Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth alerted the world to the dangers of global foaming:ABC News reports one of the most famous shots in the movie — of Antarctic ice shelves — is a fake. The film’s visual effects supervisor says the film took the shot from the fictional movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” which created it from Styrofoam and scanned it into a computer. “Yeah, that’s our shot,” she says. “That’s a fully computer-generated shot. There’s nothing real in there.” ABC wanted to ask Gore whether it was wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated shot to make a point, but says he did not return their calls. Wow, when they said global warming was based on computer models, I didn’t realize they meant it so literally =P
(oh p.s. - hat tip to tim blair at www.timblair.net, I’m just passing it along)
Having watched both the Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth one after the other in science class, I noticed the shot was ripped. It was shown as though it was something that was going on today, not as the CG movie shot exaggerating the entire effect that it was.
Just some quick trivia- The Day After Tomorrow also uses some real hurricane footage on their acted news programs. You can see it on the TV when the son is eating breakfast, I believe. Of course, this is completely different than actually displaying a CG shot as real.
What’s your point. You found an erroneous shot in the film, and that ends the climate change debate? Huh?
The science and data surrounding climate change have been around longer than Al Gore’s film. Al Gore’s lecture/film does not define climate change, it merely describes it and postulates on possibilities that may happen.
This thread is as useless as the other baiting threads, where people try to define climate change by an isolated event, without comprehending that a system like climate is interconnected and dynamic. No matter what side of the fence you are on, there is more to the climate change debate than editorial decisions made in a movie.
Meanwhile, food costs soar… Move along, nothing to see here.
I’m saying you may have Goreaphopia. Take two runs in the sun and see me in the morning.
I don’t need to see the movie, or know about it’s inaccuracies, to understand the climate change debate, I’ve been aware of the Science for twenty plus years. Al Gore isn’t the progenitor of global warming, or global warming theories.
I’m sure its globalism that is cause of global warming. All men should get fixed, that should cause it to shrink within a few years. In the mean time, anytime, anywhere
I think many people need to look past the messenger and look at the message. Too often people try to prove their point by disproving the person, and not the theory. Al Gore isn’t a scientist, he simply made a movie to show people what he was concerned about. (You know he was too focused on making the internet to do the research himself.)
Most importantly, listen to others and try to learn more about the subject. You don’t have to agree, but go into it with an open mind. If you align yourself to one side before you have learned anything about the subject, you might as well not bother learning. You have made up your mind and you are only going to be looking to prove yourself right.
To look past the person is nearly superhuman, really. Most of us, laymen, can’t really understand the research data so we trust the conclusions of others to build our conception of reality. Right or wrong, people learn from people.
The jury is still out on global warming as you can disprove neither cyclic warning nor human-provoked wear. That shouldn’t prevent us from taking better care of the world we were given to administrate, though.
Weather or not its real, I still support the notion of making a smaller impact on our footprint. I don’t see why we shouldn’t. I believe in charity and I believe in helping ourself. I use to be one minded because of the so called label in which I was raise in. But nothing is really clear and nothing is for certain.
Well butter me up and call me superman. If you persist in telling yourself that, of course you won’t understand it, because, you have made a choice not to try to understand it. It’s stochastic people, if you keep looking for that one event that proves or disproves it, you’re just chasing yourself down the rabbit hole.
Blenderer, can you prove that reducing energy consumption won’t do anything, and, as you say, “will cost billions”. I would like to read the report or study that you are quoting that from?
