Anyone planning to see this new movie?

#1

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
An Inconsistent Truth Showtimes and Tickets

An Inconsistent Truth is one man's odyssey to find the truth about man-made global warming. As the title suggests, this is an answer to Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary but it's much more than a simple rebuttal.

We not only talk with leading … read morescientific experts on the 'skeptic' side but we explore the entire culture of the global warming movement; often in a humorous and satirical way.

The viewpoint of this film might not be the most popular position on the subject but it offers refreshing diversity.

Diversity, after all, is not just found in different cultures or races or religions. True diversity is diversity of thought.

To be released at Regal in Nashvile on Jan. 27-28.
 
#4
#4
I probably agree with a lot in the movie, but this topic is so tired, IMO. Thankfully it's been put on the backburner, lately. My Dad always says the people only care about the environment when everything is going well.
 
#5
#5
2011 global warming wrap up - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

As the political and scientific movements that claim we suffer from a disastrous man-made global warming are running out of steam, unfortunately the mechanisms for controlling your lives and taking your money in the name of saving the planet from this faux threat may already be so entrenched it won’t matter that the underlying theory is proven fraudulent.

Once they get the power – and they have it at the EPA and California’s Air Resources Board – they aren’t about to give it up.

That’s the bad news of 2011, even as the movement limped home from South Africa where zealots once more failed to impose anything meaningful or particularly harmful, despite their lust for control over others and others’ money.
-----------------------------

Climate Science Reaches a Landmark That Chills Global Warming Alarmists

For 33 years, Taylor notes, we’ve had objective temperature data “that do not require guesswork correcitons to compensate for uneven thermometer placement and non-climate surface temperature biases such as urban heat islands and land-use changes.” He’s talking about satellites, as opposed to the farcical array of hit and miss, warmed by engine exhaust and haphazardly collected ground station thermometers. (for a good overview of that see SurfaceStations.org)

The vastly more reliable satellites show half the temperature increase since 1978 purported by alarmists using ground thermometers, an insignificant 0.14 degrees per decade. That would mean an entirely unthreatening 1.4 degree increase over a century – IF the same pace continued. But as Taylor points out, the trend is up and down, and prior to 1978 the earth had experienced about 30 years of cooling.

In short, there’s nothing alarming here. Worse (for the alarmists) is the fact that the satellite readings are not only indisputably more accurate than the ground (and manipulated) temperatures used by alarmists, but the satellites reveal that there’s been less warming in the lower troposphere than reported by surface readings.

“As a result, if global temperatures are rising as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the satellite sensors should report more warming in the lower troposphere than is actually occurring at the surface,” Taylor points out.

Oops, as we like to say at such times. If global warmists’ theory about man-made carbon causing dangerous warming were true, the satellite sensors should report a warming trend more severe than is actually occurring at the surface of the earth. Did we say, oops?
 
#6
#6
I know some like documentaries even though known to be biased because they make them think. I prefer not to choose intentionally slanted documentaries. I didn't see An Inconvenient Truth and I won't bother with this. It's hard enough to ferret out the semi-truth without adding outright distortions to the mix.
 
#9
#9
You don't think it will be biased?

I won't be seeing this for the same reason I refused to watch Gore's film.
 
#10
#10
You don't think it will be biased?

I won't be seeing this for the same reason I refused to watch Gore's film.

Maybe, maybe not. I have listened to him talk about this movie and it sounds like it will also be entertaining and not all just political.
 
#12
#12
That's like saying Top Gear will be entertaining and not all about cars, lol.

I have listened to Phil V for a long time, I really like what he has to say so I will be going for the entertainment as well as to see what he has to say about the man made global warming hoax.
 
#17
#17
Al Gore (the attention whore) approves of anything that gets his name back into the public spotlight.
 
#19
#19
The sad part of the equation is that the present ruling regime in Washington is going full steam ahead with policies (supposedly) based on the presumption that every wild eyed claim made by environmental alarmists is true and that just isn't the case if you bother to examine the facts.

Another sad thing is daily the media parrots some claim or another by some alarmist and many of those claims don't match known facts.
 
#21
#21
Confirmed!

ist2_2710871-ironing-incl-jpeg%5B1%5D.jpg
 
#22
#22
You post a cartoon of a woman at an ironing board and put my reply in another thread and say mine is nonsequiturish?

Astoundly solid thinking!

I don't know how you do it.

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

So there you have it, some of the top scientists in the world calling this alarmism.

Note; This is a publicly published letter and not subject to copyright law, therefore I reproduced it in full here.

Now back to the topic, in answer to those who say one side is as biased as the other, the Gore film was ruled by a judge in Britian to by over 90% false and if it was screened to the public then disclaimers must be shown to state what is completely false about the documentary.

The film we are talking about here will never be ruled in court to have any flase information, as a matter of fact one of the leading scientist in the film, Robert Spencer, was a lead scientist for the IPCC and he relates how he disagrees with the IPCC conclusions and sumarry of his work.
 
#23
#23
The Coup de Grace for Global Warming Catastrophe? | Power Line

It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative.

First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada’s EPA, so the climate campaigners can’t use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit.

Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses.

--------------------------

This is merely the latest in a series of recent climate modeling studies that conclude that the standard “consensus” forecast of the amount of warming to be expected by a doubling of carbon dioxide has been dramatically overestimated.

Which is just about par for the course with most environmental scares.

As more studies like this dribble out from the scientific community, eventually we’ll reach the proverbial “tipping point” beloved of so many climate alarmists—only it won’t tip the way they think.

volt-fire-garage.jpg
 
#25
#25
An Inconsistent Truth was the top grossing film per screen in America this past weekend.

It sold three times as many tickets as the theater owner projected. Some viewing times were sold out and the theater made other screens available to accomidate the crowds.

It sold twice as many tickets as any other film in the theater.

It will be held over here and plans are to proceed to Memphis, Tn, Flint, Mich and Atlanta, Ga soon.

If had done this well on a nationwide basis, being shown in 23,000+ theaters, it would have grossed 65 mil the first weekend.

It has already made #629 on the list of top grossing documentaries in history after only being shown in one theater for one weekend. It could easily make the top ten if it holds up nationwide.

Four experts appear in the film, including one of the lead scientists on the IPCC panel, Gore's film had none.

As a matter of fact a judge in Endland ruled that if Gore's film is shown to school children that a disclaimer must be read to them before viewing that enumerates about a dozen false claims in Gore's film.
 

VN Store



Back
Top