun as it expands in a couple of billion years, but that is about as relevant as Patterson's point. One of the crazier arguments in that article is that without CO2 the earth would be a "frozen ice ball". So obviously Harris accepts the basic physics of the greenhouse effect in one direction: less CO2 then (everything else equal) the earth would be colder. It's very hard to fathom why he thinks this is an argument against the existence of the greenhouse effect in the opposite direction, i.e. more CO2 makes the earth hotter. Crust 15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits claiming to remove bias?

It's annoying to see thse anonymous edits claiming to remove bias. Setting records is notewory. Mathiastck 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing a negative review while keeping the positive review, if that's not bias, I don't know what is.70.48.250.87 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you're being intellectually dishonest with highlighting one bad review with a film that has received a 90% Rotten Tomatoes positive rating from 105 reviews. The lorax 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

reviews are nothing more than personal opnions. I suggest you to increase your intelligence. There's no rule that says Roger Ebert's opinion is more worthy than that of everyone else's. 70.48.250.87 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving The Register's review to the top and adding the out of context quote seem to indicate an intention to skew the article towards your own personal opinion (see WP:NPOV). The information about the box office record and links to the trailer are also perfectly valid and relevant. On a side note, questioning someone's intelligence isn't the way to resolve a content dispute (see WP:NPA). —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

claiming it's box office gross was "the highest of any movie that weekend" can be seen to be false simply by looking at box office records. Adding the Roger Ebert quote to the top seems to indicate an intention to skew the article towards your own personal opinion (see WP:NPOV). If the Register's quote is biased, then so is Roger Ebert's quote, so either both should stay, or both should be removed. Oh and, question someone's honesty can be considered personal attack, (see WP:NPA) 70.48.250.87 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, see this article: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-05-30 - it beat X-Men 3 on a per-screen average in it's opening weekend. In regards to the Roger Ebert review, it's a fair reflection of the mostly positive reviews the movie has received. Bumping up a rare negative review on AIT which doesn't represent the consensus opinion is not being NPOV.The lorax 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that The Register review was actually generally positive (the rating was 4 out of 5 "duck bunnies"); it was only the quote selected that made it appear otherwise. Perhaps we should add something to the article about the reviews being heavily slanted towards the positive (and often highly positive, e.g. Ebert review, A.O. Scott review in NYT); obviously, this requires care to maintain NPOV. Crust 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

per screen average is not a valid meansure of a film's success. The lesser the number of theaters in which the film opens in a given neighbourhood, the higher the per screen average becomes. It's elementary logic which you should be able to figure out on your own. For example, if only 1 theater in all of New York plays this movie, then the per screen average of this film would go through the roof, but it's total box office gross would be low. Theaters care about per-screen average because higher per screen average means more profit for the theater. In regards to Roger Ebert's review, wikipedia's consensus means consensus of Wikipedia editors, not consensus of the media. 67.70.57.26 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

per screen average may be a poor method of measuring success for a major motion picture, but it's the best we have for documentaries. If you would like to include other methods in the article great. In the meantime setting records is noteworthy. Mathiastck 01:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The movie's high per-screen total is relevant. But, right now, the article says it's the third highest-grossing "independent film". The other two listed movies are documentaries (not "independent films"). It's unlikely that it's the third highest grossing documentary, since it's only been out a few weeks. What about Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Hoop Dreams, Spellbound, and other simliar succesful documentaries? It may eventually beat them, but there needs to be sourcing for the claim. Lucky Adrastus 07:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The film is nowhere near the third highest grossing documentary yet. A list of highest-grossing documentaries (including Inconvenient Truth) is available here: http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm . It might become a record-setter eventually, but not yet.

Explaining reverting Anarchopedia and other edits

It looks like User:Anarchopedia has been making a lot of the edits previously made by anons. I went and changed most of those back and also made some other edits. Here are some of the things I changed:

• I put back the per-screen record. Such records are surely always notable. I think it is important to put in the caveat that it was only playing on 4 screens at the time, which is why I added text to that effect some time ago. If we are going to continue going back and forth on this, please at least note that the sentence "On Memorial Day weekend" doesn't have a verb.
• I deleted the link to Climate Audit's front page. That blog is specifically concerned with criticizing research on "hockey stick" graphs of historic temperature, which is one aspect of the debate. Gore does briefly show such a graph, but it represents perhaps one minute of a feature length film.
• I think the phrase "greenhouse gases" is better than "atmospheric carbon" for three reasons: it is more familiar to most people, it is more accurate (nitrous oxide, one of the three major greenhouse gases, does not contain carbon) and it avoids a potential confusion (methane and carbon dioxide have very different activity levels)
• I think "rededicates himself to combatting global warming" is more informative that "dedicates..." because this is not a new initiative for him.
• I believe Kristin Gore was no longer with Futurama and anyway she was not one of the writers for "Crimes of the Hot" as the previous version might suggest
• I put back in the book cover image. Since the book doesn't have its own separate page, I think the cover image should be here.
• I think one cartoon image suffices; I left the "Manbearpig" one. Also, I think the caption on the Futurama image was potentially misleading.
• The Roger Ebert quote:

"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film."

is definitely notable. Ebert is the most prominent American film critic writing today. This is a very strong statement to make. Please note that saying Ebert is prominent is not the same thing as saying he is right. One may have the POV that Ebert is a bad film critic or that this statement is the least accurate statement he ever made or whatever; it's still notable. Crust 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A link ebert's review is good enough, there's no reason why his quote needs to be put besides the link.

Climate audit does more than just criticize the hokey stick graph, it also talks about other scientific aspects of the debate.

per-screen record is not notable and most wikipedia movie articles do not mention per screen earning at all. Anarchopedia 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If the issue on the Ebert quote is the location beside the link, we can put it in text of the article instead.

On per-screen earnings: Well, duh, most films don't set records.Crust 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

per-screen earning is not a notable record. Do you also think that fact that the movie is the highest grossing movie featuring Al Gore is a record? Anarchopedia 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Per-screen earnings are a standard stat people look at, second only to total earnings. IMDB thought the per-screen record was worth highlighting in the first paragraph of their May 30 roundup:

"In another surprising debut, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, amassed $365,787 at only four New York and Los Angeles theaters -- or $91,447 per theater, the highest-ever average for a documentary. (By contrast, X3 averaged $32,554 per screen.)"[8]Crust 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

per screen average is not a valid meansure of a film's success. The lesser the number of theaters in which the film opens in a given neighbourhood, the higher the per screen average becomes. For example, if only 1 theater in all of New York plays this movie, then the per screen average of this film would go through the roof, but it's total box office gross would be low. Theaters care about per-screen average because higher per screen average means more profit for the theater. Anarchopedia 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And overall gross figures are invalid because of inflation. Total viewers would be invalid because of population growth. Every statistical measure of a movie's success has problems. Besides, are you suggesting they might have played it on less screens hoping to manipulate its per-screen average? That would be laughable. They want to make as much money as possible, not win the per-screen all time record. Gore would want the most people to see it. These goals conflict with that idea. Last, it's clearly a statistic used in the documentary world and not the invention of some fan of this movie. --FNV 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Modified sentence about AP poll

I modified the sentence about the June 2006 AP poll of scientists who had seen the movie because it left out a fairly important quote from the article; namely that most of the 100 scientists contacted either hadn't seen the movie or read the book or hadn't responded to the poll. Only 19 of the 100 contacted responded that they had seen it. This is an important clarification, because it's very possible that some or all of the scientists who disagree with Al Gore's stance might not have bothered seeing the movie, for example. Likewise, scientists who actively support Gore are going to be much more likely to see the movie. Thus the poll results are likely inherently biased in the movie's favor.

Note that I'm not commenting on or disputing the accuracy of the movie or other parts of the article. I'm simply saying that the AP poll isn't scientific, and in fact the way it's presented with the headline Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy is very misleading. Most scientists didn't even see the movie, let alone comment on its accuracy. Dugwiki 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. The sentence as you edited it looks good to me. Crust 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I fail to see how pointing out that kilimanjaro has been losing snow for 150 yrs, a senate subcommittee on the environment taking exception to an ap report on the movie, the incorrectness of gore's hockey stick, or a un subcomittee report are nontopical or biased.

There has been some controversy in regards due to the accuracy of the science in the film. · In the beginning of the film, Gore mentions his mentor at Harvard and inspiration, Dr. Roger Reville. Dr. Reville wrote an article in the 1993 claiming that science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action" with regards to global warming. [S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33] · The snowcaps at Mount Kilimanjaro have been retreading since 1850, due to a decline in precipitation. There is no direct correllation to global warming. [5] · Gore's illustrated hockey stick fails to account for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. · Accoding to United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is impossible to attribute hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, etc. to Global Warming, as Mr. Gore attempts to do with Hurricane Katrina. [6] · Sea levels have been rising 1.8 mm per year for the last 8,000 years. The IPCC states that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." [7] · Even the AP's report about the 19 top climate scientists praising the science behind the film has been called into question by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. [8]

Someone tell me what is wrong with any of these points.

Replies:

• Kilimanjaro: You can read about the consensus view in detail here [9] (Section 3). It's a complicated story, but the gist is that the retreat up to about 1900 is believed to be primarily related to precipitation and since then primarily not.
• A Senate subcommittee may not the best place to be looking for scientific opinion.
• On the hockey stick: It is not "[G]ore's hockey stick". As with all this stuff, there are people, including some scientists, who dispute the scientific studies. The appropriate question for this article is whether or not Gore is reflecting the scientific consensus, not whether the scientific consensus is correct. I do think it is a good idea to point out though that there is dissent and I've put in a sentence about that with a link to the GW controversy article.
• Roger Revelle died in 1991. His statement obviously reflected the science at that time. A lot has changed since then.
• Sea levels: Gore talks about the risk of a sudden increase in sea level if the Greenland ice sheet and/or the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse, not the slow but continuous rise we are currently seeing. You can read more here: [10].

The bottom line is Gore is explaining scientific consensus, not making stuff up as your edits might suggest. This article is not the right place for a debate about whether that consensus is correct. That said, I do think we should reflect that there is a debate and I've added a sentence to that effect as you can see. Crust 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that by including the opinion of Roger Ebert, a known liberal, see review of Life and Times of David Gael, and not including the report that has on it a committee of senators, this report is taking a political slant. You said that a scientific opinion should not be searched for at the senate subcommitte. Is not Al Gore an ex-senator, and would it be more appropriate to include the opinion of an esteemed MIT professor, such as Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

We're not quoting Ebert in the science section. Lindzen is a well-known skeptic; he is among a small minority of scientists on this stuff. It should surprise noone that he doesn't like the film. Gore is an expositor not a scientist. My contention is we should try to ascertain whether Gore is reflecting the scientific consensus and not get into the debate about whether the consensus is correct or not (in this article), other than pointing out that the debate exists. Do you disagree?

By the way, I notice you're new to Wikipedia. It's good practice to sign your posts on talk pages with by appending 4 tildes. Crust 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article pushes that Gore is correct, and any other opinion is incorrect. Also, as far as the article linked on Kilimanjaro, this is an excerpt:

"In short, Kilimanjaro may be a photogenic spokesmountain "no matter what the climatic agenda" but it is far from ideal as a laboratory for detecting human-driven warming. "

Since this is from the oft-cited realclimate.org, should it be cited?

Also, by refusing to point out the 95-0 vote, it gives an image of a substantial republican block, not one by the whole senate because of the double standard of the treaty.

nbulling

On Gore being "correct" or not, you didn't answer my question. I think we should make this about whether he gets the scientific consensus correct and not about whether that consensus itself is correct (other than to note there is a debate and link to the appropriate article). Do you agree or disagree? On Kilimanjaro, the next sentence after your quote is "The debate over it obscures the nearly universal agreement among glacier and climate experts that glaciers are retreating all over the world, probably as a result of the greenhouse-gas buildup." Kilimanjaro is one of perhaps a dozen glaciers Gore discusses. On Kyoto, see previous discussion above; it's probably best to continue any debate there.Crust 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion of An Inconvenient Truth, not Scientists consensus. I believe we should be allowed to present the case for the backers of the movie and the skeptics, as opposed to any text pointing out a skeptic's view being deleted. We know some scientists agree. We cannot read about the scientists who disagree and their exact quotes however. All you've pointed out with Kilimanjaro is scientists do not know for sure if global warming is a cause. As Al depicts that it is in the movie, I believe it is noteworthy to show there is debate. The Kyoto debate goes along with my contention that this article has a liberal POV. It feels like Fahrenheit 451, except for the firefighters are only burning the text with a certain POV.nbulling

nbulling, comparing your interlocutors to book-burners may not be the best way to foster a constructive dialogue.Crust 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(I moved some comments on Kyoto to the Kyoto section above. Crust 18:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

I doubt anything much can be written on this (at least here, if not anywhere) that isn't going to be biased. Take a look at this for example. Various from 1880 Now, what does that prove or not? How about this [IPCC from 1000 versus this NCDC Jones Mann from 1670 It's all rather pointless in a way. It all seems biased, isn't that how humans operate? You could always just go get the dictionary definitions: "Main Entry: global warm·ing Pronunciation: -'wor-mi[ng] Function: noun : an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution" or "global warming NOUN: An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change." Now those don't seem too biased.

Folks...can we keep this discussion [and the article, please] on topic? This article is about Al Gore's docudrama, not about global warming. Try to keep that in mind. Tomer^talk 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "An Inconvenient Truth" fan site link

I took out this link again after reviewing the site. I went there with some curiousity about the "personal audit" referred to in the link description, as this could be a good way to bring the impact of the film and the campaign against global climate change down to a personal level. But I was disappointed when I found that the site seemed suspect in several ways. The first bad sign was when the voice-over started automatically upon loading; to me, this indicates something surreptitious about a web site. There was no link to this personal audit that I could find; apparently you had to sign up first, whereupon you would receive something via email which would either contain or lead you to the audit. So it does seem suspiciously like someone's attempt to cash in on the ongoing Internet Gold Rush, albeit with a "green" façade. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As a general matter, I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this link should be included. However, I am unconvinced that it is likely a front for something else. I don't get what's surreptious about the automatic voiceover; the offical website automatically loads a soundtrack too, as do many websites these days. Asking for email does prick my antennas, but e.g. the blog (link removed. The site has been exploited by malicious code --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)) has a lot of content and seems to be updated regularly, but doesn't require an email. Crust 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally removed this link. I submitted one of my email address for the "personal audit". I didn't receive any information on the personal audit. However, I did receive a solicitation to join spiritual-cinema-circle.com (a netflix-like video club that ... blah blah blah). Thankfully there was an unsubscribe link that seems to have actually been honored. kenj0418 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That is more convincing. Crust 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias in review section

The review section states that the reaction has been positive from "the largely left leaning media outlets", citing Rotten Tomatoes's aggregate score and Ebert and Roeper, then goes on to include Newsmax and Reason.com as dissenting reviewers without any mention of their politics or even their names. This makes it sound, without checking the links, like "the liberal media" loves it while more neutral parties were less enthused. --4.254.118.162 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add that two of the three dissenting reviews are written by people who describe themselves as converts to the global warming concept, which I think is worth mentioning since you can believe in global warming and still not like the film, while the Newsmax review mostly portrays the film as a religious effort (while calling Exxon-Mobil's environmental record "allegedly" poor). --4.254.118.162 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Scientific Basis section

An user named likes to be anon continues to revert NPOV language to his POV, there is no unanimous agreement among scientists that GW is caused by human CO2, and many references to the scientific controversy, but this article is hopeless if people continue to bias it. Dr. JJ 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Dr. JJ

I agree; consensus is not synonymous with unanimous. Prototime (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a red herring to me; who said that opinion was unanimous? I don't think that was ever in this article (and shouldn't have been if it was). +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unfree image gallery"

Three images (1) Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg,2) Image:Inconvienent-truth.jpg,3) Image:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg)were deleted from a movie posters section on the apparent grounds that they may be copyvios. Can User:JKelly or someone else elaborate on this? They were all marked as "movie posters". Superfically at least, this looks correct for two of them, though perhaps not for Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg. Crust 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just having the correct template on the image description isn't sufficient for meeting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. We attempt to make as minimal use of unfree content as possible. If we're claiming Wikipedia:Fair use on an image that is being presented in a gallery, there is almost certainly a lack of appropriate critical commentary on the image, and there is no pressing need to make the article less free and reusable. Jkelly 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:JKelly, I think you were the one who originally removed them (on July 25). Could I ask you to comment on these specific images? Your comment is too generic to satisfy me. Thanks. Crust 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to leave you unsatisfied, but I cannot imagine what more there might be to say. Wikipedia is a project to write a free, reusable encyclopedia. Any use of unfree content, such as movie posters (and whatever Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg is -- there's no source and no description of it, and it will be deleted from our servers if this doesn't change), should only be used when absolutely essential for a reader's understanding of the article. The policies I linked to above apply to all unfree content. Jkelly 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I hadn't looked at the "Movie poster" tag closely enough. Note to self: using movie posters on Wikipedia is typically considered only barely acceptable under fair use and should be minimized (the main and perhaps sole exception being to use one such image on the movie's page as currently done here). Crust 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting as bias?

I am confused by these edits by User:Anarchopedia [11] [12]. They seem to be largely undoing formatting edits, turning prose into lists, moving the movie poster out of the infobox, adding a "trivia" section and "see also" items that are already linked to in the text, and removing the interwiki to sv. The first edit summary read "removing bias", but these changes are mostly degrading the formatting of the article and have little, if anything, to do with content. Please take the time to review the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and examine some Wikipedia:Featured articles about films to get a sense of what we're looking for. There's a lot of work to do on this article, so it would be very unhelpful to invest time in edits that will be reverted, which any edit that removes interwiki links is sure to be. Jkelly 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

doesn't make sense to put "scientific basis" section above the "origin of the film" section. Anarchopedia 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Is there some reason you're having trouble making that edit without doing all of the other things that are problematic? Jkelly 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that a bit of the critical material got excised as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And we've reacquired a trivia section, which used to be integrated into the text, a tagline section as a list which used to be integrated into the text, lost the sv: interwiki again... Jkelly 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back, there is no reason to junkify the page with awkward formatting edits.--The lorax 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Robt Lindzer

Dear editors, please try to keep in mind, this article is about the movie, not about the wider topic of global warming. Just because you may disagree with Lindzer is no reason to act like he never registered an opinion on the movie. As for the assertion that he can't be mentioned because he represents the scientific opposition, that's ludicrous. Removing him for that trumped up reason amounts to little more than wanton POV vandalism. A far more constructive approach is to find other scientific responses. Tomer^talk 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No mention of critics?

There have been plenty of people including scientists who have disputed Al Gore's claims in the movie yet there are none to be found in the article. Wait..there's a tiny, tiny mention but that's it. This article is totally 100% favorable towards the movie. I'm not saying that the article should bash the movie. However, it should give both sides of the argument without any POV bias. --Rambone (Talk) 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Think of it this way: let's say another documentary gets released this summer, this one called "A Flat-Out Lie", an exposé of the scientific bankruptcy of the few remaining holdouts who believe the Earth is flat. Part of the film includes the fact that of n scientists recognized as experts in that field, exactly zero of them agree with this minority viewpoint. Would you then be arguing that, in the interest of "NPOV", we should give the views of the Flat Earth Society equal weight to the overwhelming preponderance of scientific consensus on the matter? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If they were vocal enough then yes. --Rambone (Talk) 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The question should be, then, if there has been enough criticism of this film for it to be equally notable in this article as the praise. I agree that there shouldn't be any POV bias, but if this film has received much more praise than criticism, then this article should represent that and not seek to balance the minority opinion with the consensual opinion; doing that would be POV. However, if you agree with this philosophy but feel that the minority opinion isn't being proportionally represented in this article, then that could be up for debate. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an entirely specious argument. There is no "consensus" that the earth is spheroid, it is an established and independently verifiable fact. The fact that you (ILike2BeAnonymous) equate those who question AGW "orthodoxy" with flat-earthers suggests that you have a lot to learn on the subject. --SpinyNorman 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal

I suspect that everything that might be said about the "ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal" could be said in this article. Further, it is not at all clear to me that we should have an article describing this as a "scandal". Jkelly 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it needs mention at all, it should have its own article, but not at that title. That's a horrid, misleading title if I've ever seen one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should it have its own article? Jkelly 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should exist in any form, but if it's going to, it should have its own article. I see no reason to merge here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a short parody of this film, created in response to it, and would be like having an article on Competitive Enterprise Institute's two television advertisements arguing against An Inconvenient Truth. Why do we want to have subarticles on individual reactions? Jkelly 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The CEI responses aren't nearly as newsworthy and compelling as this is, especially considering the spin we're seeing from folks like below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be like having an article on JibJab-- which we have, based on them having done nothing but a couple videos like this (it was there since they had only the one)... Now imagine if it turned out JibJab was found to have secretly been hired by a political interest group to promote a message in their video. Give it a few days to see what more information comes up, who else is implicated, and what comments (or "no comment"s) come out about it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A major oil company hires a slick marketing agency to fake a 'nerd in the basement' bio and make a biting anti-Al Gore video? Looks like a scandal... smells like a scandal... should have its own article!! Besides, it touches on a lot more than just An Inconvenient Truth - it's also about the deceptive behavior of ExxonMobil, and the manipulability of YouTube... this thing is just beginning to open up and will probable have enough info to swamp this article soon!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we don't know if "a major oil company" put up the DCI Group to make this for them. You're being speculative and not reflecting what is known and verifiable, one of the reasons why I find the title of the article tobe misleading. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal tied it to ExxonMobil... That's good enough for me!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the link, "an investigation by The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Toutsmith is actually operating from Washington, on a computer registered to a PR company called DCI Group. The company’s clients happen to include the multinational oil company ExxonMobil." So no, they didn't. They tied it to the DCI Group, who has a client in ExxonMobil. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you change the name if you want but don't merge it into anything-- it's just as well merged into ExxonMobil or YouTube, which tells me it should be merged nowhere... but you know as much about the scandal as I do, and obviously you've been doing Wikipedia a lot longer, so I won't argue the title if you can come up with a better one... but it's the Wall Street Journal that thinks the link with ExxonMobil is significant, so they're just plain IN this thing (and come on, we know the score here)... I got groceries and stuff to do, check back manyana. //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with YouTube, beyond someone posted it there...when they could have posted it to any other site the does the same as YouTube...like Google video. I have removed that section from the YouTube article as there is no scandal on YouTube's part. A scandal, by definition, is: Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. Where is YouTube's immoral or grossly improper behavior in this? How is it that they are being disgraceful? They are not. The system worked as intended where anyone can post a video and it will be hosted on their servers...so how is this a scandal on their end? They didn't post the video to their own servers nor did they 'feature' the clip. Yes it hit the 'most discussed' and 'most viewed' list for one day but how is that YouTube's fault? That is completely the "users of YouTube"'s fault. On Another note: How does anyone know that some guy in a cube just made this video out of spite in his own time? So he works for DCI, but used his work computer to do personal web surfing. We just don't know. In anycase, this exxon/youtube scandal article a NPOV addition, Soapboxing, and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I would suggest deletion instead of merger --Bschott 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you said yourself that you're "a director on YouTube and was mentioned in the regional paper and interviewed on the three local TV channels about YouTube" so you seem to be staking out the position of Wiki-defender of the YouTube... if this started on MySpace you wouldn't be saying anything about it, but it's bringing attention you perceive as a negativity to YouTube so it looks like you want to sweep it under the rug... Also, DCI didn't say it was some guy in a cubicle, did they? They said "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients." //// Pacific PanDeist * 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

I'm against a merge. The scandal article looks significant enough, and its text is justifiably long enough, to merit its own page. Merging would clutter this article greatly, and likely cause a loss of detail. --Kizor 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to think it would be a good idea, but it is clear that I'm in the minority here. Jkelly 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against the merge on the grounds that the controversy article ("scandal" tends to be a POV word) is naturally referenced in several articles (this one, DCI Group, YouTube, as an example in astroturfing). The controversy article needs a lot of work though. Crust 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Book article

Would anyone be interested in working on an article for the book form of An Inconvenient Truth? I recently read it, and I think it deserves its own (albiet smaller) article. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

17-Aug-2006: Agree. A separate article for the book sounds good, for many reasons: (1) book became #1 NYTimes Bestseller on 11-Aug-2006 after 10 weeks; (2) obvious worldwide appeal predicting sea-level +20-40 feet; (3) related to previous book Earth in the Balance by Al Gore; (4) Al Gore has authored multiple books; (5) separate book/film precedents with "Gone with the Wind" & "The Da Vinci Code"; and (6) book can be a reference for mainstream topic of global warming. I vote for separate book article as a valuable addition. -Wikid77 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article is a good idea (though I don't feel strongly about it). FYI, I did a quick look through of the NYT bestseller lists. Up to and including this coming Sunday (Aug 20), it has been on the list for 10 weeks. It was #1 on three of these weeks, July 2, August 13 and August 20. Crust 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Blatant Bias in this article

Let's be clear: this film doesn't present "facts", it presents Gore's opinion. Whether one agrees with him or not, his opinions shouldn't be presented as fact. What is fact is that Gore has no educational or professional background that makes him an expert on this subject. His opinion is no more valid that Jim Inhofe's. Also, criticism of Gore's position by actual scientists who are in a position to know what they're talking about shouldn't be removed from this article. --SpinyNorman 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've even seen the film; perhaps like other pinheaded critics you haven't, but if you had, you'd know that it's not Gore's opinions that count in it. The ones that do count are those of practically every scientist in the field in the world. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I do know is that men who are infinitely more qualified to discuss this subject are embarrassed by Gore and his uninformed view of complex matters like global climate change. The fact of the matter is that this so-called "consensus" that people like Gore like to trumpet doesn't include anything close to "practically every scientist in the field". The really sad thing is that several of the editors here feel the need to censor legitimate critism of Gore's puerile views. I guess you're afraid that objective discussion of the issue will undermine Gore's points. Let me ask you: if Gore's views can't stand up to scrutiny, how much value can they have? --SpinyNorman 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious. The two scientists you appear to be hanging your hat on are obviously hacks, funded in large part by the energy industry and their friends. I'm sorry, but the vast majority of scientists have no doubt that we are a cause of global warming; the only remaining debate is how much warming will occur and what should be done about it. That you claim there is still debate simply gives us data with which to categorize your opinions.

Atlant 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the scientists who are taking their funding by toeing the IPCC line? Are they similarly bent? Claiming that AGW is a big environmental problem is worth billions of dollars a year in funding - why are some dollars more able to corrupt than others? --SpinyNorman 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact the film does present the consensus of *professional scientific opinion*, for the most part. Political consensus and scientific consensus are two different things. It is blindingly obvious from your edits that you are pushing a POV. The use of a term like "puerile" to describe Al Gore, and your other ad hominem attacks, say it all. Al Gore may have many massive personal faults, but he is an intellectual and ethical giant compared to the pygmies currently in office. The creation of a 'controversy' myth is a political tool and has little to do with any of the science. But *all* of that is beside the point. The point of this article is to describe the film itself. Your issues with the political and/or scientific issues surrounding global warming might better be debated over at the global warming controversy article. This is an article about a movie, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not our job as editors to insert our OR or POV into articles. Sometimes that's hard to avoid but that's the role of an editor. DMorpheus 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't get to change my header. You want to edit your own words, fine. You will NOT edit mine. As for your comments on scientific consensus, you can dress it up any way you like, but the fact that people with a POV to push (e.g. Al Gore) have to rely on consensus science to get their point across is proof that they don't have any real science behind their claims. Computer models and similar idle speculation to the side, where is the science? And the idea that Gore is an intellectual giant compared to ANYONE is proof that you need to take a closer look at the man. Just because he's a little smarter than the current PotUS doesn't mean a lot. It is like being taller than Danny DeVito. As for understanding the role of an editor... I worked as a print and broadcast journalist for years so I have experience in that area as well. The article as it stands is grossly biased against reality and the shabby attempts of POV-pushers here to revert attempts to bring balance to it - like the fact that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperatures - will be resisted. --SpinyNorman 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of your ownership of the header or the article, but you've made it clear that I am wasting my time. Back to the lab where I work, I guess. DMorpheus 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I was the one who created the header, that makes me the owner. --SpinyNorman 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be mistaken. See WP:OWN "Anything submitted to Wikipedia may be modified by others. No one has to clear any changes with any previous editors" DMorpheus 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the link you posted, you'd have seen that it applies to ownership of articles - not ownership of personal comments on the talk page. Those aren't articles, they are an individuals own words and, as such, are not rightfully modified by anyone but the person who wrote them. The talk page is a log, not an article. Changing someone else's words is vandalism. --SpinyNorman 18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it applies specifically to headers also. I've seen headers change many times on other talk pages. But I am well aware there is no set of facts or arguments that will change your mind about anything. DMorpheus 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(Agreeing with DMorpheus) It's not so clear, though, that you own the section header. The section header isn't signed by you and section headers, even on talk pages, are routinely edited for clarity, to correct typos, and to conform to WP:MOS which, by the way, yours doesn't.

Atlant 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not meant to be used to refute global warming or for any Wikipedians to refute Gore's movie. This article exists to describe what the movie is about, where the claims that movie makes are grounded, and the critical reaction to the movie. If you feel that any of that is being misrepresented in this article, and have factual, reliable sources to back that up, then feel free to present them. But if you're just complaining about how "wrong" the movie's content is, then I suggest you take your debate to the Global warming controversy article, because it does not belong here; this article has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is true or not, only with (as I said earlier) what the movie is about, where the claims that movie makes are grounded, and the critical reaction to the movie--and that's exactly what this article does. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the claims the film makes that are factually wrong? Shouldn't the errors and misrepresentations be discussed as part of the overall discussion of the content of the film? --SpinyNorman 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have critics to cite cite them. Don't go all WP:OR about problems in the film. JoshuaZ 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to do so, but a handful of censors are getting in the way. Evidently some people don't like facts to be included in articles like this. --SpinyNorman 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the handful of POV-pushers here are still trying to strip away legitimate criticism of this film. I also notice that they offer no valid basis for their censorship though I have repeatedly invited them to do so. So, how about it anonymous and Lorax? Care to support your attempts to censor criticism of Gore's blatant deceptions? --SpinyNorman 09:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading this conversation I would just like to let you know that I think you are the biased one here and that you keep ignoring the facts for your twisted, inaccurate opinions, WHICH HAVE NO PLACE ON A TALK PAGE FOR A DOCUMENTARY. The article should get across what the movie says and then direct to a page where the global warming "controversy" can be discussed. That discussion should not be here. You'd think you would have gotten the hint by now. Go away. — ChocolateRoses ^talk

Of course discussion of the inaccuracies in this film should be on this page. Why should they be anywhere else? As for your order for me to "go away"... I can only laugh. How unsupportable is your position if you have to demand that your critics leave? --SpinyNorman 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Documentary?

First, let's establish the definition of a documentary - "[A film] based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements." [13] This film basically presents the idea of global warming, which can be classified as "fact" much more easily than "opinion." The documentary doesn't assign blame; it gives the facts. Furthermore, the IMDB [14], the Washington Post [15], National Geographic [16], and the NYT [17] have all referred to and/or praised An Inconvenient Truth as a documentary. --Db099221 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis - and an unproven one at that. Any attempts to characterize it as anything else are simply wrong. BTW, the National Geographic (among many others) have criticized the lack of understanding of the subject Gore is trying to discuss in the film. --SpinyNorman 05:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A hypothesis that is believed the majority of scientists today. And that number is growing. BTW, the National Geographic link I posted supports almost all of Gore's points. --Db099221 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the consensus on global warming and the reference to An Inconvenient Truth as a documentary by the vast majority of sites on the Internet, even the conservative ones, Gore's documentary should remain classified as a documentary. --Db099221 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was causual evidence to back up the theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases are affecting global climate, then it wouldn't be necessary to talk about consensus, would it? Consensus is just another word for opinion. --SpinyNorman 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of scientific evidence, unless you're an American Republican. See any of several articles related to this.

Atlant 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an American Republican and I see don't see any scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming and neither does anyone else with an ounce of intellectual honesty. You can argue that certain current observations suggest a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas and temperature change, but there is no conclusive evidence of a causual link. Anyone who says different is a liar. Of course, the tendency is to assume that someone who opposes the use of junk science to create a public panic about global warming is in favor of unrestrained pollution of the environment. I should point out that I am a staunch environmentalist. I think SUVs are disgusting and wasteful. I walk and take public transport when I can. I recycle. I am very much in favor of increased fuel-economy standards in cars and very, very much in favor of switching to renewable, carbon-neutral fuels like bio-diesel. However, unlike people like Gore, Laurie David and the rest of their ilk (as well as their stooges here) I don't believe in lying, exaggerating or propagandizing to make the point. Plenty of good can be done with the plain truth. There's no reason to lie. --SpinyNorman 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, your claim that no-one with "an ounce of intellectual honesty" thinks there is evidence for anthropongenic global warming is pure bunk. I know that personally, because I know climatology experts personally. The science is open to question; their integrity is not. Plenty of good can be done without calling people liars. Derex 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that scientists who believe that the information we have SUGGESTS the possibility of anthropogenic global warming are liars. I'm saying that people who claim that the facts are all in, are either liars or fools. I'm sure if you went to your climatologist friends (just make sure they're real climatologists and not computer modellers posing as experts on climate) they would be the first to admit that the facts aren't all in and that when stuffed-shirts like Gore say "the debate is over", they're talking out of their asses. I apologise if I come off as a bit, well, "spiny", bit I call 'em like I see 'em. And it bothers me when one side of an important debate wants to shut up the other side for asking difficult questions or pointing out facts that conflict with idealogy. --SpinyNorman 09:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spinynorman presents a tautological and deceptive argument. First you create a phoney 'controvery', then cite that controversy as evidence that the issue is in doubt. Consensus is certainly not an other word for 'opinion' and it is deceptive (one might even call it puerile) to make that claim. Consensus is agreement. In some contexts it may mean agreement on some silly opinion, e.g., "the consensus amongst filmgoers is that Tom Cruise is an idiot" . But the only meaning that matters here is the fact that the general direction of professional scientific findings support the AGW theory. We all know the public, politicians, and the science community hear three diffent things when the word 'theory' is used. No consensus there ;)DMorpheus 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're half right. Consensus is agreement on an opinion. There is no consensus required with facts. I prefer to deal with facts rather than opinion and the fact is that there is no actual correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Climate is changing because that's what climate does. Does this mean that people should continue polluting the environment? Of course not. But the first thing people have to do is start telling the truth about the science. Nothing good comes of lies and misinformation. It doesn't matter if a person's intentions are good, if their facts are bad, then nothing good is likely come of it. --SpinyNorman 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What are these facts you speak of? How do you manage to deal with facts and avoid opinion? I don't see how your point relates to this article, are you claiming misinformation exists within this article? Are yous saying it's not a documentary if they make a mistake? Mathiastck 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the fact that there is no correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature? The largest increase in anthropogenic CO2 took plage during the middle of the 20th century and during that time global temperature actually decreased. Do you remember the hubbub about "global cooling" in the 70s? --SpinyNorman 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How does this discussion help improve the article ? I do not doubt the sincerity & passion of the contributors to this thread; however wikipedia is not a blog. It'll help to focus the conversation by talking, not about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Change per se but rather, about the article. What assertions in the article need changing or further support? rewinn 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to be more accurate, it should be stated that this film isn't so much a "documentary" as it is an editorial comment by a non-scientist on environmental politics. More discussion of the scientific inaccuracies contained in the film would be in order since the film claims to represent scientific facts. Wouldn't you say? --SpinyNorman 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is heavily linked to sites on scientific opinion on climate change, politics of global warming, economics of global warming, global warming controversy, attribution of recent climate change, etc, where the scientific issues are being addressed in detail. It's fine to include a sentence or two of context on Gore's claim, but the article shouldn't turn into a rehash of the arguments for and against anthropogenic climate change, when these are summarized elsewhere. MastCell 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But shouldn't there be some discussion of Gore's lack of education and professional foundation to considered an expert on climate change? --SpinyNorman 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Gore is claiming to be anything more than an interested layman on the topic; he doesn't claim any special educational or professional qualifications. He's portrayed as a concerned public figure presenting the arguments of experts on global warming. If Gore is misrepesenting the scientific findings, that deserves comment. If you disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, then the other pages listed above would be more appropriate forums. MastCell 03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of this film contradicts that claim. Gore is claiming to be someone qualified to interpret current scientific research on climate change. The question of his ability (and accuracy) in this area is certainly a legitimate subject for reporting in the article, wouldn't you think? --SpinyNorman 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been many lengthy debates about whether Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 should be called a documentary. That is probably more factually far more suspect than this. However, a documentary that apparently was, is, and shall be. The archived debate about whether F911 is a documentary, for Wikipedia purposes, provide useful insights here. Derex 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Moore's film, the various rebuttals to it (e.g. Fahrenhype 9/11) and Gore's film are all examples of the same thing: shoddy propaganda. Gore has no more credibility on this issue than Rush Limbaugh. In fact, Limbaugh appears to be one of Gore's sources. --SpinyNorman 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I used it as an extreme example. If F911 is a documentary, then surely this is. And you can tell by the archives that there were vigorous debates about it. See, the problem is that it is your opinion that this is shoddy propaganda. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Derex 10:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks F911 was a documentary needs to go back to school and learn what a documentary is. It wasn't a documentary any more than the editorial page is news. There's nothing wrong with editorials, they're an important part of any newspaper and there's nothing wrong with their TV/film counterparts... except that some people seem to not be able to see them for what they are. I was glad MM made F911. I think it would have been better and more effective if he hadn't been quite so clearly partisan, but it was something that needed to be done. And if Gore wants to indulge his ego and clamber up on his little global warming soap-box, that's fine too. There's nothing wrong with starting a discussion on the subject - unlike so many of the people I see here (on both sides of the issue), I think asking difficult questions and holding people's claims up to scrutiny is a good thing. But Gore's film isn't a documentary, it is barely factual. --SpinyNorman 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

who here gets to decide which films are sufficiently accurate to be classes as documentaries? answer, we do not make such judgements here. even about f911. Derex 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After about three weeks, I think a consensus has been reached here. It should remain classified as a documentary. --Db099221 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD date

Does anyone know when the DVD will be released in the US?

November 21st.--The lorax 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

"Mein Kampf" quote

"United States Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) compared An Inconvenient Truth to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf."

As I read the article, it was the reporter who made the comparison, not Sen. Inhofe. Sen. Inhofe's quote refers to repeating a lie, which is analagous to the propaganda chapter in Mein Kampf, but I think there's a big difference between (a) saying something is a lie or is repeating a lie, and (b) comparing something to Mein Kampf. Unfortunately, the reporter's email is bouncing.

It looks like you're right. I've deleted the sentence from the article. Crust 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Public showings in schools in sweden

According to this article: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/07/europe/EU_GEN_Sweden_Gore.php The movie will be shown for all school children in sweden. Maybe worth mentioning?

The attempts of a handful of POV-pushers to censor legitimate criticism of the film

Pretty sad... Are you guys really that frightened of criticism of this film and its preposterous claims that you have to expunge facts from the article? Why is that? --SpinyNorman 06:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Why is that? Crust 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --SpinyNorman 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Lorax hasn't bothered to respond... --SpinyNorman 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you haven't given any specifics for anyone to respond to. Let me pick one of your contentious edits. In the excerpt "data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years" you want to switch "showing" to "suggesting". Presumably, your issue is that there are people who try to deny that CO2 is increasing. The reality is that there is overwhelming consensus -- including most prominent global warming skeptics -- that this statement is correct, indeed that CO2 is increasing dramatically due to human action. The record is not based on proxy data (like historical temperature records); it is based on direct measurement of CO2 in bubbles trapped in ice cores. Furthermore, the trend is very dramatic,

File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png)

so it can't plausibly be due to subtle measurement error. So really there is very little to argue. Of course, some people do try. But, by that token we should also put in some caveat to "past 650,000 years" since some people argue the world isn't that old (see Young Earth Creationism).

The basic situation is this: Gore's statements are accurate from the consensus scientific point of view (with some minor caveats, see the Real Climate link). We should state this and we should also mention that there are dissenting scientific points of view that disagree with the consensus and therefore with Gore. But these views are a distinct minority and should not be a major focus of this article; the proper place for a lengthy treatment of these issues is at global warming controversy. Crust 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't fact. And you're showing your POV by holding up the RealClimate kooks as some sort of representation of climate science as a whole. They're nothing but Michael Mann and handful of his disciples desperately trying to defend the now discredited "Hockey Stick" chart. --SpinyNorman 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as your charge that all criticism has been "expunged" from the article goes, in its current state (after removal of most of your offending edits), we have the following:

• The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and Sen. Inhofe's critical comments
• Mention of Richard Lindzen's WSJ editorial
• Reference to the Canada Free Press criticism
• Ronald Bailey's critical comments

That seems like an awful lot of criticism for a work that was otherwise given such praise. Seems to me you have no valid complaint. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong about my use of the word "suggesting". I didn't use it because of those people who you claim are denying that atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Actually, I'm not aware of any such people and even if such people did exist, a quick reference to the actual data from the Mauna Loa observatory would be enough to shut them up. There is no "consensus" that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, it is a fact - backed up with objective evidence. What isn't a "fact" is the claim that CO2 levels are higher than they've been over the last 650,000 years. That is opinion. Why? Because we have no direct measurements over the last 650,000 years - all we have is proxy data, which may or may not be accurate. So saying that evidence shows "carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years", is simply incorrect. There are no data that "show" this, there are only data that "suggest it". And your suggestion that "there is overwhelming consensus... that CO2 is increasing dramatically due to human action" is both incorrect and irrelevant. First of all, consensus is simply opinion. Saying there is consensus is another way of saying that a majority of poeple all have faith in the same thing. That isn't science, it is politics or religion (take your choice).

Here are some more facts they keep disappearing because you and the rest of your censorious comrades can't handle the truth:

The fact that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global climate.

No correlation?

The claim that AGW is the cause of the Kilimanjaro glacier's retreat is hotly contested. There is excellent evidence that AGW has nothing to do with it and the actual cause is deforestation. Also caused by humans and also something that might want to be looked at with an eye towards trying to reverse it. But since people like Gore insist on pretending that AGW is the case, I don't hold out much hope for the glacier's survival. Oh the irony of the glacier being killed by environmentalists...

• The article you referenced about Kilimanjaro's glacial recession specifically says that global warming plays a role:

"Global warming plays a part [among] a variety of factors..." "[Global warming] increases humidity, and as the air gets more moist, it hinders evaporation. The energy saved from evaporation is instead spent on melting. That might seem like a good thing—to stop evaporation of the glaciers—but it's certainly not. Melting is eight times more energy-efficient than evaporation, so now, with global warming, the glaciers are disappearing eight times faster than before."

Increasing temperatures are playing a role, but you deliberately ignore the role played by deforestation. Why is that? --SpinyNorman 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I love how you lot keep removing reference to the fact that Naomi Oreskes apparently pulled the numbers from her editorial directly out of her ass. Can't stand facts, eh boys?

• From ThinkProgress:

Lindzen relies on a severely flawed study by Benny Peiser: "1. Peizer misunderstands the point of Oreskes study. The point was not that every article about climate change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn’t.

2. Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers “reject or doubt” the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”"

Rants from extremist organizations (and their bizarre attempts to read Peiser's mind) aside, I wonder why you would want to include information from such an obviously partisan source. I mean, you wouldn't want press-releases from Shell Oil cited in this article would you? I know I wouldn't. Let's try for some actual balance. BTW, if you're interested, here's a link to Peiser's attempts to get Science to correct Oresekes' mistakes. [18]

I also love how you remove actual facts cited by the Senate report and replace them with the comments by that jackass Inhofe. Nice try to construct a strawman, but is neither accurate nor appropriate to the article.

• Inhofe is the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

So what? That doesn't make his statements any less ridiculous. There is, however, some important information in that press release which you apparently won't allow in the article. Why is that?

The "critical analysis" of Linzden's article isn't done by someone with the professional or educational background to competently criticize a man of Linden's standing. You're welcome to search for one and I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding one, but until you do, the opinions of a layman aren't really appropriate to rebut the statements of an expert in the field.

An accurate representation of the CFP article is also factual information that the self-appointed censors here don't seem to like, yet they are utterly unable to come up with a valid reason to expunge it. --SpinyNorman 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Still no comment from the Lorax, ILike2BeAnonymous or the rest of their lot... I'll wait a little while longer and then restore the valid, factual information they censored from the article. After that I will treat any attempt to remove it by them as "blanking" per wikipedia policy on vandalism [19]. Just so we're clear folks, this exempts me from the 3RR. --SpinyNorman 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See above responses, I think that qualifies my edits as fair.--The lorax 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. You still haven't explained why you insist on removing factual information from the article. --SpinyNorman 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Look here, "SpinyNorman": enough with your judge, jury and executioner bullshit. You don't "own" this article by virtue of your righteous indignation over your perception that it's slanted towards GW propaganda. Besides, and more importantly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the proper venue for arguments over GW is not here. It's two doors down the hall, as anyone who's seen the Monty Python sketch knows. Take it there. Argue about the characteristics of the film here, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looks like someone needs to take a time-out. If you'd actually read and understood the points I'm making, you'd have seen that they were actually about the film and the claims made therein. You can't just demand that all criticism of the film be shipped over to another page because you think it sullies this puff-piece about Gore's exercise in self-indulgence. The really sad thing about you censorious folk is that all you're doing is demonstrating your lack of faith in the thing you admire by whinging about valid criticism of it. If you actually believe in the message of the film, why wouldn't you believe that it could withstand a little challenge? --SpinyNorman 06:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that we don't believe that "the theory of an approximately sperical Earth" needs a "little challenge" from the Flat Earth proponents. Also, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, this is the article about the film, not the article about the Global Warming debate. Whether or not your "challenge" would be acceptable in that other article might be a topic they could debate, but your "challenge" has no place here.

Really, if anyone "needs a timeout", it's you. You're going to get things stirred to the point where someone will finally be willing to start Wiki procedings against you; I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done already.

Atlant 12:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you compare flat-earthers to those who question the outlandish claims of Al Gore (remember, this is the guy who claimed to have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet") does tend to undermine your credibility. --SpinyNorman 01:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you repeat that discredited chestnut doesn't exactly help your credibility either, Spiny. Derex 07:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this, you're attempting to refute my claim by offering a link that proves it? ;-> --SpinyNorman 07:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I suppose so if that link proves your claim. But, then I hadn't realized that your claim was that Gore is a straight shooter. My bad. I know it's hard to believe anyone would think otherwise. But, there's a lot of nutjobs out there who'll swallow whatever bile Karl Rove vomits up on any given day. Derex 08:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the link does support my original statement: Al Gore made the ludicrous claim that he had "taken the initiative in creating the Internet". In reality, development of the Internet started long before Gore was elected to public office. Even staunch Gore supporters Cerf and Kahn admit that while Gore's political support was both welcome and more enthusiastic than that of his congressional colleagues, the claim that Gore had actually "taken the initiative in creating the Internet", was ridiculous and while those who had attempted to twist it into the claim that Gore had said he'd "invented" the Internet, all Gore really did was to act as a political cheerleader. Finally, I do agree with you on your use of the word "nutjob" to describe a person who believes anything that Karl Rove says. Rove has about as much credibility as Gore - maybe even a fraction less - though I'm not sure that's really posssible, but if anyone could manage it, it would have to be Rove. --SpinyNorman 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that the internet started as a DARPA project, and was in essence a little known federally funded project while Gore was a Senator? How then is it strange that the politician who most strongly supported a government funded project takes credit for taking the "initiative" in it? If no money, no internet. If that's the worst you can say against a politician, then you haven't said much. As an aside, one of my favorite moments ever was watching some guy lose a million bucks on "who wants to be a millionaire" over the question "according to the author, who was the inspiration for 'love story'"? Guy made a wisecrack about Gore, bzzzzt. Gore probably took more ridicule over that true claim than over his true internet claim. Politics -- ain't it grand. Derex 08:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, development of what was to become the Internet started in the 1960s, Gore didn't begin suckling at the taxpayers' teat until more than a decade later. A person can't "take the initiative" for something that began more than a decade before they noticed it. --SpinyNorman 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Derex, as you can see, you're wasting your time arguing with SpinyNorman; he's just an RfC waiting to happen.

Atlant 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore's statement about the Internet has nothing to do with what he's saying now nor the validity of his present case, and most certainly does not undermine Atlant's argument. Stick to arguing against what Al Gore is saying now in his movie, instead of shooting it down on the premise of past, unrelated statements. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but I was just trying to illustrate the impracticality of trying to make a point by going off on an irrelevant tangent. You're absolutely right, just because Gore made a ridiculously self-serving statement about his role in the development of the internet doesn't mean he's wrong about global warming. But my larger point is why shouldn't statements by scientists that contradict the claims made by Gore in the film be included in the article about the film? Atlant's position is illustrative of the irrational arguments made by supporters of Gore's film - that people who question the absolute truth of it are equivalent to "flat-earthers". --SpinyNorman 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, SpinyNorman seems to feel that vigorous and repeated assertion is a convincing argument. For example, above I stated (referring to CO2 record for the last 650,000 years) that "The [historic CO2] record is not based on proxy data" (emphasis in the original). SpinyNorman's response is to assert without any justification "all we have is proxy data". Of course, as anyone tolerably familiar with the global warming debate knows, in reality the record comes from direct measurements of CO2 in trapped air bubbles from East Antarctic ice cores. (See e.g. [20].) But I already explained that in the post to which s/he replied. I also take exception to what I consider ongoing personal attacks, e.g. that "you and the rest of your censorious comrades can't handle the truth." Crust 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the measurements are of CO2 and either deuterium or oxygen-18. The relationship of the isotopes measured is not, in fact, direct. Are you still going to argue that it isn't proxy data? Or are you going to argue that researchers have found a way to send equipment back in time to take direct measurements? And the fact remains that there is no correlation, even in the proxy-derived record, of a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. --SpinyNorman 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh; by that logic, we should discount all conclusions based on dendrochronology, which after all only yields "proxy" data by your definition. Not exactly a defensible position, but hey, it's yours to take if you like. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that it is proxy data? --SpinyNorman 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it makes not a bit of difference what anyone here thinks about the merits of the data or analysis. You are not competent to assess it, unless you have a Ph.D. in the field. And even if you are competent to assess it, you should publish that assessment elsewhere, because we don't accept original research. Derex 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, I hope your post above was intended to be humorous. Your argument now seems to be that CO2 is a proxy for itself. Do you know what the word "proxy" means? To quote from the proxy (climate) article, a "proxy variable is something that is probably not in itself of any great interest, but from which a variable of interest can be obtained." Or I suppose you're going to tell me that article was written by "kooks", "well-known POV-pusher"s and "censors" from "extremist organizations" (to give but a small sampling of your delightful rhetoric). Note that hydrogen and oxygen isotopic ratios are proxies for temperature not CO2. (I suppose I should mention that deuterium is a hydrogen isotope in case you didn't realize.) Crust 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

True or false: do we have direct measurements of actual atmospheric CO2 levels from 650,000 years ago? If not, then we must be relying on proxy data that attempt to reconstruct conditions that existed in the past. --SpinyNorman 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, you really are impossible. True, there were no scientists around 650,000 years to measure the atmosphere at that time. However, as I've tried to explain to you a couple of times, scientists today have measured the CO2 in air bubbles that were trapped in glaciers at that time. Really, it's very hard to deny the evidence that CO2 levels are much higher now than any time in the last 650,000 years (or the last 800,000 years based on the most recent evidence). Even the more serious AGW skeptics (say Lindzen or Veizer) won't try to deny this. Of course, if you spend your time reading redstate diaries or some equally reliable scientific source you may get a different story... Crust 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we re-hash the minutiae about global warming science in this article?

This is not the place to re-hash the minutiae about global warming science. There are other articles devoted to that. This article should report there is some debate within the scientific community about the nature and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and it should link to the relevant articles. Derex 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the place to rehash the debate over AGW as a whole, but it is certainly the place to question claims made by Al Gore in his movie, wouldn't you agree? --SpinyNorman 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what is appropriate to evaluate in this article is whether Gore's statements are accurate from the consensus scientific point of view (and the answer seems to be largely yes as per e.g. James Hansen book review, RealClimate review, etc.). We should also note that there are dissenting scientific points of view that disagree with the consensus (e.g. Lindzen). I think we should mention that there is a debate about the reality and extent of AGW, but this is not the article to go into the weeds of that debate.Crust 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't proof of anything. Consensus is opinion. What wikipedia policy says is that facts are to be reported. Some people say Gore is right, other people say he's full of shit. Both facts should be reported and let the reader decide for themselves. The problem is that too many POV-pushers here seem to think that people are too stupid to be allowed to see both sides of the issue. So they insist on removing valid criticism of Gore's claims in the film. Clearly, this page isn't the place to fully service the debate on AGW, but that's what links to other pages are for. However, this page IS the place to talk about what various scientists think of Gore's claims in the film... wouldn't you agree? --SpinyNorman 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't proof, yes. But that's a straw man. If I thought it was proof, I wouldn't advocate mentioning skeptics at all. As I said, I think it is helpful to state that the film is apparently accurate from the consensus point of view (with some minor caveats). Naturally, skeptics like Lindzen disagree with AIT (and this should be mentioned), but I don't think Lindzen has any disagreements with AIT that he wouldn't also have with e.g. James Hansen to pick the arguably most prominent climate scientist working today.Crust 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Lindzen et al's material objections to AIT are really objections to the consensus scientific view not specifically to AIT.Crust 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, since Lindzen specifically mentions AIT, his comments are relevant to it - as are comments by any other scientists relevant to the claims made by Gore in the film. --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A scientific consensus may not be proof, but it lends extraordinarily more credibility to the notion that somethings is true rather than it is false. It would be POV to attempt to balance the consensus view with the minority view in this article or make it seem that a minority view should be accepted over the consensus view; the views should be represented in the article as they actually are in reality. Do you not agree, Spiny? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. History is littered with examples of the evangelists for the "consensus" being completely full of shit. Skepticism is the only rational and logical approproach to those who can't tell the difference between consensus and science. --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And once new research uncovers further knowledge, a consensus view may be changed. That does not mean that what exists right now should be discarded. As of right now, a consensus view on this issue exists, and that is what this article should portray - not serve as a sounding post to refute it. Furthermore, to compare the hundreds upon hundreds of legitmate scientists who agree on this matter to non-scientific evangelists is an incredible stretch; this matter is a scientific consensus, not a religious consensus seeking to portray itself as truth. You cannot legitametly compare the Global Warming debate to a religious debate--as much as you may disagree with it, there's a reason why scientists around the world agree on this matter, and it's not because God told them to. The skeptics are fine in the article, for as you have said science is based on healthy skepticism; but to portray Global Warming as a mythical consensus equal in validity to a historical evangelist consensus would be misrepresentative and is unfounded. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should take the same approach as in another such controversy:

• Flat Earth has: "The notion of a flat Earth refers to the idea that the inhabited surface of Earth is flat, rather than curved (see Spherical Earth)."
• Spherical Earth regrettably lacks a link to Flat Earth. POV no doubt. rewinn 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd example. First of all, there is no "consensus" that the earth is spheroid. It is an established fact - a fact that can be verified by anyone who wants to conduct any one of a number of conclusive experiments. AGW is not a fact. It is a theory that cannot be proved or verified with our current level of technology and understanding of global climate. Therefore, there is no valid comparison between the two debates. --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)