Was 'An Inconvenient Truth' based on science?

[Juvenal]

So when an authority (in this case a climate scientist) gets it wrong the fall back tactic is to question the authenticity of everyone in the room who happens to notice it.

In this case, a rodent.

Irony noted.

This is the sort of nonsense that caused me to turn my back on fundamentalism.

This is the sort of nonsense that caused me to stop coddling denialists.

But forgive me, I did say we were going to pretend you were asking honest questions.

[Juvenal]

lao tzu is in rare form this morning. The Snarkiness is great in this one.

Two pots of Colombian, fresh ground, and you can snark with the best of us, too.

[Meh Gerbil]

lao tzu is in rare form this morning. The Snarkiness is great in this one.

I'm learning some good things.
For example, I thought the people in this list were false prophets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...alyptic_events

Turns out that Wikipedia has been wildly discredited and they only 'muffed' it.

[Meh Gerbil]

Two pots of Colombian, fresh ground, and you can snark with the best of us, too.

Cocaine or coffee?
You didn't really drink two pots of coffee already, did you?

[Sparko]

Two pots of Colombian, fresh ground, and you can snark with the best of us, too.

yet, today I have met the master.

[Juvenal]

Cocaine or coffee?
You didn't really drink two pots of coffee already, did you?

The east coast makes many things possible for an early riser.

Third pot is brewing.

[Meh Gerbil]

This is the sort of nonsense that caused me to stop coddling denialists.

Yeah, the fundamentalists used to do that as well.
They'd give the opposition a wicked sounding name - the 'us' vs. 'them' thing really brings in the bucks.

Out of curiosity, what level would I have to achieve in your organization to be able to compare a scientist's predictions with the actual result?
I thought it was a pretty simple comparison but evidently I have to have some sort of certification - not the sort of thing they'd hand out to a lowly 'denialist', I'd wager.

Should I walk to the camp now or will an officer be around to pick me up shortly?

[Meh Gerbil]

The east coast makes many things possible for an early riser.

Third pot is brewing.

I assume your office chair is a bucket of some sort?

[Juvenal]

I'm learning some good things.
For example, I thought the people in this list were false prophets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...alyptic_events

Turns out that Wikipedia has been wildly discredited and they only 'muffed' it.

You should see someone about these mood swings.

[Meh Gerbil]

You should see someone about these mood swings.

Said the guy on his third pot of coffee...

[rogue06]

Honest Question
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an...#ixzz47h2jBizY

Define "based on"

How many totally fictitious movies have the notice "based on true events" on them?

[HMS_Beagle]

With all due respect you've lost me.

Not hard to do apparently.

The overall science presented in AIT was correct. This has been verified repeatedly in the following decade. Human inputs have caused the Earth's average temperature to continue to rise rapidly, as does sea level. Ice volume at both poles is decreasing, the amount of precipitation worldwide is increasing (warmer air temp = more evaporation, more moisture in the air). The changes have already cost hundreds of billions of dollars in failed crops and lost seaside land worldwide. They're predicted to cost trillions more in infrastructure damage, look at Miami for a good example. All the squawking from the AGW-deniers is because some of the worst case scenarios didn't occur, lucky for us. That doesn't somehow invalidate all the other scientific findings as AGW denier clowns would have you believe.

[rogue06]

Not necessarily. He was just wrong.


Not necessarily. The prediction was wrong, but this doesn't mean that the science was "bad".


Al Gore took a speculative scientific prediction, presented it as absolute fact, and used it to push his own public policy agenda. He abused science for political reasons.

Exactly. Gore took things that may well have been based on legitimate science and pushed it to the extreme

[Sparko]

Exactly. Gore took things that may well have been based on legitimate science and pushed it to the extreme

sort of like taking the theory that says the sun will expand into a red giant one day and fry us all and then claiming it will happen in 10 years?

That is called "lying" and "scare tactics" - not science.

[Meh Gerbil]

Define "based on"
How many totally fictitious movies have the notice "based on true events" on them?

A Clinton-esque tactic but I'll play for a little bit.

Drilling down to the claim "The ice/snow/glacier/varves on Mount Whatever will be gone in 10 years.".
When I ask 'What was that based on?' I want to know what evidence/methodology/metric/authority made the claim seem reasonable at the time?

For example:
1: Did Al Gore fabricate it?
2: Did Lonnie Thompson fabricate it?
3: Did the science of the time suggest it?

How did the claim originate?