Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:An Inconvenient Truth as edited by AngelOfMercy (Talk | contribs) at 15:35, 29 October 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. Priestspez 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)


do you really consider a townhall article reposted from Newsbusters a reliable source? Wow SirJim 19:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you really consider your comment intelligent? Wow. More enlightened would be you proving it false, or providing a better one. I understand to some people, a merit based site is new. Try it, you might actually find it liberating! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Secondary and tertiary sources aren't as reliable as primary ones. Ask any librarian and they'll tell you so. How is SirJim's comment unintelligent? Why don't you try to prove it false, or provide a better argument You might find it liberating! PS- learn proper MediaWiki notation. AngelOfMercy 15:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


How can an "unbiased" article have sentences such as "The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down hundreds of times in the last million years", or "Al Gore has found a way to profit from global catastrophe"? Have you watched the film? Al Gore does not ignore the fact of climate cycles. He includes his rebuttal in the film! You can disagree with his conclusions or his data but he does not ignore the criticisms of global warming.Archibald 00:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
The answer to your claims of "bias" against Gore is included with the article. Karajou 16:06, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
There is abundant and clear sourcing that would even meet WP:RS, WP:V that Al Gore is profiting from his Chicken Little, "the sky is falling" scam. If his prophecy of global apocalypse is correct, he won't be around to enjoy it, and if he's wrong, who cares? Rob Smith 16:47, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
I agree: this is unabashed old earth Darwinist propaganda! I'll go ahead and remove it from the article. EDIT: It seems I cannot edit the article. --brtkrbzhnv 10:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)