Inconvenient propagandist: How Al Gore distorts facts
Simon Basseyn
Issue date: 10/16/07 Section: Opinion
If only the title of Al Gore's iconic global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was the only misleading thing about it. On Oct. 8, the British High Court, following an appeal by a vexed parent, blocked the government's decision to distribute the film to every British secondary school. The court ruled that the partisan, ideologically charged film is deceptive in at least 11 aspects.
By law, any teacher who wishes to present the documentary in a classroom in Britain must not only identify the specious "truths" to students, but also preface the film with a disclaimer that it is a political work promoting only one side of the debate. Should any instructor fail to do so, he or she would be in breach of the Education Act of 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
Essentially, England's highest authority, akin to our Supreme Court, is defining the movie as propaganda, no different than the fabrications spread by any other extreme, radical group in history.
Propaganda is defined as a "manipulation of information to influence public opinion ... often containing misleading statements and lies. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and de-emphasize or exclude those that do not."
Is Al Gore a propagandist? Well, let's see.
Al Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, hurling all of Europe into another full-blown ice age.
Government experts: The very notion of such a phenomenon is, inherently, scientifically implausible. Not only is the Gulf Stream not the reason Europe stays moderately warm in the winter, but it flows because of wind, not currents. Even Al Gore would admit that global warming can have no impact on wind. In other words, the Gulf Stream is perpetually safe, at least from the "threat" of climate change. Lie.
Al Gore: Mt. Kilimanjaro's melting snows are clear evidence of the immediate impacts of global warming. England's government experts admitted that not only is there no evidence to support this claim, but it is blatantly untrue. Various other isolated, natural phenomena are wholly responsible. Lie.
Al Gore: Evidence from ice cores show that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused increases in temperature over the last 650,000 years.
Government experts: Levels of carbon dioxide have preceded any trace of rise in temperature by at least 800 to 2,000 years. Elementary school reasoning can easily reveal the inconsistency in this proclaimed correlation. Lie.
Al Gore: By utilizing emotional and visceral photographs of Hurricane Katrina, he blamed the catastrophe on global warming.
Government experts: It is impossible to blame any single, anomalous event on climate change. Not only was this factually incorrect, it was utterly insensitive to those who suffered. Using such a tragedy for a blatantly false, self-serving purpose is simply morally disgraceful. Moreover, the same scientist whose findings Gore used to correlate the strength of hurricanes to global warming said himself that we cannot claim such a cause-and-effect relation. Lie.
Al Gore: Human emission of carbon dioxide will cause most of Greenland's 630,000 square miles of ice to melt by 2100, causing an increase in sea levels of over 20 feet in a mere 90 years.
This is alarming, almost as if someone decided to invent the fact out of whole cloth to frighten the world community into believing something untrue. The United Nations' review of global warming found that it will take millennia for that amount of ice to melt, according to the policymaker's summary. The rise in sea level in 2100, moreover, will be somewhere between 8 and 17 inches.
Al Gore overestimates - or, more appropriately, purposely exaggerates - the consequences by 2,000 percent. Gore's second-favorite example of melting ice is in Antarctica. Using his ever-impressive shrewdness, he presents evidence that only surveys ice sheets from the Western half and also only dates to 2002, a mere 5 years ago. Unfortunately for him, when scientists looked at the entire Antarctic from 1992, the evidence showed that the ice there is actually increasing. Lie.
The lies are precisely what I want to address. I am not challenging global warming's existence; I am simply challenging its immediacy. Al Gore wants us to believe that our children and grandchildren will be physically harmed, or at least gravely inconvenienced, by the phenomenon.
The reality, as presented by the U.N. and the British High Court, is that even our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will not feel any sort of impact. Yes, we must safeguard against climate change's eventual effects, but we cannot sacrifice our entire political system to join the hot new fad.
Gore's eschatological depiction threatens our vital policies right now. By fabricating smoking gun after smoking gun, he has whirled the scientific and general community into a panic, causing them to believe global warming is a bigger danger in the next century than economic hardship, terrorism, war and hunger, and we must put forth our every resource to combat it.
This is why the British High Court defines Gore as a propagandist. He "manipulates information," "emphasizes evidence that supports his view," and "de-emphasizes any that does not" in order to deceive the public so it will join his quest for personal glory. Following his devastating presidential election loss in 2000, he fell off the face of the Earth. Searching for an edge to get his name out, he settled on a ripe, hot-button issue. After all, no one can deny the attention he has received because of this film - possibly more than the cause itself.
He even just won the Nobel Peace Prize, on top of his Oscar, and has a newfound hope for a presidential bid in 2008. Now, to whom is the truth really inconvenient?
Simon Basseyn is a contributing columnist. E-mail him at opinion@nyunews.com.
By law, any teacher who wishes to present the documentary in a classroom in Britain must not only identify the specious "truths" to students, but also preface the film with a disclaimer that it is a political work promoting only one side of the debate. Should any instructor fail to do so, he or she would be in breach of the Education Act of 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
Essentially, England's highest authority, akin to our Supreme Court, is defining the movie as propaganda, no different than the fabrications spread by any other extreme, radical group in history.
Propaganda is defined as a "manipulation of information to influence public opinion ... often containing misleading statements and lies. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and de-emphasize or exclude those that do not."
Is Al Gore a propagandist? Well, let's see.
Al Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, hurling all of Europe into another full-blown ice age.
Government experts: The very notion of such a phenomenon is, inherently, scientifically implausible. Not only is the Gulf Stream not the reason Europe stays moderately warm in the winter, but it flows because of wind, not currents. Even Al Gore would admit that global warming can have no impact on wind. In other words, the Gulf Stream is perpetually safe, at least from the "threat" of climate change. Lie.
Al Gore: Mt. Kilimanjaro's melting snows are clear evidence of the immediate impacts of global warming. England's government experts admitted that not only is there no evidence to support this claim, but it is blatantly untrue. Various other isolated, natural phenomena are wholly responsible. Lie.
Al Gore: Evidence from ice cores show that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused increases in temperature over the last 650,000 years.
Government experts: Levels of carbon dioxide have preceded any trace of rise in temperature by at least 800 to 2,000 years. Elementary school reasoning can easily reveal the inconsistency in this proclaimed correlation. Lie.
Al Gore: By utilizing emotional and visceral photographs of Hurricane Katrina, he blamed the catastrophe on global warming.
Government experts: It is impossible to blame any single, anomalous event on climate change. Not only was this factually incorrect, it was utterly insensitive to those who suffered. Using such a tragedy for a blatantly false, self-serving purpose is simply morally disgraceful. Moreover, the same scientist whose findings Gore used to correlate the strength of hurricanes to global warming said himself that we cannot claim such a cause-and-effect relation. Lie.
Al Gore: Human emission of carbon dioxide will cause most of Greenland's 630,000 square miles of ice to melt by 2100, causing an increase in sea levels of over 20 feet in a mere 90 years.
This is alarming, almost as if someone decided to invent the fact out of whole cloth to frighten the world community into believing something untrue. The United Nations' review of global warming found that it will take millennia for that amount of ice to melt, according to the policymaker's summary. The rise in sea level in 2100, moreover, will be somewhere between 8 and 17 inches.
Al Gore overestimates - or, more appropriately, purposely exaggerates - the consequences by 2,000 percent. Gore's second-favorite example of melting ice is in Antarctica. Using his ever-impressive shrewdness, he presents evidence that only surveys ice sheets from the Western half and also only dates to 2002, a mere 5 years ago. Unfortunately for him, when scientists looked at the entire Antarctic from 1992, the evidence showed that the ice there is actually increasing. Lie.
The lies are precisely what I want to address. I am not challenging global warming's existence; I am simply challenging its immediacy. Al Gore wants us to believe that our children and grandchildren will be physically harmed, or at least gravely inconvenienced, by the phenomenon.
The reality, as presented by the U.N. and the British High Court, is that even our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will not feel any sort of impact. Yes, we must safeguard against climate change's eventual effects, but we cannot sacrifice our entire political system to join the hot new fad.
Gore's eschatological depiction threatens our vital policies right now. By fabricating smoking gun after smoking gun, he has whirled the scientific and general community into a panic, causing them to believe global warming is a bigger danger in the next century than economic hardship, terrorism, war and hunger, and we must put forth our every resource to combat it.
This is why the British High Court defines Gore as a propagandist. He "manipulates information," "emphasizes evidence that supports his view," and "de-emphasizes any that does not" in order to deceive the public so it will join his quest for personal glory. Following his devastating presidential election loss in 2000, he fell off the face of the Earth. Searching for an edge to get his name out, he settled on a ripe, hot-button issue. After all, no one can deny the attention he has received because of this film - possibly more than the cause itself.
He even just won the Nobel Peace Prize, on top of his Oscar, and has a newfound hope for a presidential bid in 2008. Now, to whom is the truth really inconvenient?
Simon Basseyn is a contributing columnist. E-mail him at opinion@nyunews.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 10
sean bruckman
posted 10/16/07 @ 7:16 AM EST
Yawn. "Government experts?" Are these the same people that the bush administration has paid through illicit deals (or conversely, punished with career assassination) to influence reports coming out of our government? (look it up) Or are they merely the same type of people?
Oh wait. (Continued…)
Dan L
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:01 AM EST
You might want to read your article again. You blast Gore for what you call "propaganda" when your own article better fits the definition. If the courts continue to follow this logic of teaching all sides of the argument, they'll eventually be have textbooks saying the Earth could only be 5,000 years old and there is a theory the Holocaust is just propaganda. (Continued…)
Vince
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:53 AM EST
Hi, and thanks. It's about time someone informed the emporer of his new clothes!
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and was flabbergasted by how little factual information was provided in the movie. (Continued…)
Joe
posted 10/16/07 @ 11:49 AM EST
The impact of this documentary seems to be where the "propaganda" labels are aimed at. If you read the BBC reports of the High Court Judge's ruling, the areas of "contention" are so trivial it's almost like government propaganda itself. (Continued…)
hal
posted 10/16/07 @ 8:03 PM EST
just because you deny the dramatic climate changes and receding arctic ice fields over the last several years doesn't mean that Al Gore is lying. These changes have been occurring at a much more rapid pace than first expected, so it is not unreasonable to extrapolate from this that the problem is much more immediate and urgent than first expected. (Continued…)
Harbinger
posted 10/17/07 @ 3:39 AM EST
The government experts were pro warming because the UK government has tied itself to Al Gore's mast. They could not produce any evidence to support Gore's claims on the nine, or is it eleven "errors". (Continued…)
Steve Hartwell
posted 10/18/07 @ 12:19 PM EST
Ask people who believe Al Gore how would they explain that Mars is warming up about the same amount as is the Earth.
Al Gore's claims are Junk Science-for-a-buck, which has taken over the world about everything, including - second hand tobacco smoke. (Continued…)
Frankie Smith
posted 10/18/07 @ 8:26 PM EST
The earth is always changing, it is warming and cooling all the time, based on solar activity. Right now, all the planets from Mars to Pluto are experiencing global warming. (Continued…)
Evan
posted 10/19/07 @ 11:49 AM EST
When you are writing a scientific commentary, it is essential to cite sources for your assertions. The label, "Government Experts," tells me absolutely nothing about source of the information. (Continued…)
Post a Comment