You mean those dastardly scientists have the unmitigated gall to insist that the documentary actually be true?

How dare they.

"The scientists demand all the errors be removed, and say that if all the errors were removed, the film's argument would crumble."

LOL! Hilarious...yet so true. I guess we'll have to check out the "bonus features" to find out how much creative brainstorming they did to come up with such fiction, errrr, I mean, "errors."

LOL. Swindle indeed.

You are buying strait into what global warming is really all about - money - quite easily. I wonder if the goal of making "global warming" a feature on your website was motivated by hoping to give the viewing public a chance to understand the issue, or simply enhance the number of hits on your website by furthering the media hyped, scientifically denounced theory of human induced climate change. I�ll use your website because you�re the most accurate in predicting the weather in the next week. Unfortunately, you, nor anyone else, has the foresight and hopefully not the audacity to predict the weather 200 years from now�unless your name is Al Gore�but at least he�s energy efficient; private planes and using 25 times the average American household energy has nothing to do with emissions�though according to him it actually does�and cutting energy is what he said we had to do in �Incontinent Truth�� that�s right though, he�s carbon neutral�but he runs his own carbon setoff company� so I guess Al Gore wants more disparity between the rich and the poor� the rich can afford carbon setoffs but the poor can�t� I wonder what john edwands has to say about this�he�s probably too busy rippin on wal mart then tryin to get ps3 off it�its tough in the other half.

It sounds good to remove "scientific errors" from the film, but who decides what is "scientific? Al Gore perhaps? I've heard he is an "expert" on the subject.

How can anyone actually "prove" how much carbon dioxide is produced by volcanoes and humans? How ridiculous. Release the DVD as is. Did anyone edit out scientific errors in Al Gore's documentary? Hardly.
Peter

Interesting that the same scientists weren't upset by the gross scientific errors in Al Gore's film about catastrophes which no one believes will or could actually happen.

The one-sided behavior of AGW advocates greatly reduces their credibility to the public. Particularly when they try to stifle free speech or impune the credibility of scientists with differing viewpoints.

I wonder if these same scientists are as concerned over the errors in the Goreacle's Ignorant Truth movie?

Oh, sorry, forgot that the non-scientific, politically-motivated, jet-setting, carbon-offsetting, gigantic house-owning, nobel prize nominated, internet-creating genius has all of his facts exactly right. At least for the scientists point of funding view.

Just forget I asked the question.

I'm in favor of correcting scientific errors but I am puzzled about why this only appears to apply to reports which question anthropogenic global warming. Where were these scientists when Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth?" Surely, Al "Big Foot" Gore's documentary was full of scientific errors. And where were they when Michael Mann produced his now discredited "hockey stick?"

It seems that these British scientists have forgotten one of the principles of scientific inquiry which leads me to conclude that they are not very good scientists.

"How can anyone actually "prove" how much carbon dioxide is produced by volcanoes and humans?"

That's why you're not a scientist, Peter.

Perhaps the deniers can post the "errors" in "An Inconvenient Truth" so that we can compare them with the errors in "Swindle."

Where are the analogs of the false claims about volcano emissions, the falsely-labeled graph axes, or the false attributions of graphs to NASA?

A more apt comparison to "Swindle" is perhaps "Against Nature", an earlier piece by Durkin that has its own problems with "errors" -- see the Wikipedia entry for more.

Perhaps our local deniers can offer some evidence that Gore has admitted misleading contributors (as Durkin has for "Against Nature", was accused of distorting the research of his own staff (as Durkin has been in connection with "Equinox"), or is accused of betraying and lying to interviewees, as Durkin is for both "Modified Truth" and "Swindle").

I understand that our deniers might seek any port in a storm, but really folks -- are you sure you're ready to defend your assertion that "An Inconvenient Truth" is remotely comparable to this?

If the deniers want to force a comparison between "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Swindle", or between Gore and Durkin, I'm sure the AGW proponents will welcome the opportunity -- Durkin and "Swindle" surely suffer as a result.

The Left, the Right, you guys slay me!

Ever see a time lapse photo sequence of a dead animal being consumed by larva (maggots)? I have, on a Biology related show on PBS. Whether you're a Evolutionist or a Creationist it should be obvious that when considering humanity the earth is a dying animal in the process of being eaten (exponential population growth of greedy animals)(Myself included). You can argue on the side of economy, left, right, etc. because it makes no difference, we're "All" mortal.

It shouldn't be about blame, i.e., our stars aging process, volcanoes, burning fossil fuels, etc. It should be about solutions. While some solutions are beyond our capabilities, i.e., building and positioning a large sun monocle (sun glasses) or volcano corks, others are not. Of course these solutions are indeed Inconvenient Truths which surrounds 99.99 percent of the debate.

You can argue all you want, but it doesn't change the truth as it unfolds, however action is a different story altogether. Of course every person is going to have to sacrifice their comfortable place. Why do lung cancer patients wait until they have lung cancer before they quit smoking?

"Inconvenient Truths" due to "Selfish needs!"

Though I believe it's more accurate to say "Pseudo Inconvenient" and "Pseudo selfish"

"Perhaps the deniers can post the "errors" in "An Inconvenient Truth" so that we can compare them with the errors in "Swindle.""

Fairly typical of AGW advocates to start their argument with smear verbage. Do they think that helps their argument?

How about the part in Gores' film about worldwide flooding due to sea level rise, when the IPCC predicts a rise of only 37 cm over the next century?

We also know from NASA that since 1990 most of Antarctica has been cooling as has most of Greenland.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=1990&year2=2007&base1=1930&base2=2007&radius=1200&pol=reg

"I'm sure the AGW proponents will welcome the opportunity"

Honestly BT, how much money do you have invested in Carbon Credit profiting?

Why should AGW proponents be the only ones able to compare?

Sadly, "An Inconvenient UNTruth" will be Inconveniently Short if they edit the lies and falsehoods.

Brookline Tom,

I noticed that Mann's refuted PC1 is still featured in the IPCC AR4. Despite devastating critiques made by several renowned Climate Scientists and mathmaticians, this famous ring proxy remains. It would be nice if the IPCC's would show the same kind of due diligence concerning thier own work. But hey, when the editors are also the authors that can be tough.

BT:

I freely admit that I have never, nor will I ever, see the "documentary" that Gore put forth. I therefore have but one factoid to put towards your request. I will let the deniers with stronger stomachs than I, put forth specific cites.

I believe that Gore speaks in, if not all of, his show. As he is a politician first and foremost, and as I surely know (it has been proven on both sides multiple times) that the simplest way to tell when any politician is lying is to hear them speak, I assert that the information presented in the documentary is founded in mis, half and flat-out incorrect, truths.

Once again, the entirety of this issue is spin and following the money.

Lol, I love the continuous references to Wikpedia. How ironic that when referring to errors that Wikpeida is used as a reference. Fitting indeed.

Brookline Tom

The only "deniers" I see in this issue are the ones who would deny that the scientific debate continue. Questioning in scientific issues (skepticism) is required for science to move forward.

Battling Power Point presentations do not constitute a scientific debate.

I've heard and read a lot of opinions and generalities about Global Warming being caused by human activity. However, as I understand it, the Scientific Method demands Data and Measurements be presented before any Hypothesis can be argued.

I know enough to be dangerous. I realize that there are many sources of gases in our atmosphere. I also know there are many things that tie up these gases for short or long periods of time.

My understanding is there was no free Oxygen on our earth until plants started to grow and refine it from the noxious soup that existed. I also understand that these same "refining" operations are going on, today.

My question is, what is the balance between the sources of emissions and the ability of plants to produce Oxygen and Animals tie up the CO2 in their skeletons? I don't know how anybody can determine if things are getting worse, unless they can produce historical data that shows the absolute amount of emission versus conversion and capture of gases from our atmosphere, over time.

The question of Volcanic Emission of CO2 is pretty interesting to me. As I understand it the volcanoes caused by Subduction probably emit more CO2 than those over hot spots in our earth's crust. This is because the carbonate layer on the bottom of the ocean is released when subduction causes it to be pushed down into the molten area below the continents.

So, a blanket description about the release of CO2 by Volcanoes would not be specific enough to be able to draw a conclusion with respect to Human Sources. Subduction caused Volcanoes must be looked at as a separate case, with respect to CO2.

Well, how about Gore's claim that the ocean surface will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years, triggering mass migration? Or that ALL the worlds scientists are in agreement?

Errors in the Inconvenient Truth?? Right of the bat, the swamping of NY and Florida. Sea levels were never predicted to rise that much even before that movie was made. There are plenty more to list. Google can be your friend.

I notice that JP is still describing Mann's work as "refuted", even though I've published pages of citations here that show that his minor errors were corrected, and that those errors did not affect his conclusions.

The dissonances between the body of the IPCC work and its summary, particularly relating to the material from Lindzen, are disturbing. If you want to challenge the IPCC material, can we perhaps focus on the material distinctions such as this.

In the meantime, how is the IPCC report related to "Swindle" or "An Inconvenient Truth"?

How about the part in Gores' film about worldwide flooding due to sea level rise, when the IPCC predicts a rise of only 37 cm over the next century?

How about that, "Patrick Henry"? Here, from the transcript, is the statement I think you refer to:

I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. It's a little of both. It's propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland

Which part of this do you challenge? Which part of "If" do you not understand? With all due regard to the NASA data -- which covers only seventeen years, I might add -- it doesn't challenge the validity of the hypothetical. A large Antarctic ice shelf did, in fact, break off recently. I guess it didn't read the NASA graph.

Durkin's piece lied about data sources, claiming a graph was from NASA when it was not. Durkin's piece was plain wrong, saying that volcanic CO2 emissions were larger than those from human activity.

If you deniers continue to hang your hats on rubbish like "Swindle", are you surprised that the rest of us increasingly ignore you? If you controlled a research budget, and you wanted to fund good science, would you fund a defender of Durkin's work?

i'd like to echo the comments by michael about wikipedia references...find a selected source that supports your argument in wikipedia, use the wikipedia thesarus to find big words that make you sound smart, discredit the other side by calling them names like deniers and point out errors in english syntax as the means to claim victory...what a joke...two to one odds these guys are heavily into carbon credits or some type of government subsidy and have no scientific background just like Mr. Gore...read that the film was positively accepted by a margin of 6 to 1 in britain...guess our friends over there see thru the agw hocus pocus after all...

BT said:

"Durkin's piece lied about data sources, claiming a graph was from NASA when it was not. Durkin's piece was plain wrong, saying that volcanic CO2 emissions were larger than those from human activity."

I suppose you read that in Wikpedia too BT.

BT:

Proponents tend to ignore the "deniers" because the rational points we raise are just that rational. They have to ignore these facts because they get in the way of the overriding fear of what may, just may, happen to the precious earth in several hundred years. Remember, every single item relating to the negative affects of GW is a theory, none, not a single one, has come to pass.

While we may hang our hats on "rubbish", I think I still prefer that to the AGWers who surround themselves around a snake-oil selling, politician. Gosh, I wonder who might be better at the whole "spin" thing. As for Goreacle, he learned from the best of the modern era.

You guys are hilarious.

Michael J., are you seriously claiming that Laura was mistaken when she wrote, in her thread-starter, "Director Mark Durkin has acknowledged a couple of the errors - including a claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans..."?

Or perhaps you're referring to the lie -- oops, "mistake" -- about a graph coming from NASA? Here's what The Independent (not Wikipedia) had to say about it:

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

So Michael, are you now claiming that the graph was, in fact, drawn from NASA data, and that the subsequent retraction and/or "correction" was itself in error?

Darren, where do you get the chutzpah to criticize, yet again, a documentary you will not watch? Did they teach you THAT in your engineering education?

Actually Tom, I'm claiming no such thing. I'm just questioning (and probably poking some fun)at some of your sources. Information is only as credible as its source, and Wikipedia and The Independant certainly have their issues not to mention their question ability about bias. :) The fact that the Independent article uses the term "right-wing" should be cause for suspicion.

To add to your amusement BT, you might be interested to know that I haven't watched Mr. Gore's film either nor will I because credibility is questionable given who narrates the film and I've seen the unnecessary hysteria that it generates among very good well intentioned people.

What is hilarious is that I continue to spend my valuable time even giving credence to some of the responses in this blog.

BT:

Nope, not in my engineering education, I will say this though, my engineering education and experience allow me to make accurate judgments in short order. As we discussed previously, I, just as you, have to be right in our judgments. I came to a conclusion about Gore a long time ago and don't need any more items to confirm my thoughts. That is the one thing that perplexes me about your apparent stance as being a proponent of the AGW theory. Strip away all of the politics, strip away the historical record, strip away forecasts of doom or rainbows, there is a major flaw in the energy path of the system if you think man has any effect on the environment.

You know, come to think of it, I similarly criticize the following: the KKK (Sen. Byrd's old group), the Taliban, Hitler and the Nazis of World War II fame, Stalin and communists, Kim Jong Il of N. Korea, Osama Bin Lade