Al Gore has been pushing his recent film about global warming. I watched him last night, and it was obvious to me that he was not portraying science-everything in the film is calculated to bring a message-that
:
(1) the earth is heating up
(2) human use of fossil fuels is causing it
(3) catastrphies as a result of global warming are in store for us
Now, Al gore has the right to propagandize as he sees fit…however, I would hope that this film might include some balance (I haven’t seen it). For those of you who have, is there any balance in it?
Gore 9in the interview) talked at lenght about the immenet melting of the Greenland and West antarctic ice sheets. What is the consensu on this? I have heard that the glaciers of Southern Greenland are moving faster and dumping more ice into the sea-but some are saying that the Northern greenland icecap is growing.
As for antarctica-I’ve heard that the sea ice is shrinking, but snaowfall on the continent is growing.
How much of Gore’s film is based on fact?
[Propaganda:
- The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
- Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda)
Yes, it is propaganda. Propaganda does not mean “false” or “inaccurate.” Or, for that matter, “unscientific.” Although it certainly can be one or more of those things. Is Al Gore’s movie false, inaccurate, or unscientific? I don’t know, I haven’t seen it. I’m just tired of seeing people use the word “propaganda” as a synonym for “untruthful.”
It’s generous to call the Bible propaganda.
Overwhelming.
These are couple of attempts at misdirection being propagated by CEI (an political advocacy group funded by the oil industry). Both the thickening at the interior of Greenland and the increased snowfall in some parts of the Antarctic are predicted results of Global Warming. They are evidence FOR GW, not against it.
Pretty much all of it represents overwhelming mainstream scientific consensus.
So what if it is? Propaganda is not always false.
As Miller said, ‘propaganda’ says nothing about the truthiness of a given piece.
And, I think you would be hard pressed to find a documentary that doesn’t push a particular perspective about a topic. The idea that a documentary is 100% unbiased and un-opinonated is just wrong.
I haven;t either, but if the documentary was about evolution or the holocaust, would you demand “balance” in the form of some advocacy of Intelligent Design or Holocaust Denial?
As usual, the Onion says it best.
The other side is just wrong; portraying them as anything other than liars or deluded would be incorrect. “Balance” is for issues with less than overwhelming evidence on one side.
This is why I favor using the term “Global Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”. The effects are not limited to warming–some areas will get cooler. Changes in rainfall distribution are also important. Using GW instead of GCC makes it easier for the naysayers to sidestep the issues by focusing only on temperature changes.
As others have said, propagands is not necessarily a pejorative. This is a global problem, so looking at one area, or a localized phenomenon can easily be decieving. Antarctica is a desert w/ very little precipitation, so increased snowfall could very well be an indication of climate change.
I admit I may be woefully ignorant – I am, after all, not a climatologist.
I agree that the Earth’s current warming trend is pretty much a given.
I don’t quite understand, nor do I agree, why it’s certain that human use of fossil fuels is causing it.
Well before humans started using fossil fuels in great number, there were other warming and cooling trends. The “Little Ice Age” in which worldwide glacial expansion began in the mid 1500s and ended in the mid 1800s comes to mind, and of course there are other examples earlier in the earth’s history.
Can someone explain to me why we know, solidly, that the current warming trend is caused by human activity when there have been previous warming trends that obviously WEREN’T caused by human activity?
Because of the unprecedented speed of the change, and the correlation (word used advisedly) with a massive anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere of gases that are known to lead to warming. If you’ll forgive an appeal to authority, the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists agree. Search for SentientMeat’s username for some very convincing data.
My own personal irritation is this BS need for “balance”.
Why is “balance” necessary in absolutely everything? If a science book declares that the Earth revolves around the Sun, why is it suddenly reasonable for any old asshat out there to demand that I put in an Earth-centric screed to “balance” my statement?
That’s just idiotic. However, it’s an idiocy that The Right has managed to jam down the throats of this country so successfully that it’s now mandatory.
-Joe, although an opposing view may be required as to the truth to what my name may or may not be
So, who has actually seen the movie in question, or is that not necessary before we start passing judgement on it?
That sound you hear is of dozens of knees jerking in unison.
No it’s not.
-Joe, providing ‘balance’
Actually, this is the first answer I’ve ever gotten to this question that makes sense.
It’s not the FACT of the warming that makes it likely that it’s human activity – it’s the SPEED of the warming.
But as Cecil has said “We don’t vote on the truth around here.” Although those gasses can lead to warming, they also increase albedo, which should lead to cooling. Frankly; the cause of the current warming, whether it’s a very temporay glitch in the data, or whether we can or should do anything about it, is highly debatable.
Most of the “greenhouse gases” don’t come from humans and fossil fuels in any case.
This last is 91% false. Your own cite says “CEI, which gets just over *9 per cent * of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation,…”- which means they get most of their funding from other sources- in this case various foundations. This is why we don’t trust dudes who tell us the sky is falling- too many lies.
I said it was funded by the OIL INDUSTRY, not just by Exxon-Mobile and it is. All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola). CEI exists for the same reason that tobacco companies use fake scientific studies to prove that smoking isn’t bad. CEI exists to further the economic interests of the companies and indivudals which fund it. It’s not an objective organization. They get paid to cast doubt on Global Climate Change (thank you, Pleonast).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Funding
I prefer Anthropogenic ClimaIe Change (ACC), or Human Induced Climate Change. If it were just “change”, then there wouldn’t be much that we can do about it. If we’re causing it, then we can potientially stop it.
As for the “balance” part, I don’t see that it should be dismissed out of hand in the way we dismiss IE wrt evoloution. Most scientist do indeed agree that ACC is a fact, but (AFAIK) they do not agree on precisely what will happen when nor do they agree on the best way to mitigate the problem. And it shouldn’t be surprising that people are slow to come around to this environmental problem. We’ve been hearing doom and gloom about other subjects form various environmental advocacy groups for decades.
Maybe Al Gore has found his niche-- educating Americans about the problem of ACC. He seems to be quite passionate about it, so perhapds he can make a difference. Migiht he be a good candidate for a cabinate post in a future Democratic administration?