Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

Singer quote

Why is Fred Singer quoted here, out of all those that appeared in TGGWS? Raymond Arritt 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply trimmed the section to remove redundant details from the TGGWS page using the same logic being employed to revert my edits on the Singer page relative to Monbiot and his BLP.

If the information removed is reverted then I plan to copy the complete list of TGGWS contributors to this section to offset the POV pushing. This section is clearly contained within the criticism section of the page. The commentary I removed was not consistent with being in a criticism section. --GoRight 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT, threats like that serve no purpose and may result in a block. Vsmith 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What threat? I am simply indicating that if the critics of TGGWS are to be referenced here so should the supporters to KEEP things neutral. This comment is directly in agreement with WP:POINT as far as I can tell. Let me make the relevant points more clear:

1. I removed redundant information from the article using the same reasoning that was used to remove information on Singer's page.
2. I consider the current the redundant information to be POV pushing.
3. If people insist that the critics of TGGWS be listed here then I think we should also copy the full list of TGGWS supporters here as well to AVOID the POV pushing bias.

Does that make it more clear to you?

--GoRight 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your comments make the situation clearer, but probably not in the way that you intended. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the quotes from this film's critics have been systematically removed from the article while the text that was probably at one time counterbalancing those critics still remains. The result is a skewed perspective of TGGWS's legitimacy. I wish to restore the balance on that point. I am happy to include the critics of TGGWS here but then I think that we should also list the names of those that appear in the film for balance. --GoRight 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need to mention any more than the fact that it's a film with a contrary take on the subject? If we're going to go into details like the contention that temperature is forcing CO2 in present-day climate (which we know is absolutely, unquestionably wrong because of isotopic analysis, etc.) then we have to note that which details are correct and which are bunk. Otherwise we mislead the reader, which you surely wouldn't want to do -- would you? Raymond Arritt 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mislead the reader? Of course not. As I said that is what I am trying to avoid here.

The film makes several points all of which are fully discussed in the TGGWS article along with their critics responses. Of all of the points made in the film this one (the fact that the CO2 lags the temperature in the ice cores) is not actually in dispute, is it? I think your side accepts this as a valid scientific point, correct? I just think it makes sense to somehow summarize here the most sound or significant point made in the film. I know that you don't think that this is the current relationship in the current warming period though. I'll add a comment that the results presented in the film are widely disputed and the criticisms are discussed in detail in the TGGWS page. Would that satisfy your concerns?

It is moot for now as Raul654 just conducted a drive by revert. --GoRight 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I reverted Raul654's revert and made the change I proposed above. Raul654 then conducted another drive-by revert (i.e. a full revert without any mention or discussion here) so I will leave it for now. Does the proposed addition satisfy your concerns? --GoRight 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I don't know what you mean. This seems to be an argument about expertise. The pro-AGW people on this talk page and others seem to be operating under the assumption that only scientists are qualified to discuss any aspect of global warming related issues. Remember that this is a page about a movie, not about science. While the folks at RC are qualified to discuss the science of AGW (and thus the science of this movie), I don't see why they're any more qualified to judge the politics of this movie or its distribution in schools than lots of other people (Milloy for one) are. Oren0 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree. --GoRight 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

Did Gore really say that reduced THC would "halt" the Gulf Stream? That's wrong -- though its intensity would be reduced, the Gulf Stream will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates and the North Atlantic is unfrozen. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I'd think I'd remember if he said something that bad. What were his exact words? Raymond Arritt 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was reference to a possible shutdown of thermohaline circulation, but don't remember the exact reference in the film being to shut the Gulf stream down. Vsmith 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --GoRight 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I want the article to be accurate. If he didn't say "halt", we shouldn't say he did. Conversely, if he really did say "halt," that's motivation to include material that criticizes him saying so (as well he should be). Raymond Arritt 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where it is referenced. Given the stated cause and effect I would agree that this has to be a typo of some sort. I think Vsmith is correct about what the proper reference should be. Although, if Gore really DID say Gulf Stream be sure to let me know! That could be a handy quote for elsewhere. --GoRight 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand he might actually have said it. I haven't followed the details but a quick Google search turned up a site that you won't like which had this related commentary: Gulf Stream Will Not Shut Down, Science Magazines Admit.

"Since 1998, global warming alarmists have claimed rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheet could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt, dominated by the Gulf Stream, and thus shut off the supply of warm water and air that keeps northern Europe extremely mild for its high latitude.

The resulting advance of ice sheets across Europe, alarmists argued, would quickly spread throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and plunge the Earth into an already overdue ice age."

So maybe he was refering to something related to that? I'm not suggesting that you rely on this or anything, just trying to give you additional good faith info for your search.

Here's a source that will be more to your liking: Ocean changes 'will cool Europe'. It does discuss the Gulf Stream so if Gore did mention it he was probably referring to this.

--GoRight 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice but it's not relevant to my question -- which is, what did Gore actually say? It would be good if there were an actual transcript available. Raymond Arritt 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always buy a DVD off of him, after all that's why he made them ... oh, and that's also why you probably won't find a transcript. Maybe you should buy his book too.  :-) I can't help you because, needless to say, I don't own either of them. --GoRight 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. That is a sudden jump. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We’ll come back to that one." Source. Iceage77 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reasonably good Meteorology 101 summary of current views on the Younger Dryas (one can quibble over details; e.g., recent evidence is that drainage was mostly to the north rather than through the St. Lawrence). Back to the original point, he doesn't say the Gulf Stream was halted so we shouldn't misreport him. I'll reword the text accordingly. Raymond Arritt 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would eliminate that reference to Gulf Stream. It is not really spurious as you claim. If you follow the reference provided by Iceage77 here is the paragraph proceeding the one he quoted:

"One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the Earth’s rotation. Isn’t it interesting that the whole ocean current system is all linked together in this loop. They call it the ocean conveyor. The red are the warm surface current, the Gulf Stream is the best known of them. The blue represents the cold currents running in the opposite direction. We don’t see them at all because they run along the bottom of the ocean. Up in the North Atlantic, after that heat is pulled out, what’s left behind is colder water and saltier water, because salt doesn’t go anywhere. That makes it denser and heavier. That cold, dense heavy water sinks at a rate of 5 billion gallons per second. That pulls that current back south."

I guess I don't have a major problem with your change, but the original text WAS accurate, IMHO. If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream which he specifically mentions, right? I defer to your judgment on this point. --GoRight 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream..." Nope. The Gulf Stream is primarily wind-driven and will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates, the North Atlantic ocean is liquid, and the continents stay roughly in their current positions. In the popular imagination the Gulf Stream is the whole current system from the Gulf of Mexico to Scandinavia, but that's wrong. The North Atlantic Drift is largely a thermohaline circulation and would be affected by freshening of the North Atlantic. Gore's mention of the Gulf Stream is a little confusing, but he doesn't specifically say the Gulf Stream itself would shut down. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --GoRight 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you might be interested to know that there's an unofficial transcript of AIT at http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm . -- ChrisO 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

This word should not be in the opening sentence to describe the film, and used very carefully elsewhere. It should not be necessary to tell people it's controversial, rather, if it is indeed controversial, then it should be shown that it is controversial in the article, and the lead. The same for the "counter" film - "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - I have recently removed the word from the opening sentences of both these articles. --Merbabu 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether the word is in or out, but it should certainly be applied consistently between the two films. Each side considers the other's to be "controversial". --GoRight 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither "side" should have the word (or any article in the manner presented in both), but articles should not be interdependent. Creating a bad edit in one article doesn't mean we should repeat in another. That's just stupid. Sorry. As I said above, earlier I removed it from both articles simply 'cos neither article should have it - not for some misguided notion of balance between articles.

See WP:PEACOCK. regards --Merbabu 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you considered votes to be "fundamentally bogus", has your position changed or does it simply depend in the topic of the vote or who initiated it? --GoRight 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And exactly how is "strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion" different from what I indicated I was doing? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the topic at hand - this discussion has no place here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, we should stray away from discussions that some of us might find uncomfortable. --GoRight 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL and finally WP:AGF. All wikipedia guidelines that you should familiarize yourself with. And strikingly enough all relevant to your comment. ---- Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with all of these and my comment is completely consistent with them. In fact it quite clearly summarizes the spirit expressed in these references, does it not? --GoRight (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the following comment over on the TGGWS talk page:

"I googled controversial "the great global warming swindle" (i.e. searching for the full title). This got 51,600 hits. This includes the Spiked interview with Martin Durkin in which, in an interview about TGGWS, when discussing how he's been censured in the past for his techniques (i.e. misleading and selectively editing interviewees, although he doesn't say that), he complains about how "seriously controversial" work is censored by Ofcom. Although he never actually says he thinks of his work as controversial, surely the context is a a tacit admission that he recognises his work is controversial.

In any case, it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition. --Merlinme 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

A similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits. So by this logic should we not assume that AIT is WAY more controversial than TGGWS? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please keep the two articles seperate? Each has its own merits - and each have their own problems. Stick to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not conflating the two films, I am merely applying the same criteria to each to maintain a NPOV overall. The obvious point was that "a similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits" so if we apply the same logic/criteria here it AIT "it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition" in the case of AIT (which is applicable to this page). Is English your first language? --GoRight 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular sentence: "I am merely applying the same criteria to each to maintain a NPOV overall", rather clearly shows that you are trying to conflate the two movies - and are trying to avoid arguing each article on the merits of each - and in stead are falling back to a position where you assume (incorrectly) that there has to be an equal weight between the two. Sorry - we do not conflate the evolution and the Intelligent design articles and assume that there has to be a balance between them - and with very good reason.

So please desist - and argue each movie seperately and on their own talk pages. ---- Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nb: Something that creates controversy is not controversial. Do you think trains are controversial? ---- Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the film (or films) is controversial or not, rather how we represent that fact here. If any controversies are adequately described, we can then let the reader make their own assessment. Again, show don't tell. See this too.--Merbabu 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu - please take this discussion to TGGWS - where the case whether the film should be introduced as controversial or not - has been discussed almost to exhaustion. I do not think that there is a consensus for it here. (but of course i may be wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, I did not know that there was another discussion; I feel that another article is the wrong place for it - these shouldn't be interdependent, rather seperate - but if the consensus is to discuss there, well OK. (btw, i don't support the inclusion of "controversial" in either article - your post implies to me that you think I might). thanks. --Merbabu 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Merbabu, and would also argue that neither film should be labeled as controversial. But I also feel that it is important that the same standards be applied to both films to maintain an NPOV overall. So if the one film has criteria applied to it I believe that the same criteria should be equally applied to the other film to maintain a NPOV. --GoRight 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where your idea comes from, and understand it, but I can't agree. That is like suggesting because we've editorialised and POV'ed one article, we neutralise that by editorialising and POV'ing another article. Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly across seperate articles. --Merbabu 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with you that neither film should be labeled and that the content of the article should allow the reader to make their own assessment. This would clearly be the NPOV position. Agreed? --GoRight 10:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

lol - of course I agree: no "the film is controversial". But maintaining this depends on (a) others agreeing, and harder (b) making sure the article does indeed correctly and fairly shows these controversies (that may or may not exist - lol). --Merbabu 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Once more - please take the discussion to TGGWS, where this not only is an on-topic discussion - but where others can also join in, without going off-topic. (as a hint: One of these films is designed to be controversial, while the other isn't - guess which one?) --Kim D. Petersen 10:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing AIT which IS on topic. There is no reason we cannot compare and contrast how AIT and TGGWS are being treated in order to improve the AIT page. That's all we are doing. --GoRight 10:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Each article is treated according to its own merits - on its own article and talk space. The useage (or non-usage) of the word "controversial" is determined on merits and specifics of each - not on whether they are both films - or they are both talking about global warming. If its much broader than that - then it belongs as a discussion in the manual of style. In all cases - it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that each movie has its own merits. I am just saying the each movie should have its merits assessed along the same dimensions and criteria. You wouldn't have a reason for wanting to use one set of criteria for this movie and a different set for the other, would you? Because doing so opens the door to POV pushing. Both movies should be assessed using the same criteria, not a cherry picked set to make this movie come out us NOT controversial and a different cherry picked set to make TGGWS come out as controversial. You agree with this, right? --GoRight (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is: TGGWS is significantly flawed - its scientific arguments are to say the least extremely misleading - and in many cases 100% wrong. TGGWS represents a fringe view while AIT represents the mainstream view. The response from both the popular media and from science on TGGWS has been overwhelmingly negative. These two movies are not the same. And an argument that they should be weighted equally is a misunderstanding of the wikipedia rules for weight and neutral point of view. And once more - this doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS has been debunked. AIT, aside from a few details that deviate from the mainstream, is largely an accurate portrayal of the science. One is widely controversial. The other has minor controversy among certain circles. The term "controversial" should only apply to material that meets a clear standard for its usage. Else, it's POV and we could put "controversial" in almost every article. "Gone With the Wind, a controversial book/film..." or "gravity is a controversial...". TGGWS clearly meets this criteria. AIT doesn't. -- Gmb92 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is disagree, TGGWS debunks AIT. Just why do you feel that you can claim this debunked status? You have some credible experts claiming X. We have credible experts claim "not X". That sounds like a standoff at best, clearly not a debunking. That's just like the use of the word "refute" on the TGGWS page. Dualing credible experts do not a refutation claim justify. Using the same logic that you all like to use, since TGGWS is the more "recent" production obvious it debunks AIT not the other way around.  :) Debunks is a clear POV push and should be reworded. --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've seen the High Court's decision (among other things) and you think that only "a few details" ot AIT have caused "minor controversy," I think you're not looking at the situation objectively. The hockey stick, 20 ft, the Gulf Stream, Lake Chad, etc etc. I feel like we've done this so many times before. I can point to sources that call AIT controversial until I'm blue in the face:

• 'An Inconvenient Truth': a Controversial Film
• 'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial
• “An Inconvenient Truth”—the highly acclaimed and controversial documentary...
• 'An Inconvenient Truth' film causes controversy

I could go on and on. WP:LEAD mandates that we mention relevant controversies in the lead section, and I still believe we're doing the reader a disservice by not adequately doing so. If we don't want controversial in the opening sentence, I propose adding a sentence to the lead that explains the controversies as related to schools, the High Court, etc. -- Oren0 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I second this. I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence of the lead, but there should be a sentence somewhere in the lead. I'll put a draft of a sentence together tonight when I get a chance. -- Elhector (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I third this. :) --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i gave it shot. I put it at the end of the lead and tried to put it into context. Let me know what you guys think -- Elhector (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much focus on the controversy in the lead out of proportion with both reality and the article itself. Since we all here know that the lead is a "hot" item - could we attempt to get consensus first - before changing it? ---- Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I formally disagree. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The high court decision is being overspun here. First of all it really does talk is about minor detail (in toto something like 3 minutes of the movie). And at the same time emphasizes that the movie seen as a whole is "broadly accurate" and agrees with the films 4 main main scientific hypotheses. And may i ask why you are referring to the "hockey stick" as that one has nothing to do with the court ruling. You seem also to be spinning a controversy on whether or not the film should be shown to a specific target - into a generalized controversy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question so I can get some perspective on where you're coming from. What is your definition of controversial? What in your mind makes something controversial? Please don't take my question as me being a jerk. I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from. Elhector (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of controversial can be found in a dictionary. But in reality there is no real clearcut black/white definition that will cover everything. Most of the discussion on "controversial", that have been flying around here though, can be illustrated by trying to call Trains controversial, i think we can both agree that they aren't? But if we look then we find lots of controversy that has been generated by trains (both previous, currently and in the future), none of which make the Trains (or a particular train) controversial. And this is as far as i'm willing to go against WP:TALK guidelines to present my views. Please address the issues - not the editors. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing the issue; I was in no way addressing anything about you. You and I are obviously from different parts of the world so I felt it necessary to ask in order to better ascertain where you were coming from on your side of this debate. I apologize if you thought I was in some way trying to infer anything from that question, I tried to explain in the same breath that I was not trying to be rude or anything of the sort. Back to the topic at hand though, I believe the train example is an apples and oranges situation. There is obviously a big difference between trains, and a film created by a political activist. Political activists tend to do and say controversial things, and this film is an example of such. You may not think so because you stand behind the film. And you also rightly point out that a majority of scientists stand behind the film. This film was not made for scientists though, it wasn't even made for people like you who already believe in the points the film makes. It was made to convince people who are still unsure on the issue and also people that reject the theory outright. That's the kind of film a political activist makes. In this vein, I think it's safe to say that everyone in the intended audience of the film that saw it did not agree with it. People argue about it all the time, in the news, in politics, Wikipedia, coffee shops, in movie reviews, articles, all over the place. That's why we get the kind of Google results that were discussed above. The film might not be controversial to the majority of scientists who've seen it, but to the general public and the audience that the film was made for it has been highly controversial. I also believe that the WP:WEIGHT argument is actually a non argument. My reasoning on this is due to the fact that calling the film controversial in no way pushes any sort of POV nor does it say anything about the actual scientific accuracy of the film. No agenda is being pushed by calling it controversial. It just accurately describes the reception of the film by its intended audience, and also accurately describes the amount of debate the film has generated. Calling the film controversial is the same as calling a dog a mammal, it is what it is. Elhector (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it personal - but questions like these do not belong here (use user-space for this). When you ask a fellow editor to explain their personal views on a particular subject - you are addressing the editor and not the article.

That aside that "something" (no matter what) can generate controversy is not an argument for the "something" being controversial. You seem also to be confusing debate and controversy. Also that something is political is also not an argument for it being controversial - otherwise we have to label every political debate as controversial. You also divulge in WP:OR here, by stating that this movie wasn't made "for people like you who already believe in the points the film makes" - how exactly do you know this? AIT has 3 major sides: biographical, scientific and politics. The british court ruling was addressing the latter two parts - on the science it was ruled broadly accurate, with the caveat that 9 specific items should be explained further. On the politics is was not considered in violation of the Education (No 2) Act 1986 when accompanied by teachers guidance. When looking at the reception by its audience - the overwhelming majority of critics considered the movie non-controversial - so stating that its "controversial" in this aspect is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above I tend to flout the rules per WP:IGNORE when I feel the application of them is silly or when strictly following them would be a detriment to Wikipedia. So, to answer your question about how I know who the film was made for, I believe it's basically common sense after you watch it. It's blatantly obvious that the film was made to educate people about a cause Al Gore feels is extremely important. If you are a person who already believes these things the film wouldn't be of much real use to you except maybe as a tool to show your views to other people. If you already believe these things then the content of the film is nothing new to you. So that's how I deduce the intended audience of the film. Is that original research? I guess by strict definition yes it is. Do I think that's a big deal or a valid argument against what I stated above about why some people find it hard to understand why the film is controversial? No, I really don't. Obviously you and I have a difference of opinion on this and simply debating points about the article is going to get us nowhere. That's why I asked you about your "personal view on a particular subject". In my opinion the only way we can reach any sort of compromise is to figure out where everyone stands and why they take issue with certain edits. I guess this could be construed as addressing the editor, but I honestly didn't think it would be of any harm. When I ask questions like this they're asked with respect for the editor and not to try in anyway to demean an editors personal beliefs. I don't see how any dispute could be resolved in any fashion without this kind of open dialogue. I think all of us here are very very familiar with Wikipedia Policies. I think we can all agree that this flinging around of Wikipedia policies is not getting us anywhere. Can we just debate these things on there merit? Elhector (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As said: i didn't take it personal, but such questions still belong in user-space (ie. on the respective users talk-pages). As for your argument that the movie was made to convince the sceptics.. I believe that to be in error, as the movie simply doesn't address the sceptics (quite the opposite actually) - as i see it, the movie is intended for the audience that may have had some exposure to the basics - but haven't seen the entire argument - or simply want to learn more. To summarize: While the movie may convince the "unconvinced", it target audience is (imho) the large majority, who while they may have some knowledge, simply haven't had exposure to most of the scientific data. Which btw. is also the audience that i've shown my copy to. With subsequent debates.

You fail to acknowledge one thing though. The majority of people (and scientists) around the world have (mostly) the same opinion as Gore - and you cannot just focus on a single group, and say there is a controversy about the movie here, which ipso facto makes the movie controversial. That is taking things entirely out of weight and NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if people are actually debating the merits of trains then, with all due respect, they are controversial. Take light rail here in the US, these are clearly controversial in a number of communities with factions on both sides of the debate. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And once more you misunderstand what is the controversy. Its not trains that are controversial - but the specific application of them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I said "among other things." The hockey stick is shown prominently in the film, and you and I both know the controversy around its accuracy. As for the idea that the high court's errors are "minor," I suggest you watch the movie's trailer. In 2:30, it manages to hit 20 feet, the Snows of Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina, 3 of the nine errors. The 20 feet number and Katrina are the two main points of the trailer, and they were both found by the court to be inaccurate. I think a lead similar to what Elhector placed is appropriate. As for your trains example, I just showed you numerous sources that say in plain English that AIT is controversial. I don't think you could find the same for trains. Oren0 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - while the M&M papers have some controversy (as can be seen in Hockey stick controversy, you must also know that the controversy is over the methodology, not the results. That is what the NRC committee concluded (and the Wegman committee didn't address). What is used in the film is the results - Gore could of course have gone with the spaghetti graph - but that wouldn't have changed much for AIT.

The simple fact remains that the statistics used in the original hockey stick graph were flawed and the movie was based on the original graphs. That's an error. And strictly speaking your statement is in error as well. The subsequent "results" were different from the original "results' in that the graphs are different and precisely BECAUSE the original graph was faulty. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The statistics may have been flawed - but the result is the same as all later reconstructions have come to [1]. You may want to read the NRC report (or even watch the 2 hearings). Had Gore taken the Moberg reconstruction (one of those that fluctuate the most between MWP and LIA) - the movie would have been exactly the same. The methodology to generate the graph is irrelevant here - its the results that matter. Finally "based upon"? No - the hockey-stick part of the movie is insignificant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the rest - you call them errors - but that isn't what the court calls them.... it calls them "errors" (since "errors" is what the claimant calls them), and in most cases they hinge on Gore, not saying enough - for instance: 20 feet is 100% correct, and Gore's statement on the 20 feet is also 100% correct - and so on.

What are your error bars for that? Scientific facts are not facts and are NEVER known with 100% certainty, as you no doubt know, or at least should. So by your logic above for Steven Milloy are you incompetent to discuss this point, or are you simply being misleading?

Its a physical fact. Volume/Mass of ice-sheet converted to water => ~20 feet. Anyone with a calculator (and a conversion table) is able to calculate this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit surprised by this response, but let me probe a bit further then. Can you please refer me to you source that claims to know the Volume/Mass of the Greenland (and Antarctic?) ice sheet(s) with 100% accuracy and therefore no error bars? I was under the impression given the different techniques being used to gauge this particular value and the differences expressed by them that this might be a matter of some uncertainty. Likewise I would like a pointer to your source which claims to know the surface size and area and the pertinent topographic features of the entire planet with 100% accuracy, as these would be required as well to compute the value of 20 feet of rise, correct? --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you are confusing certainty with precision. The sea level rise is 100% certain and given with a relatively low level (one sigificant digit) of precision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I quote from her statement above: "20 feet is 100% correct". How are you interpreting this statement? I interpret it to mean exactly what it says, that the sea level rise would be exactly 20 feet with 100% certainty in the quantity stated? This would suggest the quantity is known with infinite precision, not just a single digit as you claim, correct? Can you please demonstrate that we know the relevant quantities in terms of ice mass, surface area, and topographical features with sufficient precision in their own rights to justify even a single significant figure with 100% certainty with a precision calibrated in feet? --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you obviously misinterpret it then. Interpret it reasonably, and your point vanishes. Also, AFAIK, you misinterpret Kim's gender. Not to rub it in, but you seem to be rather given to accept assumptions that fit your world view based on insufficient evidence ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue on this page, for the record, is NOT whether the "errors" or the science behind them is controversial or not. This page is about the movie and if people are debating the merits of the movie as we are here THE MOVIE is controversial. Please stay on topic where the topic of this page is the movie and not the science in question. The high court rules that the MOVIE was politically biased which is exactly what makes it controversial, not the science. --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not enough to find X articles that state that something is controversial - you actually have to demonstrate that this is a generally applied attribute. We can all play the Google game. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As the existence and the ruling in the High Court case clearly does. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No - anyone can sue in court. And the ruling specifically states that Gore's presentation is broadly correct, and that all of the 4 main hypothesis taht Gore presents are correct and within the consensus view. Perhaps this is the time to actually read the court documents? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(moving left) Let's look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD and the article's content, shall we? As a guideline, the lead should roughly represent the content of the article. WP:LEAD specifically says that the lead section should describe the notable controversies. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that we'd expect the controversies and criticism to get coverage in the lead proportional to the coverage in the article. The main body of the article is about 4500 words. Of that, about 1700 words (38%) of the article is found under Criticism or Controversy. The lead section is 203 words. Of that, one brief 12 word sentence (5.9%) has any mention at all of criticism or controversy. Compare that to Elhector's last revision, in which there are 46/237 (19.4%, half as much as in the article) words regarding criticism/controversy. And yet somehow KDP feels that Elh's revision is "out of proportion" with the article. Care to explain how the lead having half as much reference to criticism as the main article is "out of proportion"? Oren0 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right Oren0 - we have been far too lax - and included criticism and controversy far outside the weight that they actually merit. What do you propose that we cut? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I formally disagree. And who is the "we" you speak of, as if "you" are in control of this page and "allow" us to make edits? Is there some politicing going on here that the rest of us should be aware of? --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. But if you really think that we'd get the criticism down to 265 words (5.9% of the article) that they're currently given in the lead, you're kidding yourself. That's about the proportion of the article that currently deals with South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons. I don't understand how you can argue that the proper weight of criticism/controversy is 5%. For the benefit of others, the proposed sentence that Elh added is: "Since the film's release it has generated controversy in regards to the recent English High Court case, the debate concerning whether or not the film should be shown in public schools, and among Global warming skeptics who have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".[7][8]" I think I've demonstrated that, barring a complete overhaul of the article, it's not unreasonable from a WP:WEIGHT perspective to include one sentence of this length in the lead. Does anyone have any other objections to including this sentence or something similar? Not to sneak another argument in with this one, but as long as we're talking about cutting does anyone oppose removing the sentence about schools in Norway from the lead? Oren0 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The NSTA section needs to be severely cut - the summary of the British court case is overlong - and the two resolved school issues, should probably be cut entirely. I think we agree that the Livestock part should at the most be a sidenote.

In general we should try to remove the criticism and controversy sections - and cook them down into weighted descriptions that covers both criticism and response, praise and responses etc. As per this. As it is the controversy/criticism sections have been dumping grounds for information without considering the relative merit or weight. (Nb: i've cut the N+S info, which certainly doesn't belong in the lead - but might be covered in a section on education (with both critique and this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I formally disagree on all counts. --GoRight (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is shown that there were 9 scientific errors in the film and that the movie could only be shown in schools as long as teachers "point out controversial or disputed sections" in this article [2] --Lucky Mitch (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the community thinks that this is notable, then it should by all means go in the article. But, in a way that shows controversial nature, not tells. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not "shown" that there were 9 errors. It has been decided in a british court that the film contained 9 "errors" (note scare-quotes) that had to be followed by a teachers guidance if the film should be shown in british schools. Most of these 9 are actually "errors" by omission. ie. without additional information they could be misleading. For instance Gore says that the sea's would rise 20 feet if Greenland were to melt - which is entirely correct - but Gore doesn't put a timeframe on it - so students could misunderstand this as being in the immediate future (which is incorrect). See: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills (or for that matter the article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction, without this guidance the "errors" are politically biased and ARE misleading. There is no "could be" about it. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No - you need to actually read the reference and the court-documents - because your apparent understanding of this is severely flawed. The "errors" were'nt deemed "politically biased" as you say. They were judged as deviating from the IPCC consensus, and thus required teachers guidance to ensure that the pupils received proper information on what the IPCC consensus actually said. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not look at this through rose-colored glasses. Based on the court findings, only errors 1, 9, and perhaps 4 (as they're numbered in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills) could faithfully be called "errors of omission." Oren0 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need rose-colored glasses - 3: Gore doesn't say that it will shut down (error by omission), 4:is "complicated" doesn't claim anything (error by ?), 5: Gore's statement is correct. Even if K. might be from other causes. (error by simplification?) 6: Gore doesn't go into detail (error by omission) 7: Gore simply doesn't say that K. is caused by AGW - he uses the "harbinger" argument. (error by using a contentions subject?). 9: Error by simplification. ..... All in all only #2 can be considered an error (without scare-quotes). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the court called them "errors". Period. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But then you fail to understand why there are quotes around errors. These are called "errors" because the claimant had put them down as such - the court consistantly refers to these not as errors - but as "errors". And specifies that these aren't (at least not all) errors. Again - perhaps its time to read the court documents? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Gore didn't mean to suggest that Lake Chad, Kilimanjaro, or Katrina were due to AGW? Then why were they even in the film? And while 3 and 4 may not explicitly say anything incorrect (I don't have a transcript or a copy of the film in front of me to review the whole sections), we both know what these sections imply to people who don't know better. To call them not errors is a large stretch. Same thing with the 20ft. When you show that number in the trailer and you show Florida under water (using today's population numbers to talk about refugees), what do you expect people to think? That you're talking about something that could happen after 2100? It's all relative anyway, Monckton counts 35 errors, so it all depends who you talk to. But this whole argument is straying off topic anyway. Oren0 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't seen the film have you? Or read the transcript? Because Gore doesn't say that Katrina was due to AGW - he specifically uses the "harbinger of whats to come" argument. Nor does he say that Lake Chad was primarily caused by AGW (he specifically states that AGW is only one of several causes here...) and so on. What you are interpreting Oren0 is not what Gore is saying - but what he is "implying"... While you may be correct in that - its subjective not objective. Objectively none of these are errors. And please spare me Monckton will you? What on Earth makes you think that Monckton is reliable - especially since he can be caught in blatant lies (not subjective lies - objective lies). Btw. notice that Mockton is making exactly the same error that he claims Gore is doing in #13 (and even worse - since Gore says "there is a growing consensus ....") - whereas Monckton claims that it has been debunked that hurricanes will get stronger. And that is incorrect. There is a very good reason that the judge didn't use the other "errors" (mostly because they are either wrong - or severely misleading). #18 about the NW-passage is 100% wrong --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the high court appears to disagree with your esteemed assessment as they referred to them as "errors". I think we should stick with the court's assessment rather than yours when discussing the high court ruling. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the high court disagrees with the implication here that the 'errors' in quotes are genuine scientific errors. The judge states "It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407". The 'errors' are essentially seen as content deviating from a mainstream view. Scientists have disputed some portions of this ruling. Kim's commentary above covers some of this. Gmb92 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the court ruled on the validity of the science, or not. They clearly didn't, but the did refer to these nine points as "errors" so it seems appropriate to stick with what they actually say rather than trying to re-write their decision. The points in question were deemed to be politically biased and in need of mandatory explanation before the films could be shown in UK schools. Those are the facts so that it what we should stick to here. --GoRight (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And noone is arguing that we shouldn't refer to these 9 "errors" as "errors". But the context has to be correct. As for your statment that the points in question where "deemed to be politically biased", that is incorrect. They were deemed to be deviating from the established consensus (the IPCC) - and thus required guidance from the teacher (not "mandatory" explanations - which is your own invention). Your "facts" seem to be quite a bit biased. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The case in question and the court's ruling were both made under statutes related to removing political bias in the materials used in UK schools, were they not? This is the fact of the matter, is it not? Therefore the entire case and the court's admonition are entirely premised on the fact that statements in the movie were politically biased. The source of that bias, as you point out, was the deviation from the scientific consensus. Any ruling under the applicable statutes requiring action before the film could be shown in UK schools demonstrates a political bias ... at least in the opinion of court or the court would have no basis for making any ruling at all. My facts, it seems, are directly in line with the law in question and this is a fact that you seem to want to ignore. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No - the errors were primarily addressed under 407 not 406. (406 is the partisan political part). I once again must ask you to actually read the court papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is such a waste of time as I am sure you are aware of what I am going to point out here. I quote from item 2 at the top of the decision:

"406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

Note my use of italics is to highlight the relevant portions of the text only.

Both 406 and 407 are directly concerned with political bias and, therefore, any action requiring attention under these statutes is clearly an indication that a political bias was involved. Neither of the statutes allows for court action based on any other rationale than political bias. And just to make the point even more clear the Judge found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." Thus the only thing that was found to be a "problem" relative to the statutes referenced above were the nine "errors" and given the nature of the statutes as quoted above the "problem" was one of being politically biased, as I said.

Finally, quoting from item 19 of the decision:

"Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407]."

we find that the Judge is expressing the exact same point that I have been raising throughout. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Discussion

Replicating discussion from TGGWS talk page to maintain a consistent view:

• Looking over the first page of "+"controversial" +"controversy" for either movie, 7 out of 10 call TGGWS "a controversial X" ("movie", "documentry",...) in the 2 line preview. 0 out of 10 do so for AIT, and indeed two or three contain phrases like "there's no such widespread controversy surrounding this film". I'm not impressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• This effect is simply because the media have picked up a specific phrasing and replicated it. If a particular page is discussing AIT within the context of being controversial, or not, it is by definition controversial. If someone is trying to argue that AIT is NOT controversial then they are defending against someone who does. So even negative hits such as the one you point out are still valid hits in terms of the film being controversial.--GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, "An inconvenient truth is a controversial" yields 7 hits, while "The great global warming swindle is a controversial" yields 927 (and AIT generates 4.5 times more hits than TGGWS). Still not impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• This particular query is horribly biased because it completely eliminates any pages that legitimately discuss AIT within the context of being controversial but don't happen to use that exact phrasing, while at the same time playing into the tendency of the media to pick up news feeds and replicate specific phrasings such as the one applied to TGGWS in this case. --GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do not claim that my queries have no false hits. If there are some specific phrases that appear to be biasing these results in a systematic way we can easily eliminate that bias by explicitly excluding those phrases. I would think that this is a preferable approach to obtaining an objective dataset than picking a specific phrase that is almost guaranteed to introduce just such a systematic bias. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody share my feeling that the duplication of this discussion is getting pointy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not only be happy but would prefer to discuss all of this in one place. But since this discussion inherently involves BOTH AIT and TGGWS I am frequently confronted with requests such as these:

These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. [...] Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please keep the two articles seperate? Each has its own merits - and each have their own problems. Stick to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only putting it in both places because the same data applies to both articles and I was trying to address the request above (i.e. by discussing the AIT merits here and the TGGWS merits there). If you have a suggestion for how to make everyone happy I am all ears. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. Not to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that often issues here and at TGGWS are not handled in a way that seems consistent. I understand the desire to keep separate articles separate, but when the same editors come to seemingly contradictory positions here and there, it gets frustrating. Consistency among these articles is something we should strive for. Oren0 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Book and Update

The Synopsis section contains a brief mention of both the book and 2007 Update (found on the DVD). I propose creating a new section that discusses the additional material in more detail. For instance, the book addresses at least some of PETA's concerns contained in this article, mentioning less meat consumption as one way to personally curb emissions. The update discusses several issues, including coral reefs and wildfires. In the update and book, Gore specifically makes a distinction between the body of science on global warming's link to hurricane frequency and hurricane intensity. Gmb92 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thompson's Thermometer

The source is WP:RS as the author has published papers in a relevant area.

As for it "not being discussed in the movie" I guess you must have missed this part:

Ice Cores: The 650,000 Record

There is a message in this. It is worldwide. The ice has a story to tell and it is worldwide. My friend Lonnie Thompson digs cores in the ice. They dig down and they bring the core drills back up and they look at the ice and they study it. When the snow falls it traps little bubbles of atmosphere. They can go in and measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere the year that snow fell. What’s even more interesting I think is they can measure the different isotopes of oxygen and figure out the very precise thermometer and tell you what the temperature was the year that bubble was trapped in the snow as it fell.

When I was in Antarctica I saw cores like this and the guy looked at it. He said right here is where the US Congress passed the Clean Air Act. I couldn’t believe it but you can see the difference with the naked eye. Just a couple of years after that law was passed, it’s very clearly distinguishable.

They can count back year by year the same way a forester reads tree rings. You can see each annual layer from the melting and refreezing. They can go back in a lot of these mountain glaciers a thousand years. They constructed a thermometer of the temperature. The blue is cold and the red is warm. I show this for a couple of reasons. Number one the so called skeptics will sometimes say “Oh, this whole thing is cyclical phenomenon. There was a medieval warming period after all.” Well yeah there was. There it is right there. There are one there and two others. But compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison. So if you look at a thousand years worth of temperature and compare it to a thousand years of CO2 you can see how closely they fit together. Now, a thousand years of CO2 data in the mountain glacier. That is one thing. But in Antarctica, they can go back 650,000 years. This incidentally is the first time anybody outside of a small group of scientists have seen this image. This is the present day era and that’s the last ice age. Then it goes up. We’re going back in time now 650,000 years. That’s the period of warming between the last two ice ages back. That’s the second and third ice age back.

--GoRight (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.... Lonnie Thompson is mentioned in the movie, with a quote rather unconnected to the graphs, and quite a bit of time before we see the hockey-stick graph (this is the intro to the Dome-C/Vostok graphs) - and suddenly you have a reason to call the graph "Dr. Thompson thermometer"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then tell me what Gore is referring to in this statement: "There was a medieval warming period after all.” Well yeah there was. There it is right there. There are one there and two others. But compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison." If not the 3 red warm periods clearly displayed in the hockey stick graph and all within the context of discussing Thompson's ice core data, then what?

This is all described in the reference, which is authored by an individual with publications in the relevant areas. You are removing properly referenced material for no other reason that I can see than you seek to hide legitimate criticism of the movie. --GoRight (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is WP:OR - and ClimateAudit.org is not a WP:RS. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that this critique is from a single source - and thus would receive excessive weight. Please the critique section is not a dumping ground for every little controversy or critique - it has to be considered on both its notability and in accordance with weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect you don't get to have it both ways. If RC is legitimate because the author's have publications in a relevant field, then CA is legitimate for the same reasons. This is not WP:OR as I am not Steven McIntyre and even if I was I would be, by virtue of my past publications, qualified to comment. Further, you are using RC to make claims based on their publications status to justify content which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fields in which they have publications (e.g. their speculation regarding ExxonMobil influence for which they have no relevant third party publications nor any first hand knowledge of the situation). In the case of Dr Thompson's Thermometer the topic being discussed is precisely in line with the topic of McIntyre's past publications. McIntyre qualifies as a reliable source on this topic so please stop removing properly attributed material. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry GoRight - but you need to read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. "Dr. Thompsons thermometer" is an invention by Steven McIntyre - it has (to my knowledge) never been discussed in other media. You can't ever use a WP:SPS to document something that isn't described in other literature. When talking about the Mann and M&M papers - McIntyre can be quoted as a WP:RS - when talking outside of this, McIntyre is not a WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote - whether or not what Gore used is the Mann hockeystick or not is trivia - and not relevent in the critique section at all... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which parts of the point being discussed, Thompson's Ice Core Data or the Hockey Stick Graph, are you contending, per your knowledge, to have never been discussed in other media? You believe that these are fabrications of McIntyre? You may believe that the hockey stick graph is trivia, however the scientific community doesn't seem to think so and if Gore misrepresented it as being backed up by the Ice Core Data, which he clearly implied, it is a relevant point to discuss. You still haven't identified what Gore was referencing in that section of the presentation, per my comment above. --GoRight (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try rereading the above - because you've apparently not understood it. And Gore doesn't misrepresent anything - because Gore doesn't say that the hockey stick was created by Lonnie Thompson. What McIntyre is talking about is in the book - not the movie. (And Gore's mistake in the book is rather subtle - since the graph is in a Thompson paper about ice-cores - and is a merger (by Thompson) of CRU data and Mann(1999)).

Finally (and once more) the hockey stick passage in the movie is rather small and it is rather unimportant whether this is the Mann hockey stick - or one of the many other "hockey sticks". Since every one of them shows exactly the same thing that Gore is using the graph for. (And again: The hockey stick controversy is about method not result.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally (and once more) the hockey stick graph was obviously being referenced in the context of the Ice Core Data in the movie where Gore is discussing the "very accurate thermometer" it provides. The viewer is clearly left with the mistaken impression that the graph is backed up by the "very accurate thermometer" which is precisely the point being made by McIntyre. The fact that the book makes the same mistake only compounds the problem. And since the book is described as a companion to the movie it is certainly relevant to discuss and include here. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find more than one reliable source that considers this particular critique relevant - then you could start arguing that this critique is notable and relevant - and you still have to consider weight with regards to the entire articles balance between text and critique. Currently the critique section is weighted too much, when taking the balance of praise/critique in reliable source into account. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This critique is notable for the simple fact that it is written by one of the primary critics of the Mann hockey stick graph which the reference identifies as being the graph used in the movie. McIntyre's commentary on this point is still notable as it is directly related to his peer reviewed critique of the Mann hockey stick graph as it applies specifically to this movie.

"Currently the critique section is weighted too much ..." This is your opinion and it is duly noted. I, and others, respectfully disagree on that point. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the hockey-stick - and AIT is not based upon the hockey-stick (which comprises a total of around 40 seconds of the movie). It is rather irrelevant whether Gore is using Mann's reconstruction, Osborn's or any of the others - the MWP is lower than current in all reconstructions. (which is the point in the movie). And another misconception once once more: notability is not inherited. McIntyre is notable - but everything he says is not notable. (his comments are also once more about the book not the movie) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"And another misconception once once more: notability is not inherited. McIntyre is notable - but everything he says is not notable." This is true, but I am not defending any old statement from McIntyre I am defending one that is a direct application of his published critique of Mann as it is applied to AIT. The length of time spent on the hockey stick graph in the movie is actually a bit irrelevent given the chart's own notoriety and controversy. This makes it a significant part of the film regardless of the time actually devoted to it. --GoRight (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets repeat: Notability is not inherited. The existance of the Hockey stick controversy does not make everything touching upon the hockey stick notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, merely repeating your position does not strengthen it or somehow increase it's validity. The fact remains that McIntyre's commentary is directly in line with his published papers as they apply to AIT. --GoRight (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, merely repeating your position does not strengthen it or somehow increase it's validity. Irony meter pegs its scale and explodes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Fair enough. The difference between the two, of course, is that my statement is statement of fact directly relevant to the article in question and the text being discussed, whereas hers is is neither. --GoRight (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of this being a WP:WEIGHT problem. I have noted that the article on TGGWS has a rather voluminous and extensive set of information presented there in the form a criticism. Since you contribute to both articles would you also argue that the things being presented there are likewise WP:WEIGHT issues using the same logic and criteria that you are applying here? I ask here purely to determine if this article should be expanded in a manner similar to that used on the TGGWS page. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And once more you try to conflagate two different articles on two very different movies.

And yes there is a very simple reason for this - if you look at articles in reliable sources on TGGWS you find an overweight of critique. If you do the same on AIT - you will find the opposite. They are two entirely different beasts. Once more: TGGWS presents a fringe view, AIT presents a rather mainstream view. Appealing that these two should be "balanced" with each other (as you have done here and elsewhere) is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"if you look at articles in reliable sources on TGGWS you find an overweight of critique. If you do the same on AIT - you will find the opposite." Again, this is your opinion which is duly noted. I, and others, respectfully disagree on this point. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That may depend on your exchange rate. How many unqualified blog posts do you trade for one statement by a national science academy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "its one click away" argument.

These two edits (here, and here) represent a form of creeping bias that violates NPOV, IMHO. I don't know if this is conscious or not, so I wish to raise the group's awareness on this point. Note that I do not mean to single out these particular authors for anything other than to illustrate my point.

I have noted a tendency on the part of some editors to feel that if material which somehow "helps" the skeptic's case has been summarized or repeated in this (or any GW related article for that matter) article that the argument is made that such material is "only a click away for those who are interested." A similar exchange occurred on the Fred Singer page regarding my characterization of George Monbiot as being an "environmental and political activist" which is a term I took directly from his BLP summary. On the other hand, when the material in question "helps" the AGW proponent's case it is termed "brief and very relevant" and the argument is made to leave the material in the article in question.

Do people feel that this double standard serves WP:NPOV? Should we have a consistent position on this topic or do you want to simply continue to argue about it on a case by case basis?

--GoRight (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me the reason that we in a WP:SUMMARY of another article have to use 3 times as much space on the participants instead of on a description of the actual article? Give a description of TGGWS - let the interested reader go to that article to get the details. Frankly i can't see why we have to have a summary of TGGWS on this article at all. Your arguments about NPOV seem rather strange - since from my point of view, the only reason to add the peoples details is to bolster the "importance" of the TGGWS argument. (which is entirely POV). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why we should include here a list of those parties criticizing the film but not include a comparable list the film's contributors when the information is, as you say, only one click away? As you have just pointed out including such a list is a clear POV push. The difference between the current state of the article and what I included is that the current article already suffers from this kind of a POV push whereas my addition only seeks to balance that POV push out. Given this, would you not argue equally as strongly that the list of organizations disputing these claims should be likewise removed under your same logic? --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What i was arguing against was the Peacock part of using 3 times as much space on the credentials and titles of the contributers to the movie - than on actual content. If i'm not entirely mistaken there is not much space used on credentials in the current version. There is a subtle difference between 'John T. Houghton' and 'Sir. John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group, former professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.', guess which version of these have been used by the regular editors - and guess which version your list of parties most looked like? (hint: one of these is unnecessary use of space - the other isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is fine I guess. But why then do you simply delete the entire passage rather than simply stripping out the "Peacock" portions? And I would argue that it is necessary to give some indication of the credentials of the individuals rather than simply listing their names as most readers won't know who these people are. Do you honestly feel that listing the names (and in some sense therefore their credentials) of their critics is not doing exactly what you are accusing me of? Why should the critics get to express an air of authority while stripping the names and credentials of the contributors thus leaving the clear impression that those claims made in the film are not backed by legitimate scientists? This is clear POV pushing as far as I can see. --GoRight (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Stephen Milloy discussion

There's an ongoing discussion / vote relating to this article at /Stephen Milloy. I've moved it to a sub-page just now so it doesn't interfere with other discussion. Once consensus is reached it will be archived. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have not added this sub page to your watch lists you may wish to do so. I am planning to summarize the discussion there in preparation for bringing the discussion to a wider audience. You are all invited to insure that these summaries are fair and accurate for your respective positions. --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and accurate" sounds uncomfortably like "fair and balanced", but do what you like. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get to this later today. I understand your reticence at letting me write your position which is why I invite you and the others to modify the text to meet your approval. I only offer to make the first attempt so as to minimize your efforts. If you prefer to write the summary yourself please feel free to do so. --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer for now and may (or may not) contribute later. It would be most interesting to see your views of what you think the position would be. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Bias

I see that we are now referring to properly sourced material as vandalism and WP:TE. That doesn't sound particularly WP:AGF or WP:CIV to me. The high court case directly finds that the film has a political bias that had to be addressed in order to allow the film to even be shown in UK schools. This is a particularly notable finding (how many other films have this distinction?). As such a 2 word mention of it is not out of line in the film's summary.

Please explain why you have removed this properly sourced and not at all misleading material.

--GoRight (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its provocative and unbalanced to the point of being vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no more provocative than (collectively) insisting on calling TGGWS controversial or polemic in its summary. And exactly how is it unbalanced? Do you have a court case or any other objective evidence that shows it is NOT a politically biased film? --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• The high court judgment does not contain the word "bias" anywhere. Even if it had, this is certainly not a view shared with near unanimity, and hence cannot be stated absolutely. As for the notability claim: How many other films had a judge declare them "broadly accurate" and "supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists"? What you do is indeed tendentious cherry-picking. And finally, of course not everything of note has to be or can be in the lead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The scientific perspective of the film is irrelevant as the court case itself states. The issue at hand is one of having a political bias that required specific note to students in UK schools. I see no reason to deprive wikipedia readers of that same notice, do you? And it is not cherry picking on my part, that is the entire focus and purpose of the court's ruling (on being politically biased as opposed to be scientifically accurate). The very fact that the court ruled as it did is by definition of the statutes involved an indication of political bias. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In thinking about this further, I believe that we may have an obligation to even take this a step further than merely calling the film "politically biased". I quote from item 2 at the top of the decision:

"406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

Note my use of italics is to highlight the relevant portions of the text only.

The following seem to be reasonable assumptions:

1. UK secondary school students may come into contact with this article as part of their normal school day routine.
2. As wikipedia editors we should endeavor to aid the UK school system in the commission of their obligations under statutes 406 and 407 as quoted above.

Given this, it would seem to be "reasonably practicable" for us to place a suitable warning at the top of this article to alert those students to the fact the a UK court has ruled that some portions of this film have been found to be in violation of those statutes and that they should contact their school administrators for further guidance in this regard. It would be a trivial matter for us to provide such a warning, right?

Are there any objections? --GoRight (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't stop laughing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this comment is in the spirit of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please confine your comments to debating the subject at hand in an attempt to achieve consensus. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you occasionally make a good point but I have to go with Stephan here. As wikipedia editors we should endeavor to aid the UK school system in the commission of their obligations under statutes 406 and 407 as quoted above. That's, ah, shall we say, a novel and imaginative interpretation of the goal of Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in some danger of becoming an unfunny joke William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that I will formally inform you of the same, just for the record. I don't believe that this comment is in the spirit of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please confine your comments to debating the subject at hand in an attempt to achieve consensus. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All laughing and silliness aside, if you object to including such a warning please provide your reasons. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, so is not informing the impressionable youth's of the UK about the dangers of this politically biased film something that we should be concerned with? It is not an idle concern, after all, the UK government considers it sufficiently serious that they have enacted statutes specifically addressing it, and those very same statutes have become the basis the of UK ruling we are discussing. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When you're in a hole, the usual advice is to stop digging. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I interpret this response to indicate that you don't intend to address the question at hand? Is it your intent to simply revert any such warning without engaging in any debate on the topic? I don't want to misunderstand your meaning here so please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, folks. We are supposed to be working on reaching a consensus here and you appear to be willing to run roughshod over the minority. Please either engage in the discussion or withhold your objections, assuming you have them. Whether you do or not is not clear as you are not expressing any here. I have provided a clear and rational explanation for my actions and desired additions to this article whereas I have received taunts and jeers in return. I quote from WP:CON:

"Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected."

as well as from WP:PRACTICAL:

"Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example."

I am simply attempting to follow the Consensus decision-making process in good faith. If you are unwilling to even discuss this matter or have already decided that there is nothing that will change your minds on this point, please indicate as much so that we may move on to other matters. If you have legitimate objections to my proposal I would very much like to hear them.

--GoRight (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that we place a suitable warning at the top of this article to alert those students to the fact the a UK court has ruled that some portions of this film have been found to be in violation of those statutes and that they should contact their school administrators for further guidance in this regard has been laughed out of court. You appear to have an appetite for discussing this endlessly; no-one else does William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this response does not appear to be in line with WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please clarify your meaning here. Are you indicating that you refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of this matter? If you have a legitimate objection please state what it is as you have not yet done so. You have merely engaged in taunts and jeers which does not constitute good faith discussion as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. To avoid any confusion, can you please give a concise and clear description of what you mean by "this matter" in the above paragraph? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it. There is one primary point, that the High Court case clearly ruled the film was politically biased (i.e. that it did not meet the standards required in the statutes) and hence ruled that the changes to the study guides were required to allow the film to be shown in UK schools. Can we at least agree on this point as it seems to be a straight forward interpretation of the ruling?

In as concise a manner as possible "this matter" comes down to:

• I believe that this is notable enough to bear some level of mention in the summary.
• I have proposed two options: 1) simply calling the film politically biased, 2) placing a warning to match the ruling at the top of the summary.
• You all have objected but I do not feel that you have given any rationale or explanation as to why you object given these circumstances, only that you (collectively) do.

I would like to understand 1) the nature of your (collective) objections, 2) whether you have already made up your minds to the point where discussion is futile, and 3) whether there are any options you might consider to address my concern that this deserves some measure of recognition in the summary. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Try hard! The film expresses strange ideas that not even the IPCC supports, such as the gross exaggeration of sea level rises. The film is quite blatant propaganda, which is why the UK judge ruled as he did. Peterlewis (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See? That's why I asked for clarification. I have no idea what your comment has to do with the ongoing discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What a surreal discussion this is. We're simply not in the business of advocating for or against Gore's film, so any "health warning" for English students (note - not UK!) in this article would be totally misplaced. There's no way this one is going to fly and, frankly, the suggestion seems to be more to do with an anti-Gore agenda than Wikipedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"We're simply not in the business of advocating for or against Gore's film ..." This is actually the surreal statement if you ask me. If one compares the arguments used by the primary contributors on both this article and the TGGWS article it is immediately clear that this page is heavily biased towards protecting this film while demonizing TGGWS. There is clearly no comparison, frankly. We can frequently find arguments on this page that are used to keep "anti-AGW" criticism out while the same parties use the opposite arguments on TGGWS to get "pro-AGW" criticism in over there. This whole "it's politically biased" discussion came about because, completely in the face of a court ruling to the contrary, some editors don't want even 2 words of criticism in the summary to that effect. This is not a case of it being some subjective call, there is undeniably a high profile court case which has ruled on that exact subject and unambiguously so. Yet the two words are blocked not because they are wrong, or inaccurate, or misleading, but because a small group of editors act in concert to block anything that they don't like on this page. If that is not "advocating for the film", then I don't know what is. --GoRight (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Oh look - everybody likes the Dalai Lama, but nobody like Kim Jong-il. The world is so unfair". The two movies are very different in content and reception, and we document this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And your comparison makes my point so very well regarding the objectivity and neutrality involved here. --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on removing Google data

Removing talk page content that is clearly relevant to improving the article is a gross violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. I don't want to make personal attacks, but I'd expect better from an administrator. There is no reason in the world this should be removed, and frankly it is a slap in the face to the editors that worked hard on that section. Why should any of us be in the business of removing the contributions that others make to the talk page? Oren0 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - everything is still on Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Some_Google_Queries_to_Provide_Objective_Data_on_Purported_Levels_of_Controversy where exactly the same information was copied. There is no reason to keep the exact same discussion in 2 places. (Nb: if i'm not mistaken - i count 3 admins as removing that section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that it's relevant in both articles. Any time someone tries to bring up AIT at Talk:TGGWS or vice versa, you're always one of the first people to jump up and say that we should keep the treatment of these articles separate. Since it's relevant to both articles, I don't see why it can't be in both places. Also, I don't see why this shouldn't have been discussed on the talk page before being reverted back and forth 15 times. Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly i find that discussion irrelevant on both articles - its an attempt to use google to prove point. But unfortunately that point isn't as simple. (it btw. might have been, if it had been possible to sort away blog postings and other false positives). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to not participate in the discussion if you find it irrelevant. Others are particpating and your attempts an censoring the discussion in light of your repeated calls to discuss things on their respective pages is quite telling. --GoRight (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Denial/skeptics

I think that piping to GWD is a bad idea, especially "hidden" behind GWS [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)