The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth 

This is so interesting, and a great reminder that climate communication need not be sensationalised, as the objective truth is powerful in and of itself.

Perhaps you could do a video examining all of the predictions by climate scientists, and how accurate they have been?

Polar bears swim very well, in fact. Inuit have observed over decades seeing them well out to sea swimming and hunting, since water in the summer is a fact of life for them. I would also note that there exists lots of data around sea levels, which have changed very little over a hundred or more years.

The big companies don't want you to hold them accountable. ever. for anything.

Great to see you back Dr Simon Clark, official real doctor of science things.

14:51 Way to bury the lede. Makes me wish you'd have STARTED with this statement: "Al Gore's film is almost entirely accurate and the hypotheses of climate change as depicted in the film are very well supported by the evidence."

"Is it a political film? Yes!"

The only thing that increased with our new Al Gore Rhythms is Al Gore's bank accounts and the amount of jet fuel he has expelled.

I have to comment on your statement that peoples of pacific islands are not evacuating due to sea level rises. We, in Australia are already making plans to take in residents of these islands due to sea level rise. Although these people are relocating to different areas within their nations at the moment due to constant inundations due to sea level rise, it won't be long before they can't do that any more and other countries have to take them in. Movement is happening, even if it can't really be called evacuations as such right now. There are negotiations happening and talks about how to deal with 'statelessness' happening every day.

An Inconvenient Truth was a delicate balancing act: make it seem scary enough to finally get conservatives to see the severity of the problem while not sensationalizing it so much that the film’s arguments can be dismissed as hyperbole.

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. 😂

Last I checked, the Polar Bear population is healthy. Must we assume that Polar Bears never drowned in the past?

Good to see you back Simon. Hope things are going good.

Nice to see you back, and what a good video to release with, I also watched this film just out of interest during my Ocean Science undergraduate degree, but critically looking at it raised some eyebrows from me, especially the oceanic componants...

I have data based on antarctic ice cores that says that the higher CO2 levels follow rising temperatures not the other way around. The last Ice Age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. This means that we may be less than halfway through an inter-glacial period, hence, I would expect global avg temperatures to continue rising for a few more centuries or perhaps millennia with or without human contributions of CO2

Regarding the link between CO2 and temperature: The historical record, including that promulgated by the IPCC has temperature peaks BEFORE peaks in CO2, not AFTER. This would imply the causal trigger is rises in global temperature and the effect is rises in CO2. This has to exclude the populist theory that rises in CO2 trigger temperature rises, where the argument is twisted to be the wrong way around. The scientific reason for the link is that global temperature rises trigger warming of the oceans and hence a release of dissolved CO2. The flip side when Earth cools CO2 is captured by the oceans and CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline. If you look at a chart of the Palaeolithic Time Period you can see peaks in temperature occurring roughly 100,000 years apart each followed by a peak of CO2 approximately 800 years later. It’s a simple chicken vs the egg problem. In each case the chicken {Temperature rise} occurs first and the egg {peak in CO2} comes second. This is not the model for global warming in action as the alarmists would have you believe. Source: IPCC report for scientists circa 2006, Patric Moore, one time Chairman of Greenpeace and currently independent Scientist / Commentator.

"Climate skeptics cherry-pick data and they take findings out of context in order to make statements that fly completely counter to the scientific consensus." Mr. Clark follows that up with a statement about the problem of exaggerated claims made by climate activists that are nevertheless still grounded in fact. *The first quote appears to suggest that no scientist should ever make statements that oppose the scientific consensus.* If that is what he means, it is a highly irresponsible statement for a science educator to make, especially one who recognizes the complexity and nuance associated with some areas of study.

Frankly, a platform without an algorithm is worse at communication, period. That is one of the main reasons I repeatedly bounced off Nebula. Remember that an algorithm doesn't need to have the aim to increase platform ad revenue, it can be optimized for any goal you want - but one of the more important aspects of it is finding videos one may want to watch but may not know about. Without that, finding content is a lot harder. It's a case of "OK, I watched the two videos I knew about ... so what's next?" And back to RU-vid I go. It's not the only problem I find with Nebula - at least the last time I looked (which is a while ago), I seem to recall being unable to find anything to keep track of what I already watched, for example. You'll notice that all of these are usability features. Those are very relevant to viewers. Creators tend to only notice them indirectly. Maybe that's the real problem. I find this very frustrating. RU-vid has many problems, most of which, especially the more severe ones, are based around RU-vid being mainly in the business of selling ads. I'd love something better. But none of the alternatives I've seen manages to be that better thing.

I read the judge's decision. You missed the mark on what he said about the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. He stated that, though there is correlation between the two, close examination revealed that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. Thus, the graph more likely indicated that increased temperatures caused increased CO2 levels, not that increased CO2 caused increased temperatures. There might be other evidence that CO2 increases cause increased temperatures, but this graph does not qualify.

Thank you for this. Very interesting and informative.

Thanks for making this. It’s important to acknowledge errors, particularly on our own ‘side’. Bad faith actors will use errors against us, which makes it tempting to deny them, but doing so just plays into their hands.

So - to maybe give some balance to the 'urgency' objection - while the events described may not happen for decades to centuries, the time to act to mitigate the future damage is closing _quickly_, so the need to act is urgent, even if the effect may be remote in time. Attribution - as I recall, the argument was that events like Katrina, the loss of glaciers, the drying up of lakes were all _more_ _likely_ to occur from climate change, and that we should expect to see more events like these, not that any one is specifically caused by climate change. It has been close to 20 years since I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", but certainly these 'errors' were not so great that they have overwhelmed what I have picked up in the meantime. Sadly, it appears that the more pessimistic projections seem to be the way we are heading.

An inconvenient truth was actually a science fiction movie...🤣

Great analysis, summary and interpretation. Will help many in their understanding of how ‘science’ operates and how to tease out the credible information on the climate issue in the face of scepticism and denial from those who might find the facts inconvenient to their political and commercial interests

The editing, guest scientists are all amazing. Framing the video around the 9 problems that the UK investigation had + 1 more was really compelling and inspired. Look forward to seeing more!

18:45 "content is served to us algorithmically" made me chuckle, the video has conditioned my brain to expect that last word to have something to do with Al Gore

While RU-vid may not encourage this, thank you for your thoughtful, careful, nuanced content! 😊

Simon, I am very surprised that you did not mention the most serious error of the film: the climate temperature "hockey stick". Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period (900 - 1300 AD, when Greenland was actually green) and the Mini Ice Age (1300 - 1850). It is also interesting to note that climate alarmists like Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property that would be flooded if Sea Rise was a serious issue. It is a known fact that climate activists are always making wild, shrill predictions of climate catastrophe because they want people to take action. I would recommend that you review Dr Rich Lindzen's video, "Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?". It shows a graph of Global Warming starting around 1850, long before human activity was a significant factor.

Hey i just wanna say thanks for linking your sources that is some good work !

10:23 there is the fact that co2 lags the global temperature rise by about 800 years during the glacial-interglacial transition during an overall ice age, although that was caused by milankovitch cycles rising temperatures first by changing the amount sunlight hitting the polar ice caps in summer which melts the ice, reduces the albedo, and causes the planet to warm up, than co2 is degassed from the oceans (because co2 is less soluble in warmer water, it’s one reason why you store carbonated drinks like Soda cold), than that causes most of the warming after which is why we enter an interglacial period. So while the initial warming is caused by milankovitch cycles during a glacial-interglacial transition, most of the warming comes after co2 is degassed from the oceans which amplifies the warming. The forcing from milankovitch cycles alone isn’t enough to actually stop or start glacial cycles. Just thought I’d mention it because it is a misleading claim many climate “skeptics” make “because if co2 lags temps than it can cause it to rise”.

I'm still struggling here. Given evaporation from the oceans due to heat increases CO2 in the atmosphere, do we know CO2 is at the root of climate change, or is it merely a CONSEQUENCE of climate change and we need to look elsewhere? We're using models that think you can have negative cloud cover and don't know fresh water freezes as 0 C. Instead of fixing the physics, they've added fudges to stop these errors, and that tells me the models aren't accurate. Before we impoverish the western world by switching off all fossil fuels (which, btw, would also remove clothing, computers, phones, windfarms and solar panels, shoe soles, eye glasses, medicines, medical equipment, food deliveries to northern climes in winter, and just about everything else that has ensured the flourishing of humans on Earth since they are ALL based on on oil derivatives), wouldn't it be a good thing to be absolutely CERTAIN increased CO2 is CAUSING increased temps and not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the models accurate to actual physics instead of using ad-hoc fudges to conform to a political agenda? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to the satellite temperature data (which says the temperature hasn't gone up that much) rather than weather stations that are being surrounded by urban sprawl or are next airports? Might it be an idea to move the CO2 sensors off the Hawaiian islands (known for volcanic activity) and base them somewhere there is NO volcanic activity? Also, if CO2 (plant food, remember, which was at 1,000 ppm when primates first evolved -- the optimum level for plant life and the level we pump it into greehouses) IS the driving force, and neither China nor India have ANY intention to stop their use, what difference will it make to starve and impoverish the advanced countries which have the equipment and money to find solutions?

5:04 Simon states that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. This is inaccurate, because floating ice displaces its own weight once it melts, which means that it won't affect sea level. This can easily be demonstrated by filling a glass of water to the brim, with ice floating in it. Once the ice melts, the water level does not spill over the top of the glass, rather it stays at the same level. Land-based ice melting, and running into the oceans, however, will raise sea level. BTW: Ice and water can be at the same temperature.

Please look at the situation in the Maldieves... people have been evacuated from there and several other pacific islands then resettled in the USA because of seal level rise; and Norfolk VA USA is loosing a navy base to sea level rise. All movies are political.

Criticizing An Inconvenient Truth? You're one of them! *grabs pitchfork. Seriously though, I always appreciate it when 'my side' is corrected. That means there's more knowledge to soak up. Thank you for this video.

part 2: k) Traffic control is a major place where conservation can have serious impact. About 50% of the fuel used in going from point A to B is due to having to stop at lights. I once took an ordinary Kia Forte with its fuel mileage meter and drove for 25 miles on the freeway. Then drove in-town. On the freeway I could get 50 mpg by clever driving, which quickly dropped to 25 mpg while driving in-town. Clever driving means roughly constant speed, and in-town was easy driving--no jack rabbiting. I remembered from my dad's high school physics book that the optimal driving speed is about 45 mph. In multiple test runs on the freeway I found that to be not much different today. The optimum I found was about 50. That's just a standard automatic transmission 2 liter 4 cylinder gas engine on an inexpensive car. L) I have seen innumerable places in my multi-city area where traffic timing is really terrible, causing many many stops along a 5 mile stretch of road. Because almost no traffic sensing is being utilized, and timing only determines the flow, a great deal of waste is built into the system. I remember when we had the bond proposal to put computer controlled traffic lights in across Dallas. Great! Except that from then on there has never been the money to put into the monitoring of traffic flow and the computer programming to put in advanced demand-optimized traffic control programming. If we had that, then the layer to optimize probable fuel consumption could be added. Make these a national priority. M) we are all in this together, so subdivide the problem among nations, among states, among cities, to pioneer and refine these and all specific areas. Share the results across the world. Allow industry to make money off it buy creating and selling these products. Make these products free of tariffs and taxes, to accelerate the uptake in the communities. M) the biggest challenge we have is the fossil fuels and energy generation industries. There are wells, rigs, power plants that have cost billions each, that are borrowed for and are scheduled to take 40 years to pay back. Those industries, and the financial communities certainly don't want to be told "you can't anymore". And they shouldn't be told. They should be asked "what can we do to make this transition, what do you need, and what time frame can be accomplished?" We will have to offer incentives clearly. Why aren't we doing that already? Here in Texas we now have something like 20% of our electricity generated by wind and solar, and that has grown up quickly, so I'm pretty sure there are federal programs already doing it, but it needs to be ramped up to war-level efforts, and publicized. N) it's particularly difficult because there are a large number of people, of families, that are getting a monthly check from small wells that the big players don't want to mess with anymore. Those investors don't like to have their income stream yanked away by shutting down their wells, nor can they afford the upkeep to keep from emitting excess hydrocarbons and methane. The right thing to do there is substitute a share in a solar farm for the well, take ownership of the well, and shut it down on a sensible best schedule. Make ownership in solar and wind farms just as available as wells, democratize the cost, investment, and benefits of renewables so they compete in every way with fossil fuels. No reason a solar farm can't generate profit just like a well does. (If there is a better system for all that, now is the time to introduce it, experiment with it, prove it out, and roll it out world wide.) O) we need oil and gas for plastics and night time production. With war-level effort we can find ways to reduce our needs when the sun ain't. P) we can find electronics technologies, or other technologies that can interface to electronics, that consume far less energy. Many are being investigated. We could use a moonshot for this as well. Q) we can find battery technologies that allow us to capture energy generated when renewables when they are available and store them to use at night, e.g. many of those are under way, but there could be a moon shot for this as well. All the moonshots should be open to the public, to the small inventor, to the amateur scientist. Not every useful thought comes from professionals. Many people feel shut out of useful contribution, and are done so with paywalls, secrecy of inventions. Nothing is as powerful as creativity! These need to be public domain, which will require a public payment to keep the professionals working on it. If there is only one major advance made by nonprofessionals, it will pay for itself. I predict there will be a great many. All we need is one mathematical breakthrough for example, coming in from left field likely, ... Make a big deal about those who contribute. A system of awards with financial elements. Give people something to aspire to. They are making something that will benefit all mankind for generations; it is a big deal and it should be celebrated! Now you have an outline to produce a blueprint to create a plan to create policy. Make it so! "As our circumstance is new, so must we think anew".

Al's net worth also increased from $ 6 to $ 26m by 2012.

I have to applaud your strength of will in not calling this video "An inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth." That aside, thank you Dr Clark for giving a detailed and nuanced exploration of the topic; while it's good to get people engaged with the problem of climate change, proper solutions require accurate information.

great video, this kind of thoughtful breakdowns of societal problems is exactly what's needed today. Huge inspiration!

Al's only objective was to make enough money to buy a beachfront mansion, despite his stated fears about rising sea levels, which he did. The Arctic ice sheet is not reducing at all. The climate is doing nothing unusual. His pictures of Mount Fuji, showed its snow cover in winter and in summer, job done.

Am I the only one who noticed the incorrect animation at 4:43? (the ice in the glass--the ice below the waterline would DROP the water level...and only THEN would the ice above the water level begin to fill. Since the volume of the ice above the water level is less than or equal to the space in the glass above the water level, then it is not possible for the water to overflow the glass....

Revisiting older documentaries is really helpful for context. Are there any similar videos for the Michael Moore renewables film that a lot of greens I know found misrepresentative?

i was there. it was either this film or no film. humans were really stupid back then. they still are.

The looming problem with the AMOC has been much in the news lately. That particular point of attack is looking rather wobbly for you.

I watched this in middle school as well. And I fully agree, looking back it's weird how something so obviously politically-driven was shown to kids.

Good to have you back Dr Clark. Awesome clarity - as always.

Jason Box, who has studied Greenland for decades, has said ‘it hasn’t really sunk in, not even in the science community is that we’ve effectively lost the ice sheets. It’s only a matter of time before we see many meters of sea level rise”. By the end of this century we’ll probably get around a meter. Should we not all start to think on a long term basis, beyond our lifetimes? There will be people alive in the future who could see couple of meters in their lifetime. Catastrophic would be an understatement for those people.

"Taking a complex statement and reducing it down to snappy headlines..." This happens a lot more than should be acceptable... I hate it...

Great content. Thank you. Subscribed!

Another error of AIT: focus on sea level rise, when what's critical to coastal infrastructure and communities is storm surge rise, which is happening faster and more severely by far.

More people in Florida (who were legally eligible to vote) cast ballots that they intended to be votes for Gore than for Bush. But there was a badly designed ballot, with a line from Gore's name to the spot to mark the ballot for Pat Buchanan. It was fairly clear which was the correct spot, but it was confusing enough that a reasonable person would have about a 2% chance of getting it wrong -- and about 2% of voters who used that ballot did. The election was so close that those were enough to make the difference between an unambiguous win for Gore, and close enough to a tie that other kinds of issues could turn the count to either candidate. Then the partisan Florida secretary of state and the partisan SCOTUS shoved through a decision in favor of Bush instead of an honest effort to count the votes as accurately as possible by the somewhat-unclear standards of Florida law. In a nutshell, it was a mess, where Gore won the election but Bush won the mess.

Hang on… Greenland is making ice, it loses a lot and gains a lot during winter. Polar bears won’t drown ever -,its not like a carpet being suddenly ripped from underneath them. There are just bears and will move to the land and anyway if the ice didn’t melt photosynthesis would work as well so melting ice means more food. Btw, Arctic ice is already in the sea so it wouldn’t raise sea levels if it did melt. As for the Pacific Islands, most have grown 8% over the last 6 decades.

I think this video further illustrates how difficult it is to accurately capture something of tremendous complexity and nuance and then convey it in a manor for the masses.

But it has now been found that the Antartic ice has grown by over 5000km since 2009 as evidenced and peer reviewd by European Geosciences Union. Check it out their paper is called change in antartic ice shelf area 2009 to 2019

This film had many, many flaws. But what it was great at was getting people to focus on climate change and the impending issues that're plaguing the planet. So, I give VP Gore credit for making this issue known to the public, despite it's many flaws. It's just like how _Super Size Me_ changed the landscape of Fast Food culture, despite all of that documentary's issues.

5:00 you made a small error - arctic sea ice melt does not significantly contribute to sea level rise because of displacement.

I can set your mind at ease somewhat having been privy to things being said in finance near to the halls of power. Few takes very seriously the notion of ever stopping to burn hydrocarbons and many think wind and solar replacing electricity generation is window dressing to play to the environmental lobby. I have to admit, considering how inefficient wind/solar is and how much the whole thing is simply outsourcing the burning of hydrocarbons elsewhere and even adding to emissions a lot of places,this viewpoint is a logical one. It made me into a staunch nuclear maximalist even if that too still includes burning hydrocarbons but every serious scenario includes burning hydrocarbons,the mining alone would ensure this in any renewables scheme. There are ways we can lower the carbon content of petroleum products and there are ways to make burning processes more efficient..but not as much funding is going this way. For example,a thing we could do to reduce carbon emissions vastly is getting the west to subsidize LNG exports to India,this would provide incentives to not industrialize on coal like done today.

Sea level rise is predicted to be between 1.3 to 1.6 meters by 2100, but the IPCC has consistently underestimated sea level rise in their projections, so the idea this is a lowball is plausible. Arctic Ocean is predicted to be sea ice free by between 2035 and 2040, known as the blue ocean event, is the acceleration turning point where global warming is out of humanity's hands. Solomon Islands are five Pacific islands which have already been submerged due to sea level rise, and a sixth, Tuvalu, home to 12,000 people, is likely to join them in the next few decades. Regarding Kilimanjaro, I have to ask how it's possible that mountains melting isn't attributed to global warming. There are so many locations where mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating.

It's easy to go back 23 years and Judge Al Gore's movie but the fact of the matter is things are far more critical now than he even suggested back then the science and the data are clear that we're heading for a +3.5C world by 2100 - and it will continue to rise after that time. However our responsibility to the people who will suffer after 2100 does not end

When he says lying by omission he nailed it. With the 24/7 news cycle they only present one side because if they present the other side their argument falls apart. Most important to the climate scientist the money goes away. Follow the money folks...

The problem with attribution modeling is that it assumes the models are accurate, and yet not a single public prediction on climate that I can find has ever been close to accurate. When I say close, I mean, did the predicted result get within 2X of the prediction, from my reading, it's never even close! A model that can't make predictions isn't a good model and so any type of attribution study based on a bad model isn't a good study.

I must say I love the comments being full of right wing conspiracy nutters who didn't watch the video. It's like Sideshow Bob walking into the rakes over and over again.

Nice to see you back, Simon.

This is why politicians should leave the science to scientists. Gore accidentally caused a whole wave of anti science and climate change denial over the world because of that presentation and catering to special interests.

Ice melting in Greenland, Antarctica & glaciers all over is half of SLR. The other half is thermal expansion of seawater. The expected timeline has been shrinking exponentially as scientists have learned more, from many thousands of years to a small fraction of that. Gore’s leaving out the time was perfectly reasonable. Multiple meters by 2100 is reasonable. (Hansen & many others)

I'm sure your father is proud of what you have done. condolences.

Incorrect, sea level ice melt does not increase sea level rise. Only land-based ice melt increases sea level rise. Increase heating of the oceans, which is happening in a remarkable pace, does increase sea level rise because warmer water expands.

I wrote my final thesis in English Linguistics how the Kyoto conference was handled in US and UK newsprint - which means it included an analysis of how Gore was quoted and how it is embedded in the US climate change discourse of the time. And, what you said in the end about the "10th" error is very much align with what I found about the kind of Language in the US newsprint when talking about climate change and the international climate policy

I’m all for sustainability and environmentalism, but I’m against the co2 alarmism. I have a number of concerns that have adjusted the temp data. I agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and I agree that humans have put co2 in the atmosphere. In one of your previous video you state emissions from burning oil etc was co2 and other noxious gases. But that these other noxious gases had a cooling effect on temperature. The noxious gases also created a smog blanket over cities which lead to cooling over cities. So technology was developed to remove this noxious gases. Catalytic converters, conversion to gas from coal etc. this all lead to noxious pollution being removed from the skies. No more huge industrial chimneys or billion cars pumping noxious gas into the atmosphere. Absolutely agree this was the right thing to especially from a health perspective. Now here is my problem. This technology removed the coolant gases but not the heating gas from exhaust. Consequently our skies have been cleaned of the coolant gases that supposedly masked the co2 warming. Consequently our skies have significantly reduced coolant and smog blanket and an increase in co2. We now see especially from the 1980’s a global temp rise particularly over the skies of cleaner air cities. The temp measures are simply a measure of cleaner skies with less coolant and more co2. What worries me is that scientists knew this is what would happen with the removal of the coolants. They’ve allowed the temp to increase. What we must also remember us that when we burnt timber for fuel we also put ash into the atmosphere. Ever been near a fire, it’s toxic to breathe, and we’ve cleaned our skies of those toxins too. Is the rising temp a consequence not if co2 but cleaner pollution free skies and the albedo of our urban centres.

I disagree with your comment about our response to climate change having been weakened because of An Inconvenient Truth. I think it has contributed significantly to the public awareness of climate change. I think we would be in a worse position nowadays if An Inconvenient Truth had never been made.

You have enormous confidence that sceptics are either ignorant or malicious. When you notice the deliberate exaggerations and sometimes actual misinformation of your own side, does that ever give you cause for doubt?

Sea levels are not rising at the rates claimed in Gore’s film. Despite that we need to support technologies and practices that effectively reduce negative enviromental impacts.

The problem I have with all of this CO2 stuff is, Ice Core Samples show that our current CO2 levels are much, much lower than in some of the ice core samples, and our average temperature likewise. If polar bears and etc. survived the earlier higher temps and CO2 levels, odds are that they will survive the current levels, but that's not say that they will survive other human activities (habitat destruction, lack of traditional food sources...........).

Great work and all, but can I just say one detail I think is important and was missed... is that Dr Simon has a WH40K box in his library and I think that's awesome.

I'm also very much interested in physics and planning to do undergraduate study in it, after telling about my interest in physics , most of my well wishers asked about employment opportunities. They are worried about it. Can you please tell me about job opportunities for an physics undergrad. It means a lot if you could reply.

No: Greenland is not melting (right now), nor are islands disappearing, nor are ice bears drowning: ice bears live in the water, where they hunt for food.

The way this film was presented was a deliberate intention to propagandize children because they have no way to critically deal with these assertions whether they are true or not.

Simon absolutely nailed it, keep up the amazing content!

"the real problem we have is; we only have one planet" pretty much sums up the entire situation nicely

The Average global temperature has been changing ever since the rocks started to cool way back then. Please note that there is NOT a single 'global' climate, but many local climates based on one of many different factors one of which is location, location, location. For instance, southern California has about 5 or 6 different climates based on each areas local terrain and weather patterns. If we wish to consider the validity of published 'peer reviewed' studies, I have issues with studies that have not been replicated due to the lack of complete publishing of raw data sets and the methodologies of the 'studies'. Not to mention that more that 2000 studies have been withdrawn or retracted due to data issues and other faults. When 'science' is falsified, it is very hard to believe what they are saying. There has been a marked loss in the amount of trust for much of the scientific community because what has happened over the last 3 to 5 years. Once trust or belief is lost, there is not much that can be done to win that back. Stop crying wolf. Reasonable people will stop listening.

How come those who were expecting Ice-age in 70's now say it is Boiling?

I always point out that Svante Arrhenius wrote about the theory of CO2 global warming in 1896: "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Look up this paper and it will give you an idea of the basic mechanism, which has been expanded upon for more than a century.

This video is a great illustration of bringing nuance to a discussion of a scientific issue without getting lost in detail. Bravo!

I appreciate your perspective and arguments even if I disagree. 1. There is no evidence that CO2 will cause runaway heating which seems to be the most common extreme position of climate activists. Large-scale multivariate systems with no overwhelming and dominating factor ever cause a runaway state, and that is what we see with Climate. According to prehistoric climate data, we know that CO2 was two orders of magnitude higher, and yet the Earth still cooled and life existed. 2. Climate models don't account for solar variation, cloud cover, or the infinite heat sink of space. These three factors are major contributors to climate and without accounting for them we can never expect climate models to be accurate.

The thing I find most difficult about anything relating to Climate change is that, like you said, it is framed as an 'us' problem. That individuals are the ones who will make the difference. When in reality, we can as much as we want in England...but that won't affect countries such as China and India etc. from using more and more resources and causing more and more pollution. I equate it to the debate around veganism (and the spurious environmental benefits thereof). Me not eating meat does not stop the cow from being slaughtered. It isn't an on-demand system. I could go completely off grid, not drive a car and live as a hermit off the land. But that does not stop new factories being built in another country. This is a supranational problem and will only be tackled correctly with a global consensus

in my lab, the local german television came to record a documentary. They wanted catchy videos, so the professor just outright made up interpretations on a blank sample because they redid it 50 times :')

Thanks so much for this video. Intellectual honesty is more important now than ever.

On the UC DAVIS website, there have been web pages up for many years about nitrogen and boreal forests. You have to read their long explanations for at least a couple pages to understand what they are talking about! If you do so you will learn they are talking about nitrogen in the mountain ⛰️ waters of boreal forests feeding the forest trees 🌲 and causing HUGE growth blooms of those forests when there are excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say this needs to be more studied because the trees are obviously using the nitrogen directly from the mountain waters without mycorrhiza in those soils to make the nitrogen available to the trees 🌲. AND IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES THESE FOREST BLOOMS HAVE REVERSED RAPID RISES IN CO2 IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, ABSORBING MASIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2! If you really have some understanding how nature works, like I do, you would KNOW that once in history nature has corrected some adversity in the Earth’s biome, it will happen again and again from then on rapidly and automatically. Therefore, your global warming is a LIE that should NOT be feared and ALL OF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL! 😅

Around 5:10 to 5:15 This guy made a HUGE scientific error citing BOTH melting sea ice and land ice contributes to sea level rise. Incorrect. Only melting land ice could contribute to sea level rise. Melting sea ice will not change the water level.

I appreciate your willingness to present a critique of “your side”. It shows the humility I’d like to see more from the scientific community. Like you, I was presented with a similar documentary in school back in the 70’s. Instead of Al Gore, it was Leonard Nemoy (Spock) Instead of global warming the scientific consensus according to all the data said the United States would be covered in a sheet of Ice by now. And we’d all be dead from freezing temperatures. In my 60 years of living, it’s been one false prediction after another. I wish scientists didn’t act like now they know everything, period. It’s so arrogant.

There is a classic error at 5:00 that may be present in the Gore presentation. Melting (floating) sea ice causes a sea level rise. According to Archimedes it doesn’t.

A politician is the last person anyone should be listening to when it comes to climate, and the weather systems around the planet. Politicians such as Gore will say anything to look like a hero so they will get elected into office. They crave power, money, and status. Hypocrisy is their method of operation. Scare tactics are a huge part of getting this power. They hope if they use this tactic, they will get followers, thus inflating their enormus egos. The sad part is that many people just nod their heads and follow these guys.

Regarding the definition of climate change provided by RU-vid at the top of the description: what are we supposed to call climate change caused by forces other than humans? If we aren't supposed to assume that ALL climate change is caused by humans -- and such an assumption is egregiously hubristic -- then WHAT ARE WE DOING TO LANGUAGE?

What you're really saying: Give the fossil fuel industry a millimeter of discrepancy in your scientific rigour and they'll bog down climate negotiations for a century until its 4 degrees of warming not 1.5 and too late for any of us.

The melting of arctic sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as you state at 5:00. The arctic sea ice is already floating, when it melts it displaces exactly the same amount of water as it did in ice form. So, it does not contribute at all to any rise in sea level. I appreciate the overall message of the video, though I think you are giving the climate-change fearmongers much more slack than they deserve. It actually isn't clear what will happen in this century. It may turn out that the fear was mostly unfounded.

If you actually watch the video, it actually supports Gore's overall points and the seriousness of human-caused climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 & CH4: Quote:12:27 "British Justice Gore actually concluded that Gore's film was substantially founded upon scientific research and that the film's four scientific hypotheses were very well supported by research published in respected peer-reviewd journals".

Wrong, you should definitely doubt those theory’s! Recomendo professor Patric Moore, Björn Lomberg and John Christy to better understand why. They all have different approaches, BUT, they definitely breakdown why the story sold is wrong in SOOOO MANY WAYS….

Have to take issue with your comment around 4:08 that no climate scientist expects Greenland to melt this century. Paul Beckwith does - he is a very experienced climate scientist and he does very thorough research. I am not a climate scientist but have a well above average working knowledge &understanding of the research. And as such I would tend to agree that Greenland will be done by the end of this century. But I do agree that in 2006 that would not have been anywhere close to as clear as it is now

Best one I ever heard with regards to science was that just because things happen at the same time doesn’t prove that they are directly related. “ if you relate eating ice cream to shark attacks they match perfectly like co2 to heat, that thought is obviously a ridiculous proven outcome, the missed information thought I’d that it’s summer when you eat ice cream’s and it’s also when everyone goes swimming!!, eating ice cream thought as science shows improves shark attacks”. Be careful what you believe!!

It is also interesting that Al Gore was inspired by the presentation given by Professor Carl Sagan to the US Congress in 1985. Whilst I agree with everything that Carl Sagan said I do not agree with Al Gore's interpretation of that presentation. Unfortunately Carl Sagan died before An Inconvenient Truth was released, I am sure he would have disagreed with this film. Carl Sagan stressed repeatedly the need for more work to be done in order to calculate the impact of man made CO2 emissions on the warming of the planet. He stated how complicated this would be as the natural warming and cooling cycles that occur every millennia will have to be factored into any calculations before we can accurately determine any human impact. Al Gore does not mention any natural warming instead blames every degree of warming since the industrial revolution on human activity. This is also an error that you can add to your list.

It also made Gore millions while he flew around the world warning us about the climate.