Difference between revisions of "Talk:An Inconvenient Truth"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Edit) |
(→Edit) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Edit == | == Edit == | ||
| − | : | + | :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.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 04:15, October 1, 2007
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)
source
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)
Edit
- 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)