1. denialism
  2. An Inconvenient Truth - how true?

An Inconvenient Truth - how true?

By denialism on August 27, 2007.

Geek Counterpoint has done an excellent job going through Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

The overall impression? Mostly right, some overblown links that are rather tenuous, but ultimately thorough coverage of the science behind climate change. Good job Lorne.

Tags
environmentalism

More like this

An Inconvenient AP Story for Republicans
Yesterday, the AP released a story describing the general approval within the scientific community of the science behind Al Gore's new documentary An Inconvenient Truth The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal…
National Post hatchet job on Gore
I wrote earlier about William Broad's many misrepresentations in his story that criticised Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Now Kevin Libin has produced an article for the National Post that makes Broad look like a paragon of virtue. Look at this: James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr.…
Monckton was behind Dimmock's lawsuit
When last we heard from Christopher Monckton he was too gravely ill to answers questions about how someone claiming to be him and using his ISP had altered his own wikipedia entry and added on obvious fabrication, to wit, The Guardian "is reported to have paid Monckton £50,000 in damages.".…
Cutting to the chase on climate change
My interest in global warming grows apace, both because it stands to impose some very grim effects and because it makes an interesting (if dismaying) study in culture's attitude toward science (see my post on "Climate change as a teset of empiricism and secular democracy") and how vested interests…

In the NYT today:

Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change

EVER since An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.

The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.

Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.

Sounds pretty quonsetty to me, is all.