Inconvenient Truth

What about this documentary is inaccurate? What predictions did it contain that weren't true? People keep saying he said shit like "we'll be under water by 2016" without citing exactly what was said with a timestamp or video clip.

Other urls found in this thread:

dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

nigger i'm not going to watch this shit to pull out timestamps for you. in the 90s we were always told that it was incontrovertal fact that we'd be under sea level by now.

Bullshit. Now tell me what claims he made that are false. He backs up most of what he says in the documentary while you sit on your ass listening to retards make general claims that are most likely false but are so general they can always feign ignorance afterwards rather than willfully dismissing information, which is what they're really doing.

BUMP

friendly reminder your shit high school teacher isn't an excuse to dismiss a documentary reputable with everyone besides shit youtube commentators (which is where you probably get most your info from)

...

Global warming is a scam. Notice how (((they))) now call it "climate change" because they know the world isn't vetting any hotter

yeah but I'd prefer specifics since the sequel's coming out soon

fucking retard. I actually think climate change is exaggerated but I'd at least some evidence to contradict this documentary since the sequel's coming out and everyone will be talking about it. Not everyone's an idiot who just repeats what they hear off Holla Forums.

Plus "climate change" is a natural phenomenon, the Earth was hot, it had an ice age and now we're here. The term is really vague, global warming was better but they dropped it.

...

who cares, the way the world is going we will probably deserve an apocalypse in the coming years

literally everything that documentary predicted happened, even if it didn't happened literally like it said on it. altnazis are just mad the left proved them wrong once again.

obviously a lot of people retard. Everyone here is agressively against the idea that climate change needs to be dealt with. And like it or not on normal social media the new documentary is getting a lot of attention.

And not everyone is a Holla Forums or Holla Forums shill spamming buzzwords.

dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

thanks I'll look it over tonight and if it's more Holla Forumsshit with no backing I'll keep bumping this thread.

Also btw the whole "he said this would happen if we did nothing and it hasn't happened yet" is a bullshit defence, because clearly we have been investing into "clean" energy since then. That's the entire reason why people are so opposed to documentaries like this here and on Holla Forums.

The whole global warming hoax only started in the late 80s. All through the 70s, right up to '82 or '83, they were all about the coming ice age.

They pushed for climate change """""awareness""""" to prop up the new (((clean energy))) market. And you're the only one who keep bringing Holla Forums into the conversation when fucking Hitler himself was a fucking environmentalist. The reason even some liberals hate your climateshit meme is because in the end it was all about using regulation to force the population into buying greenshit, and to drop the prices on coastal properties so Al and Co can buy them in bulk and resell them later for giga profits.

well, i don't care
the shit society we're creating deserves doom approaching, and if it will come by climate change, then so be it

retard. I'm pointing out that people like us are hostile towards government investing in "clean" energy. Read my post you fucking autist.

If they're investing in renewable energy, which they are, it's a defence against retards like you saying "they made this prediction if we don't do something and it wasn't as much as they said it is!". Try using that tiny retarded brain of yours.

In the seventies it was acid rain that was killing everything.
In the eighties it were the rainforests that would disappear.
In the nineties chemicals were destroying our ozon layer and the earth.
And now we have the most persistent hoax that has been used by the energy companies to steal our shekels, because those companies get free monies to "invest in clean energy". Which they can then exploit and sell for more.

Sure enough all of them have some truth in it and this is why debating believers is very hard.

There is no single study, infographic, or documentary that's going to "redpill" you on this issue and that in itself is the real redpill. The entire issue has become completely politicized and isn't about science at all, there are a number of potential causes yet the media would have you believe a relatively brand new field of scientific study is completely "settled" despite their forecasts and models being completely wrong time and time again. "Climate Change" is a real phenomenon, but it most likely isn't man made. Of course the problem with that is that leftist politicians need people to believe it's man made because the government can't actually do anything about a naturally occuring phenomena, and they want their carbon tax.
Didn't exist for millions of years and yet life still flourished. We're technically still in the middle of an "Ice Age" today, it won't officially be over until the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets melt. To be more specific ice ages are cyclical and are broken up into two periods glacial periods of severe cooling and interglacial periods typified by warmer more temperate climates. The earth currently is in an interglacial period known as the Holocene and has been for the past 12,000 years or so, these changes in periods are believed to be caused by slight changes in the earths orbit called Milankovitch cycles. Based on these orbital predication's it's believed the earth will enter it's next glacial period in 50,000 years regardless of greenhouse gasses.
It's rare for anything to ever be "settled" in science, climatology is more or less a brand new field of science and yet we're told constantly that this is no longer an issue worth studying, it's man made and that's final! Does this not strike you as odd? Keep in my mind being a scientist is still a job, these people still need to feed their family and put a roof over their head. In order to experiment and do research a scientist needs to get a grant to pay for it, the problem is the institutions which fund scientific research are a part and parcel of Academia which is nearly 100% leftist controlled. If a scientist wants to do research into testing/disproving the green house gas theory or look for potential alternative causes to climate change they not only lose funding, but they essentially become persona non grata within academia. It's the same exact thing we see with psychologists looking to genuinely research gender dysphoria and it's causes, challenge the idea that mutilation is the best course of action and find yourself blacklisted. This leads to a pretty big problem, scientists aren't going to study something if it's going to cost them their careers, and so climatology has essentially become one big echo chamber. Look into "Climate-gate". The U.N. had climate models created by top experts in the field and for years they used them as the basis for all of their global warming policy, these models were completely private and the public were not actually allowed to see any of them. A few years ago the models were leaked and all of the predicted trends were wrong.
Similar to the wage gap or the "1 in 5 women will be raped in college" a completely misleading statistic. The question asked of scientists was "Does human activity effect the environment", of course 99% of scientists agree in the affirmative even a student in the 8th grade could tell you bulldozing a rainforest or landfilling a swamp will have an effect on the environment.
Ask yourself why leftists insist on pushing this "The day after tomorrow" vision of the future. So the Ice caps melt and the coastline shrinks a bit, and this is supposed to be some horrible thing that will ruin the earth for future generations? What about the good things? If the ice caps were to melt and the sea level were to rise, northern Canada and Siberia would also thaw out, creating the largest track of arable land on the planet.

The real goal is a world wide carbon tax.

I like to add that climatology is the field where mostly meteorologists play. They can't even predict the weather accurately in 3 days 50 percent of the time. And now they claim that they will know exactly how our climate, in other words the weather, will be like in 10 years or even 20 years? BITCH PUH-LEASE
There are so many factors that influence the climate that are left out of those models. All these models focus on the direct relationship of CO2 levels and temperature while even that causality is unproven.

Climate change is real but its not man made

No he doesn't, he based his facts on reports from research that was heavily skewed and favoured of a certain narrative.

Why? Because the global warming-question has always been a political issue. Where huge amounts of money behind the funding, no matter what the SJW's would like you to believe.

...

ty I'll read this when I'm not lazy