Twenty Years Later, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Has Been Thoroughly Debunked

[Baztrachian]

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/tw...ey-environmental-predictions-prove-inaccurate

Glacier National Park removes signs predicting end of glaciers in 2020 after Gore's prediction

(Excerpt: Go to the link for the full story)

It's no understatement to say that the 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" changed the direction of public policy. And in fact, that's exactly what failed presidential candidate Al Gore intended the film to do. Fortunately for him, he found a willing audience of Hollywood celebrities and left-wing media outlets to uncritically promote his ideology and activism.

Unfortunately for him, 2006 is now far enough in the past that we can test some of the predictions, claims, and statements of fact he makes in that film. So that's exactly what we did.

At the start of 2026, nearly 20 years after the film hit theaters and helped pave the way for Europe's delusional "net zero" policies, electric car mandates, and low-flow showerheads, OutKick rewatched "An Incovenient Truth" to see how well it held up over time. Spoiler alert: not particularly well!

The film starts off as a glowing tribute to Al Gore himself, an unsurprising beginning given his obvious ego and hubris. Almost immediately afterward, it jumps straight into the propaganda. He references Hurricane Katrina as an example of more extreme weather events in the modern world. There's a "Simpsons" video with propaganda of "global warming," remember, this is pre-rebrand to "climate change," with a young girl seeing her ice cream cone melt. Gore talks about what got him into this field which is one professor who took some measurements of CO2, then made vague predictions of what would happen if we didn't make changes.

 

[Baztrachian]

Kinda sucks for the Climate Alarmists that people keep their receipts.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Kinda sucks for the Climate Alarmists that people keep their receipts.

I remember back in the 70's (?) the science nerds were forecasting an ice age. Freezing to death tho is supposed to be the way to go.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Oh the irony that stupid fucking mouth-breathing MAGAtards don't wonder why people are suddenly interested in Greenland.

 

[schism666]

many of the measures taken as a result of that film have negated many threats.

critical thinkers understand this. you don't.

 

[ll74]

Another climate change hoax thread.


Neat!

 

[Baztrachian]

I remember back in the 70's (?) the science nerds were forecasting an ice age. Freezing to death tho is supposed to be the way to go.

I remember Paul Ehrlich predicting global famines and mass starvation for the 1980's. BILLIONS of people will DIE!! he predicted.

And it didn't happen.

Alar on apples was going to kill everyone.

Chlorofluorocarbons were going to destroy the ozone layer before the year 2000 and we were all going to DIE!!! The West stopped using CFC's and the rest of the world ignored this bullshit and we're still here. I still make the odd trip to Mexico to buy Freon for my old car's AC.

In Mexico you can also buy DDT and chlordane. Both are exceptional pesticides for killing and preventing termite infestations especially in old wood homes like I own. Fuck Rachel Carson.

Sea level rise is supposed to be up to eight feet by 2100. So far it hasn't budged. The morons have seventy-four years left on that one. Best get busy.

The lefties keep predicting a nuclear war and it never happens. No earth shattering kaboom. Disappointing.

Their thing is that since Marxism doesn't actually create anything to sell people on it then they have to scare people into buying the ever-present "solution" of global socialism to "save" us from non-problems.

 

[Wilson23]

I remember back in the 70's (?) the science nerds were forecasting an ice age. Freezing to death tho is supposed to be the way to go.

Never, ever go "Science was wrong before."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

 

[Saint_Ann]

Predicting the weather is difficult. Predicting the climate is impossible.

 

[Wilson23]

Predicting the weather is difficult. Predicting the climate is impossible.

Climate is much more predictable.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

 

[RoryN]

When a Deplorable says "thoroughly debunked", you can bet whatever they're claiming is debunked is 100% true.

 

[Lazaran]

Every day there’s a competition among the PB MAGAts to see which one of them can author the most ignorant post.

And todays winner is…



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Wilson23]

Let's have no more of this.
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/let-us-hear-no-more-of-pratts-on-this-board.1647370/

 

[DeluxAuto]

Chlorofluorocarbons were going to destroy the ozone layer before the year 2000 and we were all going to DIE!

Thank the movie you're claiming was thoroughly debunked for a breathable atmosphere, idiot

 

[Sean Renaud]

I remember back in the 70's (?) the science nerds were forecasting an ice age. Freezing to death tho is supposed to be the way to go.

No you don't because that never happened.

 

[Wilson23]

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-glaciers-al-gore-number-mass-climate-change-884647195118
Has the number of glaciers changed in Al Gore’s lifetime? Experts say their mass is more important

 

[Saint_Ann]

No you don't because that never happened.

It was driven by the media just like the global warming crock of shit is today.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It was driven by the media just like the global warming crock of shit is today.

No it wasn't. There was one article in time with no peer review and a very vague belief that we would put up enough smog to block sunlight. But then the entire fucking world set emission standards so even if that, which was never a majority view, had been correct we listened to the fucking experts, had big global government do something and solved a problem. Same with t Ozone layer. You know the global warming crock of shit predates the Civil War right?

 

[Baztrachian]

No it wasn't. There was one article in time with no peer review and a very vague belief that we would put up enough smog to block sunlight. But then the entire fucking world set emission standards so even if that, which was never a majority view, had been correct we listened to the fucking experts, had big global government do something and solved a problem. Same with t Ozone layer. You know the global warming crock of shit predates the Civil War right?

Also @Saint_Ann

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

Conclusions​

A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.

 

[Sean Renaud]

PCF-08 is one study. I repeat there was NEVER a widespread belief that global cooling was the thing and to the limited extent that there was belief in it was a about a specific problem that we have largely solved.

 

[Baztrachian]

PCF-08 is one study. I repeat there was NEVER a widespread belief that global cooling was the thing and to the limited extent that there was belief in it was a about a specific problem that we have largely solved.

Also you:

There was one article in time with no peer review

You were wrong. There was much more published than just one article.

No matter how flawed they are you are entitled to your opinions.

You are not entitled to invent your own facts and then use those delusions as justification to attack other people.

 

[Wilson23]

You are not entitled to invent your own facts and then use those delusions as justification to attack other people.

Here are the facts -- all of them:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climate_change

 

[Sean Renaud]

Also you:



You were wrong. There was much more published than just one article.

No matter how flawed they are you are entitled to your opinions.

You are not entitled to invent your own facts and then use those delusions as justification to attack other people.

I was not wrong. There was never a consensus and your article is very careful to tip toe around what its talkinga bout for a reason.

 

[schism666]

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/tw...ey-environmental-predictions-prove-inaccurate

Glacier National Park removes signs predicting end of glaciers in 2020 after Gore's prediction

(Excerpt: Go to the link for the full story)

the felon pedo is a climate change illiterate too!