For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com.

An Inconvenient Truth

,    »  -   112 Comments
1.2k
5.77
12345678910
Ratings: 5.77/10 from 13 users.

Storyline

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)Former vice president Al Gore lends an appropriately sober face to the issue of global warming in this arresting documentary.

Filmmaker Davis Guggenheim offers a fairly straightforward adaptation of Gore’s well-honed lecture, effectively enhancing it with elaborate graphics. Gore’s data is concise and accessible, thanks in large part to a state-of-the-art, slide-show presentation that includes computer-model charts, photos - including distressing before-and-after shots of shrunken glaciers and otherwise degraded land masses - archival footage, and even cartoons that dramatically illustrate the impact of global warming.

His alarming point: that man made pollution has wrought more drastic changes in a few decades than the planet had previously seen since the Ice Age. Not the world’s most natural public speaker or funnyman, the former veep nonetheless makes a compelling case for decisive action.

More great documentaries

112 Comments / User Reviews

  1. j

    This movie is bogus! Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

  2. fred nerk

    this doco is a pack of lies -do some research into climate history and remember al gore is set to make a lot of money out of carbon trading and also remember plants live on co2-the more they get the more they grow-also remember the IPCC is a political organization not scientific and as we all know politicians lie--its up to you

  3. Ashangel

    Al Gore, is a thief, a liar, and a fraud, every single thing (literally) he has been involved in has been a scam, hoax or just outright bullshit.

    “The tragedy of Ravelle’s sudden death in 1991 allowed Gore to continue using “flawed science” as the basis for CAP and TRADE - a concept spawned by the scandalous ENRON corp.”

    The largest of the greenhouse gases is in fact water vapor,

    Co2 is not a pollutant, plants need it to breathe.

    Do some research instead of blindly following yet another defunct religion

    To see just how corrupt Al Gore is look for a documentary called

    Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room.

    Enron is to Al Gore as Acorn is to Obama.

    Now don't get me wrong I love the planet, and actually spend a lot of time outside in nature, but I do not allow that to cloud my vision. I am able to see straight through the lies, fraud and deceit that is global warming. A myth perpetuated by Al Fraud (Gore) and greedy lazy and corrupted scientists.

    How do I do this? Simply by looking at the evidence.

  4. chocolatestarfish

    You see through the lies? pleeease.. you don't even see through your own eyes far enough to read what's genuine scientific fact and what isnt.

    the GW swindle "doc" relies on debunked science buddies.

    plants grow on CO2, indeed, but NOT in the atmosphere!
    the IPCC has politicians on its board but the majority of it is build up by scientifically trained people and the all-important summary is written up by scientists.
    stop the name calling and accept that looking after our planet will not loot your purses. don't worry but participate.

  5. WTC7

    Chocolatestarfish, hi,

    What exactly do you mean by this: "plants grow on CO2, indeed, but NOT in the atmosphere!"

    Which one of the layers of the atmosphere are you referring to specifically? Because, it seems to me that you bark a bit too loud for someone who doesn't have the basic knowledge about the atmosphere's structure.

    In closing, and consequent to the above, I'd say that you wouldn't recognize the "genuine scientific fact" even if it hit you straight into your forehead.

  6. elle

    i was so brainwashed of this stuff.

    and than climategate came along.

  7. FLGuy

    @Ashangle - Well said! So many of the comments on these documentaries are posted by far-left leaning loonies! It's refreshing to read your post. thank you.

  8. Stoke City

    it's really sad that people think Global Warming is a conspiracy.

    they remind me of the 9/11 truthers, which by coincidence we have one in this comment section via "WTC7"

  9. WTC7

    Hi Stoke City :-)

    You are probably a nice guy, but I suggest you stick to football topics :-D

  10. Stoke City

    World Trade Center 7, I take what people such as yourself say with the most minute grain of salt possible.

    If I started taking suggestions from 9/11 truthers, I would really consider checking myself into the local hospital.

  11. WTC7

    My, my, that was a brilliant response! You are so smart Stoke City :-;

  12. MarkBM

    I'm with Stoke City. We all KNOW that the global warming is REAL!! I mean, I haven't actually studied the subject or anything but I saw it on Fox news and they had a whole panel of EXPERTS!! everyone around me keeps repeating that its happening so it must be!! how could so many people around the world who've never studied the facts be wrong?! I mean, comeon WTC7, next you'll be telling us the earth isn't flat :p

  13. WTC7

    Hi MarkBM,

    Don't know how you got the idea that I'd be claiming the Earth is flat, but from my perspective it is your kind that would be sticking to such absurdity :-).

    Nevertheless, let's get back to the topic. You say yourself that you don't know anything about the subject, you saw one panel on Fox news (!!!), yet you still consider yourself an authority to comment on it and challenge ME to clarify MY position??!!! Do you know what IPCC is? Do you know how heated debate there is, in the mainstream science mind you, about their various predictions related to the climate change?

    Of course you don't. But let me educate you a bit.

    For example, IPCC predicts that by the end of the century the temperature on Earth may rise between 1.1 degree C to 6.4 degrees C!!!! If you had enough brains to understand, than you would realize that 1.1 C rise in temperature wouldn't make any difference, whereas 6.4 C rise would mean all of us being fried slowly! That's just one of their "scientific" prediction, and, honestly, well, even you could have made such prediction :-). Are these the EXPERTS you saw on TV?????

    Now, if you don't believe me, read the March 20th issue of The Economist, where the first article is dedicated to exactly what I'm telling you now. See that even The Economist, which is as mainstream as it gets, has to admit that when we're talking of global warming we don't really know with certainty what we are talking about (although you do - you've seen the panel on Fox TV, hahahahahaha... - don't embarrass yourself please).

    The problem with IPCC is that they are torn between science and politics. They deliver their "scientific prognosis" on the basis of demands of current political needs. And the need is to introduce a freaking carbon tax on the global level.

    And you, me dear, better do some research prior to making comments like the one above.

  14. WTC7

    .... or is it that you were just being sarcastic, MarkBM???

    If that's the case, my sincerest apologies, I didn't see it at first :-)

  15. Achems Razor

    The experts on t.v.???

    (LMAO) The talking heads on t.v. tell you what they want you to hear! So the sheeple will follow the herd.

    If there is a global warming, it is not man-made, mankind has a negligible footprint on Global Warming.

    Global Warming, ice ages, Etc: is a natural occurence through out millenium. It's common knowledge even to high school students, at least where I live, and it ain't the USA.

    Global Warming is a money making scam against all citizens.

    911 truther? you betcha!!

  16. Contrafib

    Stoke City,
    This is a constructive comment, i'm not getting in a slanging match. Why not forget tagging someone as a 9/11 truther and just listen to what they have to say. Once again, corporate media have done what they're best at and managed to plant an idea that a) people who spend time on the internet are mad, b) especially 9/11 truthers, which are totally generalised views. A lot of info. on the Internet comes from radio shows, books etc. that weren't discredited as sources before the internet came along, but they plant nutters on t.v. who make the internet look bad.
    I respect all opinions, and there's no point people screaming insults at each other, but it is true that people claim that they think t.v, newspapers etc... lie, but still follow what they say and the ideas they promote.

  17. WTC7

    Achems Razor :-D

    It's amazing that I feel I know you for ages already :-D
    911 truther - to the end... :-D

  18. MarkBM

    WTC7,

    haha I was indeed being sarcastic, no offence taken :p in fact, it retrospect it does occur that, while meant to be scathingly sarky, I can totally see someone writing that lol (possibly negating the flat earth comment)

    In any case, it's good to see people who have studied the subject instead of repeating what they are told :)

    I think people are awaking up faster than was hoped. Look at the mandatory swine flu vaccine plan failure.

  19. Achems Razor

    WTC7:

    You got it!

    You are still my woman!!

    :D :D

  20. WTC7

    Achems Razor, I can only send you a kiss :-*

  21. Achems Razor

    WTC7:

    Good enough! :D

  22. WTC7

    MarkBM,

    Yeah, I realized that I was too quick in answering in such a harsh way, but it was too late :-). Thanks for understanding :-)

  23. MarkBM

    WTC7,

    No drama my friend. Keep up the good work! :)

  24. MarkBM

    Epicurus,

    Allow me to answer your question, "how can anyone deny the impact mans increase in carbon fuels has on the climate" with a simple fact which is non-contented amoungst the scientific community.

    I am going to assume that you have seen the some form of the "hockey-stick" graph which shows how temperature / CO2 levels have varied over the course of time (this is in the "An Inconvenient Truth" film). Clearly, there is a positive correlation between the 2 yes? It is inferred by Mr Gore that temperature follows CO2 (though he never explicitly mentions it) but, in actual fact, it is the other way around - the CO2 levels follow temperature.

    Think about this a moment - CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature (i.e. a change in temperature occurs and THEN the CO2 level changes, many many years later). Bearing this in mind, it would be incorrect to say that an increase in CO2 levels causes an increase in temperature, for the temperature increase occurs BEFORE the CO2 level increase.

    The reason for this is simple; gases are more soluble at lower temperatures. If you open a can of cold coke it doesn't fizz everywhere because the CO2 is totally dissolved. What happens if you leave it out in the sun? It goes everywhere when you open it right? Why? Because it's hotter and the CO2 cannot be totally dissolved by the water at that temperature (at atmospheric pressure). Ok, bearing in mind that the amount of CO2 which can be dissolved in water varies with temperature, can you think of a reason why atmospheric CO2 levels would increase when the earth gets hotter? I'll give you a clue, it's big, it's blue and it covers 2/3 of the world's surface. Gold star for you if you figured out it is the oceans.

    Consider what would actually happen if CO2 levels made a significant difference to 'global warming' for a moment. If increased levels of CO2 caused an increase in global temperature and an increase in global temperature causes the oceans to release more CO2, you would quickly have a runaway train situation would you not? Given that this has never happened in the past, and the earth has been much warmer in previous centuries than it is now (by several degrees C), one would be safe to conclude that either CO2 has a negligible affect on global temperature or the earth has sufficently robust feedback mechanisms to negate its effect.

  25. Achems Razor

    @ Epicurus:

    It is okay to disagree, but I am with @ MarkBM: on this.

    I have studied the pro's and con's on Global warming.
    See mine and others comments on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on TDF. About Methane gas, a green house gas that is 21% more efficient than co2 to cause global warming.

    As you know, I am into science and astronomy, Basically all planets are warming up according to astronomers.
    But that, you will have to google.

    9/11 truther?? Yes! Ask some demolition experts!! they will set you straight! I have followed every doc. made, and everything pertaining to 9/11, from day one. 9/11 and many other false flag operations, of which there where many, have always been an inside job!

    Don't forget, and I say this without prejudice, a lot of people are so dumbed down that they will believe anything the talking heads say on TV.

  26. WTC7

    Epicurus,

    The climate hasn’t stopped changing since the Earth came to be and the temperatures on Earth have been fluctuating for about the same time. And we are talking about extreme changes.

    Would you care explaining why were there periods of global warming and global cooling in the past? Perhaps early humans were using too much manure in their farming?

    The latest period of gradual warming lasts for about 16 K years now. And even during that period there were (at least) two “short” periods of cooling.

    Don’t jump to conclusions too quickly, I personally don’t think that the global warming hysteria is a product of scientists, but some scientists indeed have allowed themselves to be dragged into a political game.

    Here is a short excerpt from an article for you:

    “A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.”

    For your information, the above review was carried out by a team from Harvard University. You can google the article (it's titled 'Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists')

    Greetings :-)

  27. Epicurus

    @ achems....the thing is i once believed all the 9/11 truther hype also and was just like you watching every documentary i could...i still do. however the more you ACTUALLY talk to experts the more you see that the buildings didnt fall the way they would had they been demolished and there were no explosions that would be required in a controlled demolition. those "puffs" in that random video on loose change are the debris after each floor falls onto the one below it.

  28. Achems Razor

    @ Epicurus:

    I disagree, the towers fell at basically free fall speed, the puffs as you say, are debris alright, but pulverized as by explosion.

    I don't know if I read your post properly? did you say no explosions would be required in controlled demolition???

    No offence, but please get your facts straight, so it appears that at least you know what you are talking about!

    I am sorry, but it is apparent that you have not really studied 9/11 at all.

  29. Epicurus

    i said explosions WOULD be needed, and those puffs are NOT explosions in any way. any one who claims they are, are making baseless assertions.

    and no the towers did not fall at freefall speed, not at all. this is like the typical creationist ploy of saying the same thing over and over and thinking that makes it so....the towers didnt fall at free fall.

    please dont fall for this conspiracy nonsense. there is no science behind it at all.

  30. Achems Razor

    @ Epicurus:

    I will leave this, I do like your other posts though, someone else may want to dispute, but I will not. I can see that it would go nowhere, also like the typical creationist ploy!

    One thing though, (I can't help it!), the biggest "conspiracy" is the 9/11 Commission Report!!

  31. Epicurus

    i fully believe there were things left unanswered and there are things the government knows and wa aware of and are not telling us to protect their own ass' from follies. and i believe those opening leave room for the conspiracies to grow. i however do not see 9/11 as an inside job directly from the government and applying occams razor it is much more likely that pissed off muslims did this as it is kind of their MO.

    IMHO

  32. MarkBM

    Epicurus,

    Gotta watch out for those 'experts' you see on fox news and the like or the docs that actually get on TV. It's all too easy for people to push out propaganda and if you never study the subject yourself, look at the facts and actually think about it, it's all to easy to take it all for granted.

    Engage the olde grey matter mate ;)

    e.g. think whether it's actually possible to have a building spontaneous collapse at freefall speed without explosives.

  33. Kosh

    I think it is funny how people, including the people in this doc, don’t know the differenc between CO2 (Carbon “Bi”-oxide; meaning 2 Oxygen) and CO (Carbon “Di” or “Mono”-oxide; meaning 1 Oxygen). These so call highly educated people must of not been paying attention in Science Class or at home “sick”… Carbon “Bi”-oxide is what Humans and animals breeth out and plants breeth in or when wood is burnt in a fire. Carbon “Di” or “Mono”-oxide in the poisonous gas that comes from burning fossil fuel and thats why we have a “Carbon Monoxide” Detector in our homes.

    Too bunch both of these very different gases together is the truly the biggest joke of the century. I am only surprised that they haven’t rewrote the dictionary to cover their highly educated and/or political a**. It is possible in the future these educated idiots will want to tax us for Breething, claiming we’re “Polluting” the plantet.

    I do think it’s very important that we do are best in creating and maintaining a clean and highly oxygenated atmosphere. We should also do are best at cleaning-up the world’s water supply, since almost all lakes, rivers, and aquifers are hazardous to drink from and some are even hazardous to swim in. We, as humans as well as animals, depend heavily on the ocean and our lakes, streams and even rivers for the food we need. I don’t know about you but, I don’t want to eat mercury filled fish that have been swiming in fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial waste its whole life. It would be nice to be able to drink from any one of the lakes, rivers or streams around here without the risk of ingesting hazardous chemicals.

    I don’t think any of these things are stupid to believe in. Anyone that thinks these things are stupid an unimportant to respect nature; that ideology, is the reason why the world is as unclean, polluted, exploited, and overhunted as it is today…

    Sincerely,
    your Cadillac driving Tree... lol!

  34. Ace

    Now the film has been removed due to infringement! :) Al Gore is saying - I have very important information on this "grave" matter for the entire population...the world is coming to an end!! but you have to pay money to see it... haha pathetic

  35. Epicurus

    @MarkBM

    why would you have to watch out for experts? sure you have to make sure if they are experts or not and you should check who they are being funded by. but to just put quotations around teh word expert and making it look bad is just poisoning the well and not good form at all.

    second Fox news is just something i would never watch unless im bored and need a laugh...

    third like i said from the star. i have studied this topic at length. so much so that i went from a truther to not.

    YES it is possible to have a building collapse when it is structured like the WTC and it has a burning passanger jet inside it that has just smashed into it....yes it certainly can.

    maybe you guys need to be careful of people with no education in this stuff making documentaries and capitalizing off the hype and tragedy of this situation. (Loose Change for example)

  36. Achems Razor

    @ Epicurus:

    Again I must say you have not really studied this at all!
    You are just making circular accusations, which do not mean anything, no substance. Just because you said so?? that does not mean that we have to believe you!!

    Almost like creationists with there circular logic!!

    Truthers have no experts, no education in this stuff??? Think about that for a while. I am finished with this talk, like I said , goes nowhere!!

  37. WTC7

    Epicurus,

    With reference to your response concerning the "Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780)" - YOU MUST BE JOKING WITH ME!

    You actually want to tell me that all the causes you cite above were affecting the climate up to 1780 and then suddenly "decided" not to affect it from 1780 on????!!!!! Because they knew that the industrial era began and humans started polluting the Earth?!!!!

    Gee! :-D

  38. Epicurus

    i never said that they stopped WTC7 but as you yourself admit the industrial era does begin, and as we see in the numbers the temperature change begins to occur faster than ever in history.

    to deny global warming is like denying gravity and evolution.

  39. SexMoneyMonkey

    @WTC7 et al

    Keep in mind that us making out own planet unlivable to us is definitely something we don't want to believe. So your mind will always be looking for a reason not to believe it. (Evidence to the contrary will always seem more valid to you).

    And just because something else has caused the change before doesn't mean it is what is causing it now. Nobody is stating that all the CO2 is caused by man, just enough of it to be dangerous.

    As for the World Trade Center, I don't see how it factors in and one should be cautious of ad hominen.

    I don't actually have a view on GW or the WTC. But I'll always err on the side of caution with something like GW.

  40. WTC7

    @ SMM,

    I do like measured approach and yours is such. You are absolutely right when you say that we usually reject to admit our own faults both individually and as members of a larger whole to which we feel we belong. The truth is that I am of the opinion that we indeed are hurting our planet and I try to raise awareness of people in my surroundings about that fact.

    However, my problem with this issue is of a different nature. First, I don't think that the relevant scientific community is unanimous as to how much human activity in the last few (industrial) centuries has actually influenced the climate change (and it is changing, it's a fact) and how much it is affected by other, natural elements, which were influencing it for millennia, long before humans became a factor of influence. Hence, I'm not claiming that we are not influencing it at all, I am only saying that we cannot claim anything with certainty at this point.

    Second, when people like Al Gore get involved in an issue, I get alarmed. It is not a secret that he used (in his 'famous' presentation) questionable arguments and 'evidence', and claimed that these are unanimous conclusions of the scientific community (that would be all scientists). That is a lie. I tend to react badly to lies. It is also not a secret that IPCC had its blunders, which they later had to withdraw faced with the reaction of other scientists and evidence that counters their conclusions. Personally, I don't think that the experts at the IPCC are charlatans, I am more prone to believe that they were being pressured by political and economic interests.

    Lastly, I also tend to react badly to people like Epicurus, who has a false idea of personal grandeur and picks up fight at every single thread with everyone whose opinion differs, thinking that the ultimate truth is always the one he chose to believe in. And he has an opinion on just about everything, and, naturally, he's invariably right... That alarms me too...

    As to the WTC issue, don't worry, I have no problem with ad hominem, I have a bit more faith in myself for such a thing to bother me.

    Greetings :-)

  41. Danby

    I always get a laugh when i read what climatologists predict will happen in 100 years, when we still can't accurately predict what the weather will be like next week, let alone next year.

  42. john

    its ok people..we can wreck our environment, pollute and consume all we want because in a big puff of holy smoke jesus will apear and whisk us all way to paradise so the world will be ended by god before we can destroy it.. the slow and disasterous reaction to climate change is a direct result i beleive to the bronze age mystisism that clouds most peoples minds..the selfish and arrogant assumption that the human race is a devine creation with dominion over the earth and not just the rsult of evolution by natural selection. this is a complete falicy and i hope that eventually realists will be governing in the west and real action will be taken. Oh and as for you "carbon dioxide is food for trees fox new watchers" it would help if we had trees left but as we are cutting them down at a rate of 150,000 square km a year the co2 has now were to go. now go get your teabagger hat on and and jerk off to sarah palin.

  43. guest

    removed

  44. Uncle Handi

    fellow earthlings we will all die, what are we leaving behind for the next ones? yay to using our brains! to do good stuff instead of short term greed! kiwi carer

  45. Uncle Handi

    we see fox news out here away from the USA with all the other international coverage on things, and this show is one of the biggest propaganda manure comedy's on tv! It's a pitty these people taint the USA and attempt to make the people look so naive, when so many great forward thinkers are actually in the USA. kiwi carer

  46. garbonzo

    We need to start taxing carbon, implementing a one-child policy, as well as euthanasia for undesirables. Actually we need to reduce global population to 500,000,000 as described in the Georgia guidestones.

    Yes I am being sarcastic :D

    Wake up folks the writing is on the wall, Al Gore owns multiple multi-million dollar mansions on waterfronts. If he really believed what he preached he'd be one of the first to go should the waters rise.

  47. jonel

    Banbearpig does exist, I'm supper cereal!

  48. Shadow1869

    Generation Investment Management LLP Generation is an independent, private, owner-managed partnership with offices in London, New York and Sydney. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by Al Gore and David Blood. Al is getting richer by everyone believing in global warming. The day he trades his limos in for hybrids or electric vehicles and adds solar and wind generators to his mansions then I might start believing in this S***.

  49. Sparkling

    This documentary was like watching a dramacomedy. The persuasion is mostly in the emotional music, images and annecdotal storytelling. The actually SCIENCE seems to be very secondary. Any any attention paid to the other side of the debate seems to be more of an dismissive insult rather than a response. What an incovenient lie.

  50. Sparkling

    I forgot fear mongering and jokes....his other persuasive tactics. This is such a shame. It's obvious that climate change is taking place. The "culprit" is not clearly defined nor are the benefactors. But, I heard that Green is going to be the bubble that follows the housing bubble. It will eventually burst but only after stealing money from innocent people while the elite get richer - just as we saw ini 2008.

  51. phelanrocks

    Awesome movie. Enjoyed it. Thanks Mr. Gore for your take on the global situation. Sorry about the kids arguing over who knows the truth. That happens a lot in the comment section. I'm sure your not just out to make a buck on this.
    Many are on the conspiracy bus. The documentary "HOME" is really awesome too. WHAT WILL LIFE BE LIKE FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN ????

  52. tash

    Okay i like this film for the fact that it call us to act and save our dying planet..

    Okay Al Gore may be bitter about his losses but still let us focus on the message, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR PLANET..let's just to our part to lessen carbon emissions, or stop wasting resources etc to help nature heal itself okay?

    Cut the political bullsh*t this is the future of the planet we're talking about.

  53. MarkBM

    WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR PLANET...from people like Al Gore who profit massively from the AGW racket but at the expense of joe public who - unvoluntarially - pour enormous sums of money into subsidising dud technologies such as bio diesel and solar pannels, and paying for Al Gore to fly around the world on his private jet giving talks on how everyone should "do their bit" for climate change and fly less.

    I agree, we need to manage the earth's resources intelligently but introducing policies which will obviously increase the wealth gap further for what is extremely dubious science, exaggerated and championed by those who have a financially or politically vested-interested in pushing the agenda is not on.

    In the UK most stuff is not recycled - it's not economically viable to - it's cheaper to by new glass from China than recycle old glass. What we need to intelligently manage the resources of this planet, not on what we can afford, not whether it is economically viable, but to the best that we possibly can as a human race.

  54. Steve

    A lie.
    Mathematically Impossible! Timeline graphs can NEVER go backwards (barring time travel, I suppose).
    First time you see it is about the 20-minute mark - to the far left - look closely. Again at 20:30 ~ 20:40 (much closer and almost impossible to miss.)
    Das complet schpiel ist kaput!

  55. gareth

    for starters, wtc was designed to withstand a head on collision by the largest jet of the 70's, so go figure that one out and secondly, al gore's wealth hardly exceeds that of any of the oil corporations, meeeeeee thinks the oil corporations will tell the general population anything so as to keep bringing in the $$$$$, goodness, is it even so hard to believe they might lie about it or make other experts or politicians rich for lying for them,
    im from northern ireland and honestly, i cant believe how brainwashed most americans are, wake up, your corporation run government is currupted to the neck, isnt it funny how any famous people who preach peace or change for a cleaner planet end up either dead or discredited?
    i rest my case!

  56. searozocm

    Srsly even it doesnt matter if its real or not we still need to do some cleaning up. We have infact damaged many enviorments and if things keep going this way even if global warming doesnt exist soon things are going to be extinct and tbh that would suck... hard

  57. Rosbif71

    @ kosh There are two possibilities. Either
    (1) You are "pulling our legs".
    (2) You need to sue your science teacher.

    If you google "carbon bioxide", you will learn that there is no such thing.
    Carbon monoxide, CO , has one oxygen atom to one carbon atom. It is poisonous to humans if enough is breathed in. Deaths from this mostly seem to occur from faulty gas fires, or by deliberately breathing in car exhaust fumes. I have a gas fire in my camper van, but would never sleep with it lit.
    Carbon Dioxide, CO2 , has two oxygen atoms to one carbon atom. It is not poisonous to humans, but if that is all you had to breathe you would eventually die of suffocation through lack of oxygen.

  58. acovenientpoliticalscam

    I was going to stay out of this.

    But, the more I re-read the posts, it dawned on me just how effectively the media can muddy the waters with their "batch" of talking-head "experts".

    As well, the thinking of certain posters in this thread, reveals them, at best, complete products of propaganda without a single opposing idea in their heads, or at worst, deliberate trolls in the employ of corporate overlords.

    Like any post these days, there is an almost immediate parallel drawn to 911 or "Truthers" as all you sheep seem to see them (this is NOT an insult, btw as "truth" seems to be operative).

    I will simply say, that based upon the evidence I've seen it'a pretty much a "slam dunk" (That's evidence, people... not an opinion from some "dude" at Popular Mechanics, who when talking about that fact that WTC7, looked a lot like "controlled demolition", stated; "Well, I can see how people might think that, but it wasn't." Wow, that's some convincing shit and it totally changed my mind. Or how about a slick computer model which shows a an aluminum bodied aircraft which apparently got to the pentagon without the benefit of engines, disappearing into a 16' hole, taking out cement posts on it's way to the inner courtyard, where according to another story it vapourized.)

    Historically, if this incident wasn't an Inside Job, or a false flag operation...it would be an exception, not a rule.

    Back to the point:

    This film's only inconvenience, is it's lack of truth. Lets look at the major funders and or promoters of the "science" of man made Global Warming, shall we? The Rockefellers, we all know that they care about humanity (I know, cause I read it in a brochure), the deRothschild's, Ted Turner...need I continue?

    Ted Turner also thinks it's a good idea to impose a 1 child limit on the Third World, (how many kids does he have?) because in his words, 30 years from now, we will all be cannibals. Seems flawed thinking to me...because if we’re all cannibals, wouldn’t we want more food?

    I continually see the media tell us how we (individual humans) are all to blame for global warming. We hear about how many plastic bags, bottles, etc we consume and dispose of all over “Mother Earth”. I rarely hear anything about the particular manufacturers of these items even mentioned in the debate. quite simply, the mantra is: Babies = Bad, Corporations = Good.

    Apparently, not enough babies are running multi-nationals or controlling major media outlets. How could we prevent people from polluting with plastic? Hmmmm, how about, oh I don't know, stop producing it for mass consumer consumption? Obviously, this is merely the raving of a mad man.

    What I notice the most is the absolute arrogance inherrant within this most recent Global Terrorist Scam, aparently we humans have this amazing power over our planet? Maybe some of you creationists will now sit up and realize that the media and the corporations are actually telling you that we have become much more powerful than your God...Bow to us.

    Just some of my thoughts.

  59. dhunujan

    thanks gore,after all,you give some awarness about global warmings among some guyes,may be it was positve or negative,i salute you

  60. POZZIMYSTIC

    $10,000 a month Gore spends on Electricity! Amazing is how is it even possible?

  61. smithv

    Thank you my real President Al Gore.
    I am so sure that the negative comments in here are coming from a much younger misunderstood bunch of groupies’. I understand them; I too am guilty of ignoring the facts, when I was young and dumb. But experience is your best teacher, bar none.
    At any rate, if you’re a frog and don’t get out of the boiling kettle by yourself….don’t worry, I am so sure that from my own experience....that you too have enough dumb faith...that this documentary is a farce....and a recue would not be necessary.

  62. GoughLewis

    I saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s film about global warming, a 2006 documentary directed by Davis Guggenheim, replete with graphs, flow charts, and visuals. The audience heaved a collective sigh when they saw pictures of our earth like Earthrise and The Blue Marble. (How much we love our earth! We all do.) I was solemn and silent when I left the auditorium. My mind was as cool and still as a northern lake.

    It was not long before the jig was up on global warming. The email controversy of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in the UK, called the “Climategate Scandal” in the media, was in large part responsible for the debunking of the global warming myth. The emails showed that the science was rigged. The UN funded CRU was discredited.

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity, recently said, in effect, that they made up the statistics. In a recent interview, Pachauri, summed up the IPCC as a government agency that is directed to make policies, not to produce scientific reports. See: IPCC (U.N. “Global Warming” committee) under investigation.

    Two of the architects of the Carbon Tax Scheme, it turns out, were Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron infamy. Dick Cheney had earmarked Ken Lay to become the future United States Environmental Czar, but that was before the Enron fraud was exposed, and before Ken Lay became a political liability to the Bush Administration. Skilling got nine years for his crimes, and Ken Lay (“Kenny Boy” to George Bush who denied knowing him) was thinking about cutting a deal before his court appearance, when he died unexpectedly of a heart attack.

    I saw the film: “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” I heard from Tim Ball, climatologist, University of Winnipeg, and Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, and many other scientists, who did not buy into the global warming hypothesis.

    Al Gore’s reputation was being shredded, but he had already cashed in a carbon fortune to the tune of 256 million dollars. Maybe Al “it’s not about the money” Gore should sell one of his G5 private jets for the sake of the planet. When asked by a Congressional Oversight Committee if he, Al Gore, was present in the room when Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron were hatching the Global Carbon Tax scheme, he “could not recall.” His memory was in a lockbox.

    The government-generated, quasi-commercial scheme of Global Carbon Tax as a commodity is in freefall. Like WTC Building 7, the Carbon Tax Scheme could not have dropped faster or smoother.

  63. Jake Kooker

    You wear your ignorance well. I'm not exactly Al Gore's biggest fan, but as someone who has had to do research on the environment and climate change (the more accurate term for the phenomenon Gore attempts to elucidate), I can personally say that to claim that climate change is simply a 'myth' is as pure a lie as is humanly possible. It's one thing for you to point out the caveats of the Carbon Tax, or to point out that Gore himself has often times proved to be a hypocrite, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an absolute scientific consensus that recent (and future) climate change has been driven at least in part (if not predominantly so) by anthropogenic sources.

  64. Edward P Campbell

    Dear Gareth,

    An ‘Inconvenient Truth’ about brain washed Northern Ireland.

    First of all, I'm not a 'brainwashed American’. In fact I too am, originally, from your neck of the woods, Northern Ireland. A little UK backwater which is still ruled by the Orange and Black Orders, Freemasons and tub thumping megalomaniac politicians, protection racketeers and sickening terrorists, on both sides of the divide. For the last 150 years.

    A backward, myopic province firmly locked in the politics of the 17th century, with a sizeable proportion of the working class population still celebrating its ignorance, paranoia, bigotry and mindless violence, every 11th July Bonfire Night (burning The Pope in effigy) and 12th of July Orangeman’s Parade. (Check out the Ulster Orange Day parade ‘You Tube’ comments posted by these loveable people). An ‘educated and informed’ corner of the world that I gratefully finally left in 1972 to live in England. I haven't had any inducement to return to it for the last 39 years, despite the stirring pipes and drums of the biggest, most swaggering, parade of bands on earth.

    My ‘highly intelligent’ parents migrated to London Ontario, Canada, in 1957 but returned to Belfast 11 months later because they couldn't stand the open mindedness of accepting and hospitable Canadians, and Canadians lack of interest in religion for its own sake. He then spent 10 years paying back $2000 to Canadian migration authorities because he refused to integrate into that open society for the minimum 2 year qualifying period for free passage for him and his family. That’s $20,000 in today’s money - or 70 tons of spuds, where you come from.

    I then spent the next 14 years being battered by both sides of the ‘community’ for being the child of a ‘mixed’ Protestant/Catholic marriage, before finally escaping.

    Since I left Belfast in 1972, my old sinkhole council estate, Taughmonagh, was demolished and rebuilt in brick. (It used to be called Tin Town, with its 2000 semi-detached aluminium 'prefab houses). It still has one of the lowest per household incomes in the UK, £125 per week, according to a recent Ulster ‘Measure of Deprivation’ survey - the vast majority permanently on tranquilizers and benefits, plus other ‘social drugs’ dependency problems, apparently.

    My old, pre-Canada, 147 Mountcollyer Street home off the upper Limestone Road, beside Alexandra Park was recently demolished, along with its block at the top end of the street, to make way for a ‘Peace Line’. The empty razed block area was then high-railing fenced and a 'PEACE WALL' built around the edge of it for hundreds of yards, to stop the cuddly opposed-community nutters throwing bricks and petrol bombs at each other in the last few years. A city in 2011 still divided by over 20 ‘Peace Lines’. A Peace Line now decorates the centre of my old childhood play area, Alexandra Park itself. A public park for pity’s sake! Saint’s preserve us. You can see all these 'signs of progress' on Google Earth.

    Forward thinking? Gaza Strip, Baghdad, Berlin, eat your hearts out, Belfast, N. Ireland, is the way to the future for a modern, integrated society.

    Belfast has the highest suicide rate in Europe amongst teenagers, due to community poverty, high unemployment, lack of investment and The Troubles.

    To celebrate 2011, after 40 years of pointless mayhem and 3500+ violent deaths, gentle Ulster folk are now assassinating their young country policemen and again murdering their slightly ‘different’ neighbours. Collecting explosives and firearms to blow all Ulster people into the Republic, or Kingdom Come, whether they want it or not. A case of the scorpion tail wagging the mad Cerberus dog, in the 400 year history of a religion-based violent society. Still segregated from birth into their respective, hate filled and bipolar ghettos. Truly an enlightened society marching forward into a bright, prosperous New World Order, thanks to its progressive politicians and society in general.

  65. Cookie Monsta

    People can argue about Carbon but not about pollution. When I was a kid, you could eat the fish caught in fresh water lakes. Now they have too much mercury in them. Another thing that one can not argue, it takes some time for change to take place. The coldest and warmest day of the year is after the shortest and longest days, respectively. While we argue about when and if we ought to do something about the pollution of our world, we will pass the point of no return and we will never even notice because the effects will not be obvious to lay people about for 10 years.

    Say what you like, it's too late. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will already feel the effects. They will ask us after we are long dead, "Why didn't they do something?"

  66. Instincts

    Anyone who denies that humanity has been having profound and non-linear (approaching exponential in some regions such as China) consequential impacts to Earth's environment is simply ignorant.

    Argue about anthropogenic impacts to global climate all we want, it is an inescapable fact that humans have been increasingly negatively impacting the many inherent buffering capacities expressed repeatedly in nature, toward higher stocastisity and chaotic extremes, including those that occur in climate and weather. And these facts cannot be escaped as we continue to de-vegetate, pave/harden surfaces, deplete and erode soil, degrade water, pump crap and elevated carbon into the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and deplete resources in highly non-sustainable manners.

    The cause is simple: Too many people and trending toward even more; a flawed global economic model that assumes infinite growth within a finite physical system; and a lethal global monetary and social system that equates higher wealth with higher comfort, when in fact 'wealth' and comfort can be attained much more sustainably if people just took the time to look logically at what's really important to life per se.

    Solution: For Earth, no solution necessary, as time will take care of that, because Earth and life will long outlast humanity. For humanity, it is likely too late, but self population regulation and major social and economic reform appear to be the only possible things that can have big enough effects to at least buy humanity more time.

    The question is whether or not we have it in us to make dramatic changes and improvements, far beyond what we have been able to do to date.

    Nations whose governments that are not on track with what's best for the future of humanity, we need revolutions of the likes that this world has not seen, revolutions that would make those in the middle-east/N. Africa look like small potatoes. Otherwise, monetary currency and all these consequential impacts described above will complete its course in being the demise of us all.

    Don't believe this, or don't want to believe it? Then keep doing nothing and watch how our self-destruction continues to unfold.

  67. who_me_yeah_you

    Exponential? China? Chinese pollution is chicken feed compared to the USA. No surprise that the chief finger pointers at the chinese is...... yup USA! Chinese pollution is part of a drive to develop the nation. US pollution is part of a drive, why walk when you can drive in a muscle car or an SUV (note to self Hummer is a military vehicle not a sport utility vehicle!). China's drive for development benefits who most......? Yup USA! China could be forced to tow the ecological line by the nation that benefits most from their pollution but that would cost the US so blame storming is the next best thing. And its not just the US benefiting from Chinese pollution.

    Learn to understand the politics in the policies and the policy pleas.

  68. Yannick Dierens

    While there certainly is a need for conservation of our environment to a certain degree to maintain a quality of life for us humans, animals and nature in general, the hysteria about global warming is extremely exaggerated. It seems that environmentalists consider themselves visionaries and predict an apocalyptic future for our planet and mankind.

    This film definitely has a lot of flaws. First of all, on multiple occasions it is a violation of what we call the scientific method, postulating claims which are populistic and emotional, rather than scientifically acknowledged or verifiable. You can show as many shrinking glaciers as you want, but if there is no proof human activities have something to do with it, it cannot be considered science. What about the hurricanes?! What does that prove? We've been recording weather for how long? Like less than 200 years. The earth is approximately 5 billion years old, keep that in mind. Suggesting that hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans is due to human influence? That is nonsense, and most of all insensitive. This is playing with people's emotions. One has to realize that one can make all kinds of different statements without contradicting scientific data. But that's not how we get facts!

    Another consideration: while there may be a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and earth temperatures, there is as of today not a single effect of this slight temperature rise on anything. This is not so strange since we're talking about very small variations. Furthermore, everyone knows how the vast majority of "human" CO2 comes into our atmosphere: because of the burning of fossil fuels. These are non-renewable resources, and will be depleted in a relatively short amount of time. As consuming rates drop and eventually will reach zero, the earth's atmosphere is capable of restoring itself to the natural concentration within decades. The film itself even proves this! The seasonal fluctuations in carbon dioxide concentrations alone are relatively large. I think everyone can agree that any disaster scenario happening within that time span is highly implausible. Do you really think that our Earth is so vulnerable that a 2°C temperature rise over a short period of time will turn our planet into Armageddon? Our planet has been way warmer in the past, and yet it is full of life.

    There are other things that bother me about this film, and others. Too much to sum up here of course. The point is: you can't measure something or do an experiment of some kind, and then postulate all sorts of things that are scientific nonsense. An example of a real necessity is clean industries, so the environment doesn't get contaminated with harmful toxins which are leached into the soil or ground water. Global warming because of human emissions is a hysteria. If anyone can show me a profound effect of 1 or 2 degrees celsius in temperature variation on something I will retract my words. Natural processes are capable of producing temperature levels that differ from the mean by say more than 10°C, through short term weather effects only... Not to mention variations in our star's power output, and other differences. In this debate, some people are really overestimating the effect humans have on our beautiful planet. I say let's be calm, do what we have to do, don't act hysterical. Maybe we can enjoy our extra degree for the next couple of decades :-)

    One last thing that bothers me: what is up with mentioning his vice-presidency, or flashes of election results etc.? This is more like a propaganda movie for Al Gore, not for environmental conscience. And everyone knows he's not a scientist. Are those flashes supposed to give him any authority, any credibility? Well, they don't, au contraire! Also, if you want to make a strong statement, you have to mention the biblical book of revelations... Come on!
    If people want to know more about global warming, they should look into the science, do some research... This movie is interesting, only because it may encourage people to read and think about the issue so to give them a rational, more objective view of it.

    Think rational! Be skeptical sometimes. Don't form an opinion on watching one sole biased film. Be critical of information you get from tv media. This film is not an inconvenient "truth"!

  69. WTC7

    And the proof for anthropogenically driven climate change would be....?

  70. Yannick Dierens

    I have lots of issues with your comment here. If you want to know them, please read my comment on this video (same date as this).
    Anthropogenic? Maybe. Even if so, what are the actual drawbacks to humans? And our planet in general? Please inform me if you know the answers.

  71. Yannick Dierens

    Don't be too much of a doom thinker. Mankind would have a hell of a task destroying planet Earth if they wanted too, let alone 'accidentally' accomplishing it.
    "consequential": what negative consequences are you talking about exactly? And I mean global consequences, because that's a key factor in the "global warming" debate.
    "inescapable fact that humans...": says who?
    "stocastisity": I think you meant 'stochasticity'. And again: says who? It doesn't even make any sense to say something like that, I am not even sure what you mean. Maybe you mean average temperatures have gone up a bit. Just one thought: take temperature averages over 10,000 years. Mean temperatures for the last period of time will be quite low. See how statistics are not as trivial as they may seem?

    I could go on like this, but I won't. Please note that there is a non trivial step between looking at data (or a movie), and taking conclusions in respect to them.

    Of course, if everyone could agree on not building roads, cities, not driving internal combustion engine cars, eliminating emitting industries, having clay furniture so no trees would be cut... we would be better off, right?

    There is a good possibility that human activities have an effect on global warming. If this is the case, then the next step would be investigating the effects of it. However, no effects as of today are readily acknowledged.
    Stating that humans are responsible for climate change and its believed negative consequences, if they exist, is about as reliable and scientific as stating that a young woman with short hair is gay. No insult intended.

  72. Yannick Dierens

    Sigh... another doomthinker. I know my grandkids won't drive a fossil fuel powered car, since there won't be any crude oil remaining. Several industries will have to change too because of that. Too many people (even scientists) don't care at all about this fact. Call it a "natural process" if you want.
    While your comment is very touching, I don't think we need to worry like that. We need to be careful sometimes with what we do that may harm our environment. But I think that to this date we are. The world is already depressing enough sometimes, no need to make it worse for no reason. I am sure my grandchildren, and lots of generations after them, will be able to have a good life over here :-)

  73. Hannah Janssen

    Ok, before I start, I didn't read your whole comment. Frankly, I have better things to do. However I got the gist of your arguements down the page.
    And so what? Who cares that everybody has an opinion? Everybody would like to be the one to say 'I told you so' - and that may well be you. But what if it isn't? What if it is you and a bunch of skeptics that convince the world to keep living, unconcerned? Because you believe there is no way in science that we could bring down this 4.55 billion year old planet, and then - hey presto - in however long it is, Global Warming is the end of the planet. You may call me another 'doomthinker', but we wouldn't have to be if we changed the simplest of habits in our lives and evolved in a different direction. Then there would be no 'doom'.
    By the way - I will always be the first to criticise what I hear in the media, but I would prefer not to take my chances when such consequences are involved.

  74. Instincts

    If or when you can speak of such things with a real understanding of the natural environment, make logical distinctions between sustainable renewable resources and finite non-renewable resources, etc., then perhaps we can have an intellectual conversation.

    ...Don't tell me, let me guess: who's to say that anything we humans do is not 'natural'? Such a popular cop-out these days. So then let's just keep pumping crap into the air, water, soil, decimating biodiversity around us, as long as we can keep fooling ourselves into thinking that the capitalist ideals that economic growth can and should be infinite within a closed system (Earth) of finite resources.

    Proof of effects via data? And what do I mean about increasing stochasticity? Well, here's one (and by the way, any dumb-ass who always needs data to believe or understand certain things is hopeless). How about snowfall accumulation and melting patterns within an intact forest and a cleared agricultural field right next to each other? Exposed soil attracting solar radiation at much elevated rates melts the snow a lot quicker and much more frequently. I don't need data to know this -- its obvious to the naked eye. That water that melts a lot quicker goes downstream a lot quicker with increased energy and takes a lot of the unstabilized soil with it. Whereas the snow in the intact forest accumulates because solar-to-ground radiation is buffered, and the water melts more gradually and goes downstream much cleaner because the soil is also held in place much better than that exposed field nearby. Now, do I need data to know this is happening, even though as scientists we always like to have 'the data'? Nope. Do I need data to show and prove to ignorant or unknowing people like you, or politicians who should be able to make better decisions for the future? Sure do. If you haven't figured it out yet, the conditions described in the cleared field represent increased stochasticity in a local environmental pattern, whereas the intact forest represents the 'control' that most closely reflects those conditions had that land not been cleared by people. Extend this to roads, cities, etc. The net sum of these types of things across landscapes certainly has the capacity to effect climate in the broader sense through changes in temperature, precipitation, evaporation, and wind velocity.

    If you don't 'get it', your own ignorance and lack of common sense speaks volumes for itself. Earth per se isn't doomed - Darwinian natural selection will ensure that. But humanity most certainly will be if ignorant attitudes like yours prevail. And for the record, I haven't yet watched this movie, nor 2012, nor or any others like it, but anything that can help to take the blinders off of so many ignorant eyes can only help, whether those people like it or not.

    Oh, and speaking of things trivial, correcting another's spelling in a forum thread? Really??

    In looking through your other comments, you have a lot to learn Yannick, but its a good thing that you're challenging and embracing such things.

  75. Instincts

    Well, USA sure does pollute the hell out of things - you've got that right. But anyone who renders the pollution by the Chinese within China and elsewhere as 'chicken feed'?.... need one say any more?

    Just because Asia is rapidly developing to a state arrived at earlier by Europe and North America doesn't mean it is something that the world shouldn't be concerned about, in terms of the net effects.

    It isn't about 'why', but rather 'what' that matters the most in terms of what can or cannot be sustained within a finite system.

    Your closing comment about politics and policys says it all. I suppose that you and others like you think that politics and policies are immune to, or can withstand the natural laws of physics, finite resources, etc. Everything ultimately leads back to our dependence on raw resources, a lot of which aren't renewable, in case you haven't noticed.

    ...or, maybe you know something that the rest of us don't about how we're on the brink of being able to break that barrier by inhabiting other planets with all the new resources needed to support the direction that Earth's human population is going?

  76. Instincts

    It is your optimism that is needed for us to get through this. I agree that we need to be optimisitc, and I do try to be optimistic. Its just becoming increasingly hard to do so when I look around.

    We need champions among our younger generations to lead the way. A lot (though not all) of the Baby Boomers are throwing in the towel in that regard.

    Keep well.

  77. Yannick Dierens

    Now, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. This is NOT my personal opinion, this is just a more objective way of looking at the science. I suggest you give the documentary "Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off" a view, so as to hear another side of the story (which features scientists).

    Global warming is in the first place more a political and mediatic phenomenon than a scientific one. I am also not denying that major consequences of human activity are possible. In fact, we have had a serious influence on our planet, no doubt. I just like to think that we need proof of "global warming" and all the "disastrous scenarios" it is believed to possibly instigate. Otherwise, we are just being hysterical.

  78. Jon?

    is this fraud still allowed to be distributed?

  79. oddsrhuge

    If instead of showing two separated graphs, you take the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph and overlay it, the fact of the matter is, that the increase in CO2 follows the rise in heat by approximately 800 years.

    The simple fact that a main goal for this group of "Human caused" global warming soothsayers, is to have Carbon Dioxide classed as a toxic gas, reveals the absurdity behind this movement. We have the ability to gauge this gas in the atmosphere, therefore, it can be taxed. However, as we all exhale a quantity of this gas, basically, we are being taxed for breathing.

    It's another "false flag" only this time humans are the ultimate enemy...Guess it's time for another "War on: insert here."

    illiteracy
    poverty
    drugs
    terrorism

    Why not add humans to the mix, thats a war we can fight for a long, long time.

  80. Aleister Crowley

    I actually used to believe in the global warming nonsense until I watched this documentary several years ago. Gore really got me at the end --he opened my eyes, especially when he preached about patterns. If the current level of CO2 is off the chart like he showed, shouldn't the Earth's temperature correspond like he claims? According to his logic and the "evidence" and patterns he showed, we should have already been broiled alive 5 years ago! This guy is worse than a used car salesman. At least if you're going to repeat a lie, make sure it's relatively consistent.

  81. illy

    Weither global warming (or global climate change) is true or not, the planet would benefit from us taking better care of it. I like my air clean, water clear and pure, food organic and nature habited by more than just flies and rats. Future generations will thank us (or hate us in the other senario) for that.

    That's what I wish people could understand, the planet will be a much happier place. Money and materials goods aren't everything!

  82. Native_Woman

    Being an Indigenous ( Native Amer ), I have a respect for all things of the Earth, who we call "Mother" and The Great One, or Creator who created all things. In this We were born upon a perfect place to live, the ability to sustain ourselves. Yet far away was born a group of those not content with what they had,
    As to the change it began in the somewhere in the later 1400's,the European infestation. Bringing with them diseases and greed and destruction. The Centuries old Hopi Prophesy of the Blue Kachina & The White Buffalo has come to be.

    First mistake: Not much weight is given to The Native American word, except for a few exceptional people who understand. What is the first to give life ? Food ? Water ? No, we have the exchange of Oxygen & Carbon Dioxide, we sustain each other. The Tree of Life. Prior to their arrival, what needed to be changed ? Nothing.
    This whole evolution that has taken place since those first "visitors", guests, took without first respecting, stold without asking for, and killed for what was not theirs.
    As a child who sees something that is not his, will envy so much, until finally without conscience will take what is not theirs.
    All that those people built upon is on soil that holds the blood of The People...
    What followed all this is the now.

    That was the time of the first of genocide on this land, the Ethnic cleansing and so on. What the diseases not native to this land, pox and syphillis, spread rapidly, decimating whole tribes. There was natural medicine, and what could have been a live and let live with the people, never could happen because of the blind cost of greed. Both man and animals were either extinct or close to it. I ask, for what ?
    No, we had "reservations"...Reservations for ? Reservations why? The People were put there so all that has happen did..Those of us who have left are here to work for a solution, and help all who are trying to change or even undo all the previous harm..
    Mans evolution into what's called the "Modern World" has came at a cost, these conviences, even this computer I use, has come at a cost to the Earth. The list is long, but the savagery was not here, the savagery came in those boats, in the form of people who called themselves " civilized". But their history of their own viciousness speaks of anything but civilized. The ones who sought to " simplify things," have "caused "The Inconvenient" and "brought about the downfall of that "Foreign Civilization and Modern Goverment" all based on European ways of life. Most certainly not indigenous to this land prior to the diseased boats that arrived.
    The "Trees of Life" are being stripped from the land, EVERYWHERE...The "Leaching is poisoning both fresh & salt water ( noticed recent example of another European screw up when "BP" made themselves at home in the Gulf of Mexico and poison it from carelessness. What did the cutting into the deep waters into the ocean bottom just magically connect without seepage ? Or as it operated, do not tell me that the operation itself was claan...BULL...When it bless. Lives were lost, and it went far beyond man. Don't say BP cleaned and restored to normal because all one needs to do is go into what's left of the wetlands and proof remains, not to mention what settled at the seafloor, the home of those who "keep the foundation clean", the Flounder, Crabs, etc. People laughed at the level of LA's polluted haze, but that haze has spread to every city. Gridlocks of cars on the man made highways as they sit each morning, the "Leaching", the "Bio warfare", Radioactivity in the Deserts, is but a small example...While the Indigenous People hunted to eat, not trophies, they respected the land, and the Spirits of the trees which gave life to us all...Never taking more than what was needed to survive..Regardless of any disruption between tribes, the basis remained.
    The uninvited came and made promises never intent on keeping them. Earth shall recover herself, while mankind will not. And if the recovery does not come qucker, get your house sent in order. Or remain oblivious to facts that you see each day on tv...all was foretold centruries ago...A flux of Mother Nature when the waters raise, or the heat bakes, ask youself, am I a part of this ? Those who live in reality will reluctantly accept the true as it is....yes as they scramble to finally fix or attempt to fix the multitude of problems that have been, are present and will come. Now we are a "World" in trouble and turmoil, not just for my people, but for all...It would have been better had those people never found this land, but they did....and for many solutuions they still look to The Peoople for help, an old example is "The Wind Walkers", would that white mans war had been won if this groip of Native Servicemen given them the edge ? I doubt it. All this has been done, but "They" need us more than we need them...When or if they realize this, but think about it for a moment,,had things been different would it be in the mess it is now...my guess is NO,

  83. Native_Woman

    You mentioned your "like" of clean air, I LOVE clean air, but have you ever breathed it without it being processed and a masked slapped on your face ? I doubt it..While there are the few wide open places that remain simply because they have either over used or yet to find a use or steal, The air could be considered "cleaner: but as man continues deforestation, what or who will create the oxygen we need ? As an Indigenous we have a strong belief, and the science has already been given the proof they need to back up what the Indian has always said.

    As for future generations ? There will be little left for them unless people kick start it into high geear for change,,,We will be identified as the "Pestilance" and Earth will return herself...Is there a chance to change,,,I like to hope so.

  84. Native_Woman

    I agree don't form opinions on one film. I say open your eyes and SEE. This is more about global warming. The flux in weather is proof enough, the earth shakes, the tsunamis and every other Natural Reaction. Looking into science, yeap...well had they listened to those who understand the workng from the beginning, instead of grasping for all the money making resourses, perhaps decades ago, you stood a chance...well...?

  85. David Stegen

    Im a white man, ever since i was a child i had always wished that the native americans would have killed every white man that crossed the ocean and stole your lands from you, but your people were too polite and actually civilized to do what the europeans did to you.

  86. Chrystl Zellweger

    LIAR !!!!

  87. Epicurus

    who? what? why? how?

  88. EvidenceBased4

    To those of you who insist that the climate change controversy is political rather than scientific, you are absolutely correct. There is no controversy among scientists as to the reality of global warming. I am an archaeologist and I have no interest in whether CO2 is listed as a pollutant, I have no dog in this fight except that I understand science and scientists and there is simply no doubt that global climate change is underway and very very little doubt that humans are contributing significantly. Politicians have convinced you that it is an opinion you can choose to accept or not. That is bull, do not confuse opinion and assertion with reality.

  89. EvidenceBased4

    No, increasing CO2 is the forcing (cause), the response (effect) is not immediate. There is a significant lag time for response. When you put a pot on the stove, does it immediately leap to a boil? The gradual heating is the response time (a very short one). Just because you saw an outdated documentary does not mean you understand better than everyone else.

  90. GabriellaToth

    I don’t care if this presentation is a fraud or not, the true is that we are facing a big climate changes and we need to be ready and act upon. I watched other documentary movies as wall and the naked true is we need to unite and act ASAP!

  91. Jim Kerak

    lol

  92. Jim Kerak

    it's not really just a 'good possibility.' There is an extremely large body of scientific evidence. If you are referring to the way they use the term "very likely" in the 4th IPCC report, they actual define that to mean 90% confidence level that climate change is mostly anthropogenic. I'm curious though, who is not acknowledging the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change?

  93. Jim Kerak

    this movie is like 6 years old, but there's plenty of reason and evidence not to ignore climate change. Sure, a small increase in temperature might not be noticeable to you or me right away, but the ecosystem of the world is very complex. Temperature affects all biological processes, particularly photosynthesis, respiration,cell division and phenology, as well as diffusion, enzyme reactions, membrane transport, metabolic processes. There are important differences between CO2 effects and Temperature effects, particularly to plants.

    For example, increases in CO2 concentrations cause increases in photosynthesis rates, and plants absorb more CO2. However temperature increases also increase biological respiration and metabolic rates. Both community respiration and photosynthetic rates are predicted to increase with temperature. However,
    respiration goes up faster because the average energy of activation for metabolism is 0.65 eV (electron volt, a measure of energy at
    the molecular level) compared with the activation energy of photosynthesis, predicted to be 0.32 eV.The effect is to decrease net productivity, releasing more carbon dioxide, a negative
    feedback loop.

    This is just one tiny aspect of how the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere affects our ecosystems, and there is an extremely large body of evidence supporting thousands of other examples why we should not be ignoring what is going on around us.

  94. oddsrhuge

    Aw man I was liking your posts until you used that "big" word.

    Greenhouse gas is a great euphemism for the new criminals...Us, as humans. Greenhouse gases that form around the planet protect our species and others, from the devastating effects of unfiltered solar-radiation.

    So how did the conjunction "Green House Gas" become synonymous with destructive to our health and safety?

    I will submit another word here, for your review.

    "Profit"

    And I apologize, because I obviously missed it...How was the link that you provided any better than the video we are commenting on?

    Both provide a one dimensional view of an issue that has become a supposed "global crisis".

  95. oddsrhuge

    Wholly Gorp! ( Gorp my new way to say Cr*p) In the medieval times there was unprecedented rises in temperature in places that are now far cooler. Are you saying that at this time, it was those pesky armor makers? What with their bevels and hot smoky fires they created global warming? Stick to archaeology.

  96. Alf Stewart

    Does anyone here actually believe that enough people can make enough change to their daily habits, in order to change the temperature of the earth?

    If you believe mankind is responsible for the changing climate, then lets be realistic, we can either go live in caves and live off the land or let science find a more sustainable energy source.

    Whilst we wait, people need to decide which is the lesser evil, Nuclear energy or coal / gas fired power stations. People are not going to give up their lifestyle en-masse, and the developing world isnt going to stop trying to achieve it.

    People want world peace too, I would say if put to a vote you would get more in favour of world peace than agreeing with Al Gore. But we still dont have world peace.

    Fund science, proper science, the type that moves us forward. We can replace climate scientists with an excel macro to produce a report every week which no one will agree on, and contain a randomly generated temperature and sea level figure for 100 years in the future.

    Al Gore is only in this for the money. Remember when he was a laughing stock during the 90's?

  97. thekingbeyondthegate

    I would say his data is extremely inconcise.

  98. oddsrhuge

    Oh my...I actually agreed with one of your posts.... :)

    Cheers

  99. oddsrhuge

    A lot of people in this post have mentioned pollution. I will heartily agree that WE as humans are walking disposal units. Pollution IS a real problem...and I will support any movement toward really addressing this issue.

    BUT what is pollution?

    Just the incredible physical waste materials we produce everyday?
    GMO seeds?
    Smog?
    Draining a natural aquifer so that you can sell the water for profit?

    You all understand why these things will never be addressed in our recent media right?

    Because if they were ...the buggers would have to blame the real culprits...and unless all of you are CEO's of multi-national corporations...It ain't us.

  100. oddsrhuge

    "this movie is like 6 years old, but there's plenty of reason and evidence not to ignore climate change"

    well:

    You can ignore it as a recent global issue, because according to actual data by climatologists, prior to the advent of media coverage, reveals.

    "The Earth has experienced vast temperature swings across the planet for generations of recorded weather data."

    And:

    It distracts a huge body of intelligence to refute it, while actual global problems increase, exponentially.

    And again I have to belabor a point that I brought up in other posts.

    Go back to News in the 70's...what happened to the "Next Ice Age" debate?

  101. What's Up Docs?

    Is it an inconvenient truth or just inconvenient fear mongering?

    The link between global warming and industrial pollution remains plausible, yet unproven. Al Gore and his gang must therefore resort to the "moral imperative" and biblical-style environmental apocalypse in order to rally support for carbon taxes, windmills and a slew of protocols and accords sweeping across the world.

    The hypothesis isn't new, but it is to ironic to see the candidate who lost to George W. Bush come up with the same "you are either with us or against us" slogan.

    Orange Alert.

  102. Joseph Lee

    If the HOCKEY STICK was not debunked, Al Gore would have become the richest men on earth ever!

  103. Robert Gaebler

    Inconvenient truths:
    1. AGW is not simple; carbonic acid is building up, in the water. Plankton, eggs, and little fish are threatened, with the oceanic food chain. Die-offs have started;
    2. The Democrats NEVER support legal industrial hemp, and they are ineffective, at CO2-neutral biomass research, choosing instead to do 2700 pages of private-insurer Obamacare, support the Patriot Act, pass NDAA, and Obama killed more people with drones and busted more pot clubs in four years, than GW Bush did, in eight;
    3. Al Gore may be Tommy Lee Jones' college roomie, but the whole time he was Senator or Veep, he opposed legal pot, so when he lost in 2000 and didn't sue, he had nothing important, to grow on his big, dopey farm, when he returned to Tennessee.

  104. cecikin

    To those who don't believe human-created pollution-caused climate change is occurring: do you really think that all the pollution generated by humans in the world (especially as the pollution steadily increases) doesn't seriously damage our environment? Really?

  105. Benfagre

    I get sad when I read those comments, because there are so many climate change denialists.

    In case you did not know, this movie actually DID go all the way to court. The judge found that there were 1 factual error, and nine exaggerations / not fully supported claims. That means PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE MOVIE WAS LEGALLY DETERMINED TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!!!

    What can anyone say or do to change your minds if you still remain ignorant after that? You are resistant to facts! Yet, repeatedly, you guys keep calling people who believe in the scientifically established truths "environmentally religious" (possibly also Marxists).

    It is hopeless; you are all hopeless cases, proudly wearing your anti-intellectualism as a badge of merit.

Leave a comment / review: