「不願面對的真相」九點錯誤

by Wraecca on October 14, 2007

Gore風光拿下Nobel Prize,那部紅翻天的紀錄片「不願面對的真相」自然是居功厥偉。看到不少媒體指出此部紀錄片有九處謬誤,有網友表示媒體空有報導卻未將九處謬誤一一列出,敝人對此很有興趣,便上網找了一下來自Telegraph的報導

  • Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
  • The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
  • The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
  • Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
  • Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
  • The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
  • Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
  • Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
  • Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
  • 英文很爛,簡單用自己的話陳述一遍,有錯還請指正。

    • Gore說,南極洲或格陵蘭的冰在「不久的將來」就要融化了,並且抬升海平面達到有20呎高。法官說了很多,總之他大致同意Gore的論點,只是冰塊不會融化的那麼快,大約還要幾千年,你等到死吧。
    • 影片宣稱太平洋低漥環礁的居民已經撤離,事實上並沒有
    • 根據IPCC,全球暖化將會終止某一段灣流。法官說「不太可能」終止掉灣流,減緩是比較可能的。
    • Gore宣稱六十五萬年來的二氧化碳升高圖與氣溫升高圖「精確的吻合」。法官說,雖然的確是有關聯,但這兩張圖並未如Gore所主張的那樣完美的契合。
    • Gore說Kilimanjaro山上的冰雪消融即是全球暖化直接造成的。法官說,科學家還無法證明人為氣候變遷即是禍首。
    • 電影主張Chad湖的乾涸就是全球暖化最佳的災難例子。法官說,證據不足,且看起來這Chad湖事件更像是被其他因素害慘的,諸如人口暴增、過度放牧和局部氣候變因。
    • Gore還將Katrina颶風歸咎於全球暖化,法官再一次的拿出了「證據不足」的王牌。
    • Gore引用了一篇study,聲稱北極熊在游了60 miles之後英勇的溺死了,就只是為了尋找冰。法官說了好多,大約是近來死亡的北極熊共有四頭,且是被暴風雨給淹死的。無論什麼全球暖化,淹死的北極熊委實令人同情。
    • Gore說,珊瑚礁都給全球暖化給害的漂白了。法官同意他的說法,不過全球暖化並非唯一的兇手,像是過度獵捕、環境污染等因素也都不可忽視。

    結論,不要輕易的相信每一件事情。譬如說Wraecca其實是一位單身的女孩子。

    13 comments

    Gore 用一堆觀測結果去支持他的論點
    那文中的”法官”, 是用自己的觀點去推論反駁, 還是借助所謂 “公開報告” 來支持??

    by Chaosrx on October 18, 2007 at 12:15 pm. Reply #

    這可能就要請教法律方面的專業人士了,我不太懂法界人士判決的根據。

    by Wraecca on October 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm. Reply #

    真高興有這麼用功的年輕人,幫我們把原文都找出來了.不過”Judge”一字, 您譯錯了吧!? 全文無關法官,法律, Judge一辭為專家學者的論斷, 我想譯為”論者”或”專家”認為, 就可以了.

    by kiwiyu on October 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm. Reply #

    承蒙誇獎,剛好有興趣罷了。

    我是根據原文首段來猜是法官的:Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

    還是多謝指教,歡迎討論!

    by Wraecca on October 20, 2007 at 11:25 am. Reply #

    再深入去看外媒的報導, 還真是有趣. 原來是英國人認為該紀錄片既為得獎紀錄片, 則內容應完全符合科學及寫實. 然而片中卻有九處有扭曲誇大之嫌, 不宜以”紀錄片”之名播放給全英國的學童觀賞. 這一項少見的判決, 引起一位紐西蘭智庫人員向美國奧斯卡獎主辦單位反映, 應追回這項頒給高爾的獎座, 因為該片不能以紀錄片觀之. 抱歉, 我之前失察, 失禮了. 不過另有一感. 國際間的緊密互動如是, 在台灣我們卻毫無所知, 除非要像這樣努力…不過, 我看到在美國也有人抱怨這消息剛發生時絕大部分媒體都沒有報導, 難怪乎知道這部片子中含有爭議性的人應還是不多吧.

    by kiwiyu on October 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm. Reply #

    不會,我也翻譯的七零八落。話說回來,報導的媒體不少,卻都沒有詳列錯誤內容,這一點真的是挺不能理解的。

    by Wraecca on October 22, 2007 at 9:11 pm. Reply #

    據我所知,美國似乎就是排放溫室氣體的大兇手
    這類的宣傳往往可以感動到我們
    但政府必須在經濟發展與環保上做出折衝,必須以行政管制的手段,因為工廠排放溫室氣體的量遠大於個人

    by sanyo on December 2, 2007 at 2:09 am. Reply #

    無論那部紀錄片的錯誤有多少,都不是重點吧。重要的是,即使現在環境很好沒有污染等問題,我們仍然要愛護環境。在那邊討論誰對誰錯,只是逃避責任,要不然就是腦袋有洞搞不清什麼才是重點。而工廠會排放溫室氣體也是因為個人,不從”每”個人做起,只怪政策怪這個怪那個,不會反省自己,這樣地球遲早會毀滅在自己的手裡。

    by TML on March 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm. Reply #

    就我認為~
    高爾提出的話~以他論點相呼應~那9個錯誤~還是有需要驗證的地方~
    但~高爾是這方面的權威~法官的論點有點..~因為他沒有環保的背景~就直接提出反對~覺得沒有公信度~

    by ... on April 1, 2009 at 11:52 am. Reply #

    您說高爾是哪方面的權威?

    by Wraecca on May 19, 2009 at 12:48 am. Reply #

    全球暖化是事實,但是暖化的原因卻不只是溫室氣體。近150年太陽的活動趨於激烈,造成直射照度增加與宇宙線減弱的效應,連帶使低層雲減少,擴大地球增溫的現象。看看專家的報告就知道IPCC不願面對的事實:物理雙月刊 31 卷 5 期( 2009 年 10 月) “太陽、宇宙線與氣候的關聯 ” http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/bimonth/download.php?d=1&cpid=173&did=10

    by 螞蝗 on November 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm. Reply #

    […] 不過怎麼說呢,好簡報也有可能成為強力的誤導工具。譬如說 raindog 提到的第一則簡報式電影──「不願面對的真相」,後來也被指出影片中的九大錯誤(詳見:ref1 ref2) […]

    by » Blog Archive » 《穹頂之下》的七堂簡報課心得 on March 21, 2015 at 8:41 pm. Reply #

    […] 不過怎麼說呢,好簡報也有可能成為強力的誤導工具。譬如說 raindog 提到的第一則簡報式電影──「不願面對的真相」,後來也被指出影片中的九大錯誤(詳見:ref1 ref2) […]

    by 天工開物 | 《穹頂之下》的七堂簡報課心得 on September 13, 2015 at 11:31 pm. Reply #

    Leave your comment

    Not published.

    If you have one.