The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth

Summary

This video discusses 'An Inconvenient Truth,' a documentary by Al Gore that brought climate change to the forefront. Despite its impact, the film faced criticism for alleged inaccuracies and political bias. The video examines nine specific errors identified by the UK High Court and one additional significant error not addressed in the court case. It reflects on how the film's approach may have influenced the public discourse on climate change, emphasizing the importance of accurate and nuanced communication in science and politics.

Takeaways

• 🌍 'An Inconvenient Truth', released in 2006, was a groundbreaking documentary on climate change, directed by Davis Guggenheim and based on Al Gore's presentations.
• 🏆 The film was highly successful, winning two Academy Awards and contributing to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
• 📚 It was used as an educational tool in schools in England, Scotland, and Wales, sparking controversy and legal challenges over its accuracy and political nature.
• 👨‍⚖️ In the court case Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Justice Michael Burton ruled that the film was substantially accurate but contained nine errors.
• 🔍 The judge categorized the errors into sensationalism, attribution issues, and some that were not considered errors by the video's narrator due to evolving scientific understanding.
• ❄️ Al Gore's discussion of polar bears, sea levels, and extreme weather events was criticized for not fully representing the scientific consensus or the timing of events.
• 🌡️ The film was also critiqued for overstating the certainty of attribution science regarding specific events like Hurricane Katrina and the drying of Lake Chad.
• 🌐 The video discusses the broader implications of how 'An Inconvenient Truth' framed climate change as an individual rather than a societal issue, potentially impacting policy discourse.
• 🔗 The film's focus on Al Gore himself and its political framing are seen as having both positive and negative effects on the public's understanding and the political landscape of climate change.
• 🌱 The video concludes by emphasizing the importance of nuanced and accurate media representation of climate science, contrasting it with the often sensationalized or simplified content on platforms like YouTube.

Q & A

What was the main subject of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

The documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' primarily focused on the issue of climate change, using a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Al Gore to highlight the scientific evidence and the urgency of addressing this global crisis.

Why was 'An Inconvenient Truth' considered significant upon its release?

The film was significant because it was one of the first major documentaries to win two Academy Awards and it played a crucial role in popularizing the discussion on climate change, leading to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize the following year.

What was the controversy surrounding the distribution of 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools?

The controversy arose when the film was distributed to schools in England, Scotland, and Wales, with critics arguing that it contained scientific inaccuracies and was politically motivated, potentially leading to political indoctrination of children.

What was the outcome of the court case 'Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills'?

The court ruled that while 'An Inconvenient Truth' was substantially founded on scientific research, it contained nine errors and was a political film. It was decided that the film could still be shown in schools but with an updated guidance note to provide political balance and highlight the errors.

What are the three broad categories of errors identified in the film by the court?

The errors were categorized into sensationalism, where Gore made claims that were not supported by the evidence at the time; attribution, where the film claimed specific events were caused by climate change without sufficient scientific backing; and a third category where some of the issues were not necessarily errors but were presented with more confidence than the evidence justified.

How has the field of extreme event attribution evolved since the release of 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

Extreme event attribution has evolved significantly, with scientists now able to make statements with greater confidence about a wider range of events and their connection to climate change, thanks to advancements in climate modeling and a better understanding of the complex relationships involved.

What is the main issue with the way climate change is portrayed in 'An Inconvenient Truth' according to the video?

The main issue is that the film sets a precedent for discussing climate change in a way that is heavily focused on individual actions and Al Gore's personal narrative, rather than emphasizing the need for societal and policy changes at a larger scale.

What is the role of media in shaping public understanding of climate science according to the video?

Media, including films like 'An Inconvenient Truth', plays a significant role in shaping public understanding of climate science. However, the video suggests that media often simplifies or sensationalizes information, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the nuances and complexities of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Why does the video argue for a more thoughtful approach to media content on complex topics like climate change?

The video argues for a more thoughtful approach because complex topics like climate change require nuanced discussion that is often lost when media is pressured to simplify or sensationalize content for the sake of viewer engagement and retention.

What is Nebula, as mentioned in the video?

Nebula is a streaming service for educational content creators that offers a platform free from the pressures of algorithms and ads, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth content. It is subscription-based and supports creators directly, providing a space for thoughtful and ad-free viewing experiences.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 An Inconvenient Truth: Impact and Controversy

The paragraph discusses the significant cultural and educational impact of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth', directed by Davis Guggenheim and presented by Al Gore. It highlights the film's commercial and critical success, including winning two Academy Awards and influencing educational curriculums. However, it also delves into the controversy surrounding the film's accuracy, particularly in the UK court case 'Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills'. The court found the film to be substantially accurate but identified nine errors, which are categorized into sensationalism, attribution issues, and other minor points. The paragraph emphasizes the film's role in shaping public discourse on climate change, despite its flaws.

05:02

🐾 Sensationalism in Climate Change Communication

This section critiques Al Gore's approach in 'An Inconvenient Truth' for sensationalizing certain aspects of climate change. It points out that while Gore's claims about Greenland's ice melting, polar bears drowning, and Pacific Islands evacuations have scientific backing, the manner of presentation can be misleading. The paragraph argues that Gore's failure to provide specific timeframes or context may create an exaggerated sense of urgency. It also discusses the broader issue of how climate change is communicated, suggesting that the data itself is compelling without the need for exaggeration.

10:04

🌪️ Attribution of Extreme Weather Events to Climate Change

The paragraph delves into the complexities of attributing specific weather events to climate change, a field known as extreme event attribution. It explains the process of running climate models to compare weather patterns with and without human-induced climate change to determine the likelihood of events. The discussion includes the limitations of such studies, particularly around the time the film was made. The paragraph also addresses the court's ruling on the film's erroneous claims about Hurricane Katrina, snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro, and the drying of Lake Chad, stating that the science at the time did not support such direct causal links.

15:05

🔍 Debunking Misconceptions: The Science Behind Climate Change

This section challenges some of the errors identified by the UK High Court in 'An Inconvenient Truth', suggesting that with the benefit of hindsight and additional research, some of Gore's points were more accurate than initially acknowledged. It discusses the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures, coral bleaching due to climate change, and the potential collapse of the Atlantic ocean conveyor. The paragraph argues that while the film may have overstated some points, the underlying science supports the broader message about the urgency of climate change.

20:06

🌱 The Legacy of An Inconvenient Truth and the Politics of Climate Change

The final paragraph reflects on the legacy of 'An Inconvenient Truth', critiquing its focus on Al Gore's personal narrative and its impact on the political discourse around climate change. It suggests that the film may have inadvertently contributed to a partisan approach to climate policy and discussion. The paragraph also touches on the film's conclusion, which emphasized individual actions over broader societal or policy changes. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of accurate and nuanced communication of climate science, especially in media, and the role of platforms like Nebula in supporting such content.

🎥 The Role of Media in Shaping Climate Change Narratives

This paragraph discusses the broader implications of how media, including 'An Inconvenient Truth', shapes public understanding and discourse on climate change. It contrasts the simplified narratives often presented in media with the complex and nuanced nature of scientific research. The paragraph also addresses the challenges faced by content creators in balancing attention-grabbing strategies with the need for accurate and thoughtful communication of scientific topics. It ends by promoting Nebula, a streaming service that supports nuanced and ad-free content, as an alternative platform for educational media.

🙏 Personal Reflections and Acknowledgments

In a personal note, the paragraph expresses gratitude to the community for their support during a period of personal loss. It acknowledges the contributions of guest creators and patrons who have supported the channel's content. The paragraph also thanks Professor Dan Mitchell for his insights on climate science and expresses appreciation for the viewership and engagement with the channel's content.

Keywords

💡An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film that features former U.S. Vice President Al Gore discussing the pressing issue of climate change. The film is significant as it was one of the first mainstream media pieces to bring climate change to the forefront of public consciousness. In the video script, the film is analyzed for its accuracy and impact on how climate change is perceived and discussed, with a focus on both its scientific content and its political implications.

💡Climate Change

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. The video script discusses how An Inconvenient Truth portrayed climate change, including the scientific evidence supporting its occurrence and the potential consequences if no action is taken. The film's impact on public discourse and policy around climate change is a central theme of the video.

💡Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is the increase in the volume of water in the world's oceans, leading to a rise in sea levels. This phenomenon is discussed in the video script as one of the potential consequences of climate change, particularly in relation to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The script critiques the film's portrayal of sea level rise, suggesting that while the underlying science is sound, the timeline and urgency presented may have been exaggerated.

💡Polar Bears

Polar bears are used in the video script as an example of how climate change impacts wildlife. The script mentions Al Gore's discussion of polar bears swimming in open oceans due to melting Arctic sea ice, which has led to some bears drowning. This serves as a symbol of the broader ecological disruptions caused by climate change and the challenges in accurately communicating these impacts to the public.

💡Attribution

Attribution in the context of climate science refers to the process of determining the causes of observed changes or specific events, such as whether a particular weather event was made more likely due to human-induced climate change. The video script discusses the challenges and nuances of attribution studies, particularly in relation to events like Hurricane Katrina, and how these studies have evolved since the release of An Inconvenient Truth.

💡Extreme Event Attribution

Extreme event attribution is a subset of climate science that attempts to link specific extreme weather events to climate change. The video script delves into the complexities of this field, noting that while the film suggests direct causality between climate change and certain events, the science at the time and even today often only supports statements about increased likelihood rather than direct causation.

💡CO2 Concentration

CO2 concentration refers to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The video script discusses how Al Gore's film presented the relationship between rising CO2 levels and global temperatures, which is a fundamental aspect of the scientific consensus on climate change. The script also addresses a legal ruling that questioned the simplicity of this relationship as presented in the film.

💡Coral Bleaching

Coral bleaching is a process where corals lose their color and often die due to stress, such as increased water temperatures. The video script mentions that while the film An Inconvenient Truth linked coral bleaching to climate change, the scientific consensus at the time was less definitive. The script uses this example to illustrate the challenges in communicating scientific uncertainties to the public.

💡Atlantic Ocean Conveyor

The Atlantic Ocean Conveyor, also known as the thermohaline circulation, is a system of ocean currents that distribute heat around the planet. The video script discusses a scenario presented in An Inconvenient Truth where increased freshwater from melting ice could disrupt this conveyor, leading to significant climate impacts. The script critiques the confidence with which this scenario was presented, given the scientific understanding at the time.

💡Political Propaganda

Political propaganda refers to the spread of information, often biased or misleading, to promote a political cause or viewpoint. The video script explores the controversy surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, where it was accused of being political propaganda due to its presentation of climate change as a crisis requiring immediate action. The script discusses the legal case and the implications of blending science and politics in public discourse.

💡Education Act of 1996

The Education Act of 1996 is a UK legislation that sets the framework for educational policy. The video script references this act in the context of a legal ruling that required An Inconvenient Truth to be accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to ensure balanced political perspectives were presented when showing the film in schools. This highlights the intersection of education, politics, and the portrayal of controversial scientific topics.

Highlights

An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary by Davis Guggenheim, was based on Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation and was both a commercial and critical success.

The film won two Academy Awards and contributed to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

In 2007, the film was part of a UK court case, Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills, questioning its accuracy and political bias.

Justice Michael Burton ruled that the film was substantially scientific but contained political elements and identified nine errors.

The film's discussion of Greenland's ice melting and potential sea level rise was criticized for not specifying the time frame.

Gore's depiction of polar bears swimming due to melting ice was challenged as an exceptional event, not the norm.

Claims of Pacific Islanders evacuating due to sea level rise were disputed for lack of evidence at the time.

The film was criticized for attributing specific extreme events like Hurricane Katrina directly to climate change, which was not supported by the science at the time.

The film's portrayal of the drying of Lake Chad and snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro as direct results of climate change was deemed misleading.

The relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was oversimplified in the film, according to the court's ruling.

The film's assertion about coral bleaching being caused by climate change was supported by weaker evidence at the time.

Gore's theory about the Atlantic ocean conveyor potentially stopping due to climate change was seen as an overstatement based on the evidence available.

The film's focus on Al Gore and its political framing may have contributed to the partisan nature of climate change discussions.

The film's legacy is criticized for framing climate change as an individual problem rather than a societal or policy issue.

The video discusses the importance of accurate media representation of climate science and the potential impact of An Inconvenient Truth on public discourse.

The video concludes by differentiating the errors in the film from those made by climate change skeptics, emphasizing the film's overall alignment with scientific consensus.

The video is sponsored by Nebula, a streaming service that promotes nuanced content and is free from algorithmic influence.

Transcripts

this video is sponsored by nebula in

2006 An Inconvenient Truth was released

a documentary feature film directed by

Davis Guggenheim based on a PowerPoint

presentation delivered all over the

world by once U.S vice president Al Gore

the film went on to be immensely

commercially and critically successful

becoming the first documentary feature

to win two Academy Awards somewhat more

impressively the following year Al Gore

also received the Nobel Peace Prize

shared with the intergovernmental panel

on climate change for his efforts in

promoting climate science notably via

the film at this time I was in school

and I remember watching the film in a

science class it was one of those magic

double periods where the teacher wheeled

in the TV and the entire class just went

yes at that impressionable time I

thought the film was very good and it

definitely made an impact on me

re-watching it now is interesting

especially when you consider that in

2007 the year that Gaul received his

Nobel Peace Prize his film was at the

center of a court case around

misinformation and scientific propaganda

in schools you see in 2006 the

governments of England Scotland and

Wales launched initiatives to distribute

films about climate change to be shown

in secondary schools one of these films

being An Inconvenient Truth which was

accompanied by a guidance note this

distribution was opposed by a group of

people who claimed that An Inconvenient

Truth contained a multitude of

scientific errors and was politically

motivated and thus that the distribution

of the film to schools amounted to

political indoctrination of children

this opposition culminated in dimmock

versus Secretary of State for education

and skills in the UK's High Court a

judge had to rule in consultation with

the scientific literature Was An

Inconvenient Truth accurate in other

words did it represent the scientific

mainstream and further was it a

political film Justice Michael Burton

ruled that An Inconvenient Truth is

quote substantially founded upon

scientific research and fact albeit that

the science is used in the hands of a

talented politician and Communicator to

make a political statement and to

support a political program and that

quote the film advances four main

scientific hypotheses Each of which is

very well supported by research

published in respected peer-reviewed

journals and Accords with the latest

conclusions of the intergovernmental

panel on climate change however he also

identified nine errors in the film that

I've broken down into three broad

categories but I think the film contains

another error a much larger one that the

judge couldn't possibly have known about

and so wasn't included in the court case

so in this video let's talk about those

nine errors in perhaps the most

significant piece of climate change

media ever made and that one extra and

what they all tell us about climate

science the first group of Errors can be

described as sensationalism Gore talks

about greened and melting polar bears

drowning and Pacific Islands being

evacuated in each case the fundamental

idea that Gore talks about has strong

scientific backing however the way in

which he talks about these ideas is a

little more problematic in the first

instance Gore talks about how if

Greenland or an equivalent ice mass in

Antarctica melted then Global sea levels

would rise by up to 7 meters and this

would be to put it mildly catastrophic

as Gore demonstrates with maps of major

cities that would be flooded the issue

with this is that while seven meters of

sea level rise is a perfectly reasonable

estimate for Greenland melting that

melting and so that sea level rise would

take place over centuries and Gore in

the film never actually mentions a time

frame to be clear Greenland is melting

it's actually melting faster than we

thought it would and this this is

contributing to accelerating sea level

rise but no scientist is seriously

expecting to see multiple meters of sea

level rise this century they didn't back

in 2006 either Gaul was being somewhat

disingenuous in his presentation not

exactly lying but Lying by Omission

making this issue which is serious seem

more urgent than it really is the

judge's rulings on the other two errors

in this category were similar at one

point in the film Gore talks about how

polar bears are having to swim in open

ocean due to Melting Arctic sea ice and

this has resulted in some bears drowning

while Arctic sea ice is absolutely

retreating in summer and some bears have

been found drowned this was an

exceptional event seemingly caused by a

storm similarly Gore states that Pacific

Islands are being inundated due to

rising sea levels and citizens are

having to evacuate to New Zealand while

sea level rise is happening very quickly

in the Western Pacific as much as 30

centimeters of Rise since 1950 as far as

I can tell there was no actual evidence

for evacuations happening at this time

Greenland and is Mountain Arctic sea ice

is also melting and that very much poses

a threat to Polar Bear populations they

also both contribute to sea level rise

around the world threatening the

flooding of low-lying Nations but in all

of these cases Gore makes claims that

are either ambiguous or he frames the

issue in such a way that implies the

issues are more urgent than the evidence

really supports which is super

frustrating because you don't need to

exaggerate when talking about the

climate crisis the data speaks for

itself we can be sure that we will face

major issues this Century no hype needed

and speaking of being sure so I'm Dan

Mitchell I'm a professor of climate

science at the University of Bristol the

next category of errors in An

Inconvenient Truth has to do with

attribution the attribution is where we

take some observations and we look at

what's causing a change in those

observations that's what's called Trend

attribute Vision but there's a subset

which looks at specific extreme events

we call that extreme event attribution

and that essentially says how much more

likely or not was that event due to

human induced climate change events that

may include Hurricane Katrina the

drawing of Lake Chad and the snow

melting on Mount Kilimanjaro all events

mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth as

being caused by climate change now I

should point out that attribution

studies are very difficult to do and

they involve running complex computer

models of the Earth's atmosphere over

and over again the real problem we have

is that we only have one planet so we

only have one set of observations

because we have climate change within

our system it's very hard to say what it

would have been like without climate

change so the way we get around that is

we run climate models where we include

the climate change signal but also where

we exclude it co2s from Human induced

emissions in one scenario and without

them in another scenario and then we

compare what the weather looks in in

that world without climate change versus

that world with climate change and then

we look at where the observation sits

within those two weather patterns and

that tells us the attribution of the

event you'll notice that Dan talked

about shifting weather patterns and

probabilities the idea is an attribution

study can tell you if the weather

conditions leading to say a lake drying

up became more likely due to climate

change not if the lake drying up was

caused by climate change and the other

thing to stress is that this is really

quite a new idea it's only slightly

older than An Inconvenient Truth itself

An Inconvenient Truth actually occurred

at a very interesting time in

attribution science it's where the field

of extreme event attribution was

actually first developed that was around

2003 they were all based on large-scale

uh by large I mean sort of UK level

um meteorological variables so heat

waves mainly the reason we looked at

heat waves was because that's a very

strong signal within climate change over

the 20 years since then we've got finer

detail and we started looking at other

variables so we have started looking at

droughts for instance or flooding or

storms those sort of things in a higher

order problems at the time of

Inconvenient Truth there was no way an

attribution study could have been done

on Katrina Justice Burton rules that An

Inconvenient Truth was erroneous in

claiming that Hurricane Katrina the

snowmelt on Kilimanjaro and the drying

of Lake Chad were caused by climate

change as the science simply did not

support such confident statements

frankly it still doesn't attribution

Studies have come a long way since the

time of the film scientists can now make

statements with greater confidence and

describing a greater range of events but

even now to say that climate change was

responsible for say Hurricane Katrina is

misleading in fact the science says that

climate change may have led to certain

elements of Hurricane Katrina being more

intense and similar statements about the

reduction in snow on Mount Kilimanjaro

though interestingly less so actually

about the drying of late Chad and this

reductivism taking a complex statement

and reducing it down to a Snappy

headline is a problem with how the media

talks about attribution studies in

general there are deep nuances in what

we do one of the problems is attribution

is used a lot in the media

and they were a Snappy title and you

can't get across the 10 caveats in a

title and so those things are picked up

they used elsewhere and they often don't

exactly correspond to what we were

trying to say and we haven't found a

good way of getting around that without

having a sort of article attached to it

the final category of errors are those

that to be honest I don't think are

errors at all some of this is set with

the benefit of hindsight or more

accurately the benefit of nearly two

decades more observations and Analysis

but some areas I do just flat out

disagree with like the first one in

which the judge rules that the

relationship between global average

temperature and CO2 concentration in the

atmosphere is not exact as Gore states

in the film in fact he says the

relationship is actually very

complicated but there is one

relationship that is far more powerful

than all the others and it is this when

there is more carbon dioxide the

temperature gets warmer because it traps

more heat from the sun inside which is a

very good description complex

relationship but the overwhelming

correlation over the time scales

depicted is that when CO2 levels go up

so too does the global average

temperature I don't think Gore actually

said anything wrong another error in

Justice Burton's judgment was to do with

coral reefs by the time of the film's

release reefs around the world were

being bleached this is a process in

which the delicate symbiotic

relationship within a coral is disrupted

leading to the coral turning white and

in most cases starving Gore argues that

this is happening because of climate

change the judge cited the then latest

ipcc report in saying that the causes of

coral bleaching are difficult to

separate and there's no clear link to

climate change though with the benefit

of hindsight they absolutely are being

bleached because of climate change due

to rising sea temperatures the evidence

at the time was however undeniably

weaker and lastly Gore talks at some

length about the Atlantic ocean conveyor

an ocean current that transports Heat up

to the North Atlantic you've probably

heard of the surface component of this

the Gulf Stream the idea according to

gore is that if enough melt water ran

off a melting Greenland that this

conveyor could stop as it has done in

the past at the time the scientific

consensus was that while the conveyor

may slow it was very unlikely to

actually stop subsequent analysis

indicates that in some pessimistic

scenarios this collapse is actually

likely so I don't think the film is

really wrong just that the evidence at

the time didn't really justify the

confidence Gore implied in his

conclusion so these were the nine eras

the UK High Court found that An

Inconvenient Truth contained it's worth

restating at this point that Justice

Burton found that the film was

substantially founded upon scientific

research and that the film's four main

scientific hypotheses were very well

supported by research published in

respected peer-reviewed journals the

main thrust of what the film is getting

at is accurate the nine errors are the

exception rather than the norm and they

certainly don't undermine or compromise

the overall message of the film but what

about that one extra big error that the

judge can possibly have known about well

that is how An Inconvenient Truth set

the precedent for how we talk about

climate change re-watching the film now

is interesting Gore very clearly makes

the film as much about himself as about

climate change which is smart humans are

drawn to other humans to individuals

instead of Concepts however because of

who Gore is and how he frames the issue

politically within the film an immediate

battle line is drawn the film reads as

if you think I should have won the

election in the year 2000 then you are

on my side the side of Science and of

course if you disagree then you are on

the other side almost 20 years on from

the release of an inconvenience truth

the dialogue around climate change

remains almost unchanged it's still

partisan no perhaps nowhere more so than

in the United States it's still mired in

personal ad hominem attacks and perhaps

most unforgivably still focused on the

actions of individuals a lot of people

seem to have forgotten that An

Inconvenient Truth describing this

apocalyptic threat to humanity ends with

a plea for the audience to do more such

as by buying more energy efficient light

bulbs it's literally the first

recommendation it makes the film has a

legacy of climate change as a problem of

individuals not as a problem of

Societies or of policy and watching it

today even knowing the positive

attention that the film unquestionably

brought to the issue it's an

uncomfortable framing it makes me wonder

how different the discourse and the

climate policy landscape would be today

if the film was just a little less

focused on Gore the individual and a

little more focused on what good climate

policy on a national and sub-national

level looks like how much time did we

lose with this film what Can An

Inconvenient Truth tell us about climate

science

not a lot sorry if you clicked on this

video expecting me to pull the threads

on some Global conspiracy that were just

poking out of a film by Al Gore his film

is almost entirely accurate and the

hypotheses of climate change as depicted

in the film are very well supported by

the evidence what it can tell us a lot

about is the relationship between

science and politics remember that the

court case was partly about how accurate

the film was but also about whether it

was a political film or not is it a

political film

yes obviously climate science is about

describing a physical system and making

predictions about the future state of

that system based on our understanding

interpreting those predictions as a

problem requires a value judgment

something that science in its purest

form does not do calling attention to a

problem seen in scientific predictions

and proposing solutions to it is the

domain of activism and politics not

science An Inconvenient Truth very much

falls into the category of politics it

just so happens that the issue and the

proposed solutions to it are based on

well-documented science as such Justice

Burton ruled that the film was clearly

political and thus that the distribution

of the film in its current form to

schools was in breach of the Education

Act of 1996. to correct this going

forwards the film would be distributed

with an updated guidance note with more

neutral language and a longer list of

organizations that oppose the

interpretation of climate change as a

problem as well as high highlighting the

nine eras in the film so did the ruling

find that An Inconvenient Truth was

unscientific propaganda and shouldn't be

shown in schools

no the ruling found that An Inconvenient

Truth was almost entirely accurate and

that it advocates for political change

thus for political balance the film

should be distributed with some updated

guidance for teachers which is what

happened going forward though that idea

of balance is what I want to finish this

video with An Inconvenient Truth is not

a work of science it is a piece of media

describing science to a political end

that gets some things wrong and in so

doing joins a very large body of media

however do not make the mistake of

equating the errors of an inconvenience

truth with those made by people

skeptical of anthropogenic climate

change climate Skeptics cherry-pick data

and they take findings out of context in

order to make statements that fly

completely counter to the scientific

consensus while those who advocate for

action on climate change make statements

that are missing caveats or are

insufficiently supported by the evidence

though still ground did in fact and do

so in order to accelerate action action

that is deemed necessary based on the

scientific consensus both are

problematic and An Inconvenient Truth

definitely Strays into the latter

but they are not the same this film

contains many errors it shows that how

we talk about climate change matters our

response to it has been affected and I

think weakened by this film but it

stands apart from Media made by those

skeptical of anthropogenic climate

change take all the errors out of this

film and it still presents a complete

compelling argument based on

inconvenience but true fact

not something you can say about Media

made in scientific opposition to it a

crucial point in this video is that

media describing science is not the same

as science itself especially when it

comes to Nuance media is encouraged to

be Snappy grab your audience's attention

don't go for anything complicated the

exact opposite of Science and in a world

where content is served to us

algorithmically this only intensifies

here on YouTube creators are locked in a

Perpetual arms race for attention

encouraged to sensationalize to get

clicks and keep things simple to retain

viewers interest speaking as a YouTube

Creator I feel encouraged by the

platform to avoid nuance and instead

double down on attention grabbing takes

and video titles it's not an environment

that encourages thoughtful careful

content a video platform with no

algorithm and curated content would be

much better in communicating complex

topics such as found in science or

sociology and that's exactly what nebula

the sponsor of this video is nebula is a

streaming service owned and operated by

a collection of educational content

creators including me that host videos

on a variety of topics including media

literacy science literacy and of course

climate change with no pressure to

simplify or avoid Nuance to appease a

watch time-based algorithm this was our

opportunity as creators to create a

whole new streaming service in the form

that we wanted so we made it as we would

want to use ourselves with no adverts

instead nebula operates on a

subscription model with your monthly or

yearly subscription partly going

directly to creators and partly

financing new original content in fact a

topic mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth

is the drying of the Colorado River due

to shifting precipitation patterns due

to climate change if you would like to

see a feature-length thoughtful

documentary made just last year on this

subject by Wendover Productions then you

can do so on nebula and the Colorado

problem is just one of hundreds of

projects funded by nebula and only

available on the site nebula has over

two-thirds of a million active users who

enjoy content across a wide range of

subjects without the reductive influence

of an algorithm dictating what form

videos can take and they do so without

any adverts in sight if you sign up

today then you can join them and

directly support the work I do you can

do so by going to go.nebula.tv Simon

Clark Linked In the description and if

you sign up with my link you'll also get

an amazing 40 discount on a yearly

subscription meaning you can enjoy a

thoughtful ad-free viewing experience

for just over 2.50 a month that's

go.nebula.tv

Simon Clark with thanks to nebula for

sponsoring this video and for

encouraging nuanced content

thank you for watching the video if

you're watching some distance in the

future this was the first video I made

after I took some time out due to the

passing of my father I just want to take

this opportunity to say a huge thank you

to the community that's built up around

my work for the immensely heartfelt

generous messages I've received from

yours thank you and also thank you to my

friends Kat and Thomas for making some

guest videos for me on this channel

whilst I was away if you haven't seen

those already then go check them out

thanks must also go to Professor Dan

Mitchell at the University of Bristol

for chatting to me about attribution and

to these lovely people these are my

executive producers on patreon if you

would like to support my work and vote

for a video topic a month this was

actually a video topic chosen by my

patrons then please do check out my

patreon Linked In the description and

thank you to everybody who has signed up

recently if you enjoyed the video please

do pop it a like and do share it with

people that you think may get something

whether that's in group chats or on

subreddits please do check out those

guest videos from Kat and Thomas and

that just leads me to say thank you

again for watching I'll see you in the

next one