Original Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute
"An Inconvenient Truth" has become the bible for those who are ardently committed to taking the civilized world back to the days of pre-industrialism. At the same time they wish to transfer the wealth of those developed countries to those parts of the globe that for whatever reason live in a time closer to Western Europe in the Stone Age, than Fifth Avernue now. Where I come from, this makes the entire exercise Marxist and not scientific.
I have translated the above referenced links into point form below.
- The "used to be next President" Albert Gore claims to be non-partisan in his work. This is untrue - he is a fierce opponent of the current executive branch of the USA and still has plans to run as President of the United States. This film and book is a political exercise for him to gain develop support for his personal interests.
- The film never compares the benefits of our lifestyle to alternatives: as it is, it alleviates hunger and poverty, extends life spans and makes life enabling medicines, food and other resources to all parts of the world. A cost benefit analysis is not represented.
- It does not consider the possible positive effects of a warmer planet and its effect upon the reduced demand for fossil fuels for heating and the huge increase in food production and resulting possible reduction in global hunger.
- It neglects to report that deaths due to extreme weather events have declined dramatically overall in the last hundred years.
- It apportions considerable blame to western countries on a relative basis, comparing the most modern and advanced society (at least two of which cover huge geographies) to the most agrarian and backward and often tiny nations.
- It impugns the so-called vested interests of global warming deniers, but never deniers the special benefits of those who promote the theory - including those who seek political office.
- It does not address the cost of implementing severe reductions in implementing a prospective emission plan such as the Kyoto Prototcol.
- The film implied that changes in CO2 levels preceed global warming when, if anything, the opposite is true.
- There was a bias in the scientists used to develop their consensus - sociologists were attributed equal credibility as climatologists and implied that a study that since 928 selected scientific abstracts did not deny Gore's postulation that this was evidence of the consensus.
- It reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused President Bush of distorting science, without informing that the scientists were members of a political group supporting John Kerry.
- The film attributes the severity of tropical storms to global warming. There is absolutely no evidence of this.
- They blamed devastation of the polar bear population global warming based upon the drowning of four animals. The Polar Bear population in northern Canada is increasing overall.
- The collapse of the Larson_B Ice shelf in Antarctica is not a harbinger of doom. It was an irrelevant event considering the size of that continent.
- The film lies about more stringent fuel economy standards in China compared to the USA (they are 5% more stringent not 30%). They do not comment on whether these standards in China will be enforced.
- The film attributes the 37 inch downpour of July 2005 in Mumbai to global warming even though there is no trend of such events in the area for almost fifty years.
- It blames global warming for floods in China not advising that far more serious floods were evident over 100 years ago.
- Global warming is blamed for the disappearance of Lake Chad which is more likely a result of increased population and consumption by humans and animals.
- The film warns of how increase in CO2 levels will acidify and warm seawater resulting in elimination of coral reef construction. In fact these events would result in an increase in coral reef construction.