Al Gore and 'truth'

Al Gore gets the bonus prize for 'most stories written about an individual in one day', as he is simultaneously held up as a paragon of virtue (and given a Nobel prize), and as a bad boy in the UK media for nine factual errors in his film (the same one that won him the Nobel). The UK stuff all stems from a court case, brought by a UK teacher who wanted to prevent the film from being shown in English secondary schools. The judges decided the films can be shown, but cited some problematic areas that should be 'clarified' with students. As a BBC article notes, the media focused mainly on the so-called errors.

I had an interesting conversation with Sasha about the issue this morning, and she noted that although news sources (including the BBC) can breathlessly cover as 'scientific fact' finding by a single scientist, when a movie is made which breathlessly covers findings made by more than one scientist (in some cases dozens or hundreds) it is called erroneous because there isn't consensus. Something of a double standard at work there.

Well put Sasha! But then again... double standards and the news industry? Why is this surprising? ;-)

I found the movie extremely uncomfortable to believe--especially because my background is now journalism. The arguments Gore makes are one-sided and over-simplified; he makes jumps that any good scientist would make, because people forget that data is just data. Everything but the specific numbers is a fiction. As much as I hate to admit it, there isn't a scientific concensus on this issue. While that doesn't make the film's assertions untrue, it does make them lose the weight of having the backing of most scientists. It should acknowledged that it's not conclusive when you're talking about something that is this big, with trillions of dollars worldwide at stake. Of course, What drives me up the wall is that I sound like I work for those wanks at the Mackinac Center whenever I express this opinion. I also don't mind the fact that Gore put environmentalism back on the front page. It just feels a little deceptive. Why can't we just not pollute for the sake of not polluting?! *sigh*--ryan

whoops: should read read: Gore makes jumps any good scientist would NOT make. Sorry if that was confusing. -ryan

It's true - you can check the staff page - Ryan doesn't work for the mackinac center.

I think Sasha hit the nail on the head here. There's a lot to gain, for politicians, by NOT doing anything about global warming, and very little to gain by doing something. Sure there is scientific disagreement. Then again, you don't have to dig very far to find "academics" who believe the Holocaust didn't happen, so I guess there's just not consensus there either.