This isn't a documentary, this is a propaganda piece done much in the style of Michael Moore. Al Gore does stand to benefit financially from global warming, he has invested heavily in alternative energy sources which he candidly discloses pretty much any time he gives a talk on climate change. The strategy of the anti-climate change people is straight out of the tobacco playbook of deny, deny, deny. If you can't beat the facts attack the man presenting the facts. Claim the science isn't there yet. When smokers were stupid enough to believe smoking caused no ill health effects they were only killing themselves, and possibly their families with second hand smoke. The idiots that believe pumping several metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere has no effect on climate are hurting us all. Climate Change should not be a political issue, how we try to solve the problem is definitely political, but to just stick your head in the sand is dangerous.
23 Reviews
One man's search for the truth about Global Warming
mrsjessbridges28 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Radio personality and environmentalist Phil Valentine reveals the political and financial boondoggles of the Global Warming movement. Years of painstaking research and interviews have culminated in a thought provoking and funny documentary. Phil follows the money and the power plays to the perpetrators of the biggest junk science scandal of the century. This film brings Climategate to a whole new level. Spoiler alert –the Climate Change mantra is completely dissected and exposed to the harsh light of scientific fact. The scientists whose data was subverted in the famous IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change) report discuss their actual findings. Every major crony and taxpayer dollar of Cap & Trade is revealed. The production quality is extremely good for a documentary and the unique music score matches the fun friendly mood of the film.
Just wow
kechisholm7 January 2013
This only has good reviews because only lunatics would see this movie. From the first moment, it is simply attacking one man rather than actually addressing the topic at hand. All his experts are listed as "expert reviewers", which is a nice way of saying that they are outliers of the scientific community and hold no official positions. Much like the "picking and choosing of facts" that Phil Valentine talks about Al Gore doing, he is doing the exact same thing. I've never seen such a ridiculous polemic before. Why is this a diatribe against Al Gore? He is not global warming! Who cares about Al Gore? I'm more interested in our planet not melting, but apparently my interests lie in the wrong place.
Outstanding!
waggs682 February 2012
This movie is a must see regardless of your opinion on 'Man Made Global Warming.' I had high expectations going in, but the movie was far better than anticipated. Phil Valentine debunks many of the so-called facts used to push the Global Warming agenda and refutes them with facts, figures, charts, and expect testimony. Phil exposes the hypocrisy of Al Gore and how he stands to financially gain from 'green house gas' regulation. The movie strips away the hype and exposes the truth behind the UN's interest and influence on this subject and the real reason they are pushing this subject so hard - redistribution of wealth. Interesting, informative, entertaining and thought provoking. Take the entire family; you'll want to see this one more than once.
Wow
stmozzo25 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This "documentary", is for 3 types of people: 1. Those that believe the moon landings were fake, that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Jews, that slavery was good, that the Earth is flat, etc. 2. Those that like to make fun of group number 1. And 3. Actual scientists who wish to know how depressing our education system (especially math and science) is in the U.S. I'm sorry if my review spoiled your viewing. Many climate change deniers like to support their beliefs by saying that climate change is only a theory. The third group above will probably most appreciate this next statement, but here goes. Too often, people seem to confuse theory with hypothesis. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Global warming is a theory. Most (if not all) of the evidence supports it. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are that global warming is cyclical and due to solar flares and that autism is caused by vaccinations. Little or no evidence supports these hypotheses yet. Phil Valentine jokes that this "doc" was not funded by the oil industry, but then fails to mention that he is associated with the Tea Party and the Koch brothers. Again, I apologize if these spoilers ruined your viewing experience.
Fabulous documentary
sundancerj1 February 2012
The movie is entertaining as well as very informative. Lot of information in the film so better plan to see it a couple of times. Should be a requirement for all students grade school thru college age. Hope everyone gets behind this film and take to all of the masses. Love you Phil!!! Specifically the scenes in front of Gore's house. The film has very credible interviews. Everything was done with real FACTS. The movie never lagged. Very factual. Scenery is beautiful and the cinematography is very well done. Music is really great too and very appropriate for the movie scenes. Nice to see a movie that presents facts instead of fiction.
Kind of Embarrassing
jorgefromthefuture22 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
First some positives:
1) Before watching, I suspected that Phil Valentine might be on the payroll of some organization or other when creating this film. After watching it, its clear to me that he was attempting to honestly depict the global warming issue as he sees it, and I don't think he is a shill.
A few problems with this film: 1) I was expecting this film to be overflowing with facts, charts, and all kinds of data to convince me that all the climate scientists who think that global warming is real and caused by humans are all wrong. Instead, I was disappointed to find that the film only had a handful of things to say about global warming itself (I'll address it's relevant non-straw man points below) and instead spends about 4/5 of it's time criticizing and making ad hominem attacks against Al Gore. Not that I care for Al Gore, but Gore himself has very little to do with the warming of the Earth. Valentine spent a ton of time in the film trying to prank, harass, and making snarky comments about Gore, "liberals", and what he calls "Dirt People" (environmentalists?). He also spends a lot of time interviewing people on the street and mocking them in a sort of Jay Leno 'street walk' way, or interacting blandly with irrelevant people he found in a book store where Al Gore was doing a book signing, or Al Gore's security guards (not joking). Valentine also spends time showing himself getting kicked out of peoples offices who didn't want to be interviewed. It was simply a waste of time to watch these parts as they added nothing to the issue at hand. Still more of the film was wasted with Valentine talking about himself, and also playing a song that mocks recycling and environmentalism over lengthy shots of glaciers and wintery pine trees. So there went 4/5ths of the film.
2) Some of the interviewees in the movie have conflicts of interests: Dr. Green is a member of the Heartland institute and The American Enterprise Institute (well known conservative and industry lobbying groups for special interests), Dr Singer (the only interviewee to claim that warming will be a good thing for people) has been employed by General Motors, Ford, and has done consulting for Exxon, Shell, Unocal Sun Oil, and ARCO in the past. Valentine is quick to point out Gore's loose conflicts of interests (who is irrelevant to the issue, since any of a plurality of climate scientists could have stood in to defend Gore's position instead), but overlooks conflicts of his own main sources for his own position in his movie. It is perhaps notable then that Dr Spencer and Dr. Christy (the two remaining impartial scientists) did not deny anthropomorphic climate change, but simply withhold judgement on the issue.
the film boiled down to a handful of relevant or convincing parts:
3) The first (of only 2 or 3) charts shown in the film, showing a huge peak during the medieval warming period is misleading. This chart is result of a single method of measurement (and is the most extreme of all available measurements for this). Charts that show all types of temperature measurement aggregated together do show a medieval warming period but it is not nearly as pronounced as the one shown in the film, and for those wondering, the aggregate chart shows the average global temperature warmer now than in medieval times (unlike the misleading one in the film).
4) Dr. Singer cites "31,000 engineers and scientists" who disagree with the IPCC reports as he holds up a book. I think this scene is particularly misleading for two reasons. First, the book he is holding is a book that he helped write himself (the NIPCC, notably published by the Heartland Institute), not a book coauthored or endorsed or even known by the "31k engineers and scientists". Secondly, the 31k engineers and scientists he is citing are practically anonymous signatories of a petition against government action towards global warming (the Oregon Petition) who self-verified their credentials. Scientific American did a rough random survey to get a sense of how authentic the signers were and found that "Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." In my opinion, this scene alone put the film in propaganda territory.
5) The idea that CO2 follows the rise and fall of temperature is false. It follows from a misreading of the ice core evidence. Namely: The core tells you both temperature and CO2 concentration at that position and time, and if read directly CO2 levels do seem to follow rises and falls in temperature. However, these temperatures are of course LOCAL temperatures. When the CO2 rates are compared to average GLOBAL temperatures at the time of their deposit, they instead support the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
6) Valentine and Dr. Singer assert that there is no consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. This is true, but only if you don't consider ~95% of climate scientists to be a consensus. Dr. Spencer himself on his website concedes that he is in the minority in not yet accepting that the climate change is caused by humans. His research involves finding out what might be causing the warming besides humans (and it is the results of this type of research that I was actually hoping to see in the film). Unfortunately for me (and Valentine), Dr. Spencer did not appear to be ready to make any scientific claims to the contrary at the time of filming. You can check his website to see the latest (he is still looking, and if you can sort through the snarky parts of his blog, he also helpfully states why he is still looking).
7) Valentine puts forth the claim that the Earth is not really warming but actually cooling. For this he cites 3 things: An article from "The Register", a quote from a political commentator, namely: "it's the sun, stupid", and shows Dr. Christy basically saying that this could be possible but unverifiable because the data is very noisy year to year and 10 years is too small a sample to draw any conclusion. For those who already believe this, I suppose you might just bob your head in agreement. However if you don't already believe this, this is a paper thin veneer of evidence at best, and at worst a laughable attempt at propaganda. Further, both Dr. Spencer and Dr. Singer agree that the Earth is warming (they simply don't commit to the idea that it is caused by humans) and therefore in this sense the film contradicts itself but succeeds in muddying the water (which I presume is one of the goals of the film?).
I am a bit hesitant to call this film outright propaganda because the word carries the connotation of a willful intent to mislead or deceive and I don't think Valentine set out to do this. However I do think Valentine wholly lacks scientific critical thinking skills and ended up creating a right-wing version of a 9/11 truther inside-job film.
I was, at a minimum, hoping that I could point to this movie as the definitive argument for denying anthropomorphic climate change and perhaps have a debate with someone about it's points. Instead, I will simply recommend Phil Valentine and supporters to closely study and internalize the wikipedia entry for "List of logical fallacies" so in the future they can better sort out information from irrelevant or incorrect nonsense.
A few problems with this film: 1) I was expecting this film to be overflowing with facts, charts, and all kinds of data to convince me that all the climate scientists who think that global warming is real and caused by humans are all wrong. Instead, I was disappointed to find that the film only had a handful of things to say about global warming itself (I'll address it's relevant non-straw man points below) and instead spends about 4/5 of it's time criticizing and making ad hominem attacks against Al Gore. Not that I care for Al Gore, but Gore himself has very little to do with the warming of the Earth. Valentine spent a ton of time in the film trying to prank, harass, and making snarky comments about Gore, "liberals", and what he calls "Dirt People" (environmentalists?). He also spends a lot of time interviewing people on the street and mocking them in a sort of Jay Leno 'street walk' way, or interacting blandly with irrelevant people he found in a book store where Al Gore was doing a book signing, or Al Gore's security guards (not joking). Valentine also spends time showing himself getting kicked out of peoples offices who didn't want to be interviewed. It was simply a waste of time to watch these parts as they added nothing to the issue at hand. Still more of the film was wasted with Valentine talking about himself, and also playing a song that mocks recycling and environmentalism over lengthy shots of glaciers and wintery pine trees. So there went 4/5ths of the film.
2) Some of the interviewees in the movie have conflicts of interests: Dr. Green is a member of the Heartland institute and The American Enterprise Institute (well known conservative and industry lobbying groups for special interests), Dr Singer (the only interviewee to claim that warming will be a good thing for people) has been employed by General Motors, Ford, and has done consulting for Exxon, Shell, Unocal Sun Oil, and ARCO in the past. Valentine is quick to point out Gore's loose conflicts of interests (who is irrelevant to the issue, since any of a plurality of climate scientists could have stood in to defend Gore's position instead), but overlooks conflicts of his own main sources for his own position in his movie. It is perhaps notable then that Dr Spencer and Dr. Christy (the two remaining impartial scientists) did not deny anthropomorphic climate change, but simply withhold judgement on the issue.
the film boiled down to a handful of relevant or convincing parts:
3) The first (of only 2 or 3) charts shown in the film, showing a huge peak during the medieval warming period is misleading. This chart is result of a single method of measurement (and is the most extreme of all available measurements for this). Charts that show all types of temperature measurement aggregated together do show a medieval warming period but it is not nearly as pronounced as the one shown in the film, and for those wondering, the aggregate chart shows the average global temperature warmer now than in medieval times (unlike the misleading one in the film).
4) Dr. Singer cites "31,000 engineers and scientists" who disagree with the IPCC reports as he holds up a book. I think this scene is particularly misleading for two reasons. First, the book he is holding is a book that he helped write himself (the NIPCC, notably published by the Heartland Institute), not a book coauthored or endorsed or even known by the "31k engineers and scientists". Secondly, the 31k engineers and scientists he is citing are practically anonymous signatories of a petition against government action towards global warming (the Oregon Petition) who self-verified their credentials. Scientific American did a rough random survey to get a sense of how authentic the signers were and found that "Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." In my opinion, this scene alone put the film in propaganda territory.
5) The idea that CO2 follows the rise and fall of temperature is false. It follows from a misreading of the ice core evidence. Namely: The core tells you both temperature and CO2 concentration at that position and time, and if read directly CO2 levels do seem to follow rises and falls in temperature. However, these temperatures are of course LOCAL temperatures. When the CO2 rates are compared to average GLOBAL temperatures at the time of their deposit, they instead support the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
6) Valentine and Dr. Singer assert that there is no consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. This is true, but only if you don't consider ~95% of climate scientists to be a consensus. Dr. Spencer himself on his website concedes that he is in the minority in not yet accepting that the climate change is caused by humans. His research involves finding out what might be causing the warming besides humans (and it is the results of this type of research that I was actually hoping to see in the film). Unfortunately for me (and Valentine), Dr. Spencer did not appear to be ready to make any scientific claims to the contrary at the time of filming. You can check his website to see the latest (he is still looking, and if you can sort through the snarky parts of his blog, he also helpfully states why he is still looking).
7) Valentine puts forth the claim that the Earth is not really warming but actually cooling. For this he cites 3 things: An article from "The Register", a quote from a political commentator, namely: "it's the sun, stupid", and shows Dr. Christy basically saying that this could be possible but unverifiable because the data is very noisy year to year and 10 years is too small a sample to draw any conclusion. For those who already believe this, I suppose you might just bob your head in agreement. However if you don't already believe this, this is a paper thin veneer of evidence at best, and at worst a laughable attempt at propaganda. Further, both Dr. Spencer and Dr. Singer agree that the Earth is warming (they simply don't commit to the idea that it is caused by humans) and therefore in this sense the film contradicts itself but succeeds in muddying the water (which I presume is one of the goals of the film?).
I am a bit hesitant to call this film outright propaganda because the word carries the connotation of a willful intent to mislead or deceive and I don't think Valentine set out to do this. However I do think Valentine wholly lacks scientific critical thinking skills and ended up creating a right-wing version of a 9/11 truther inside-job film.
I was, at a minimum, hoping that I could point to this movie as the definitive argument for denying anthropomorphic climate change and perhaps have a debate with someone about it's points. Instead, I will simply recommend Phil Valentine and supporters to closely study and internalize the wikipedia entry for "List of logical fallacies" so in the future they can better sort out information from irrelevant or incorrect nonsense.
Excellent Film
praisenewjersey1 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I loved watching this! After hearing about it for years and seeing little bits and pieces put on YouTube, from time to time, it is finally out. It was funny and witty, a great time had by all. Of course Uncle Phil is quite the funny guy but so were a lot of his experts which was pleasantly unexpected. I loved the Davis Kidd section of the movie, seeing myself and friends of mine in the film. And learning about the Medieval Warm Period was fascinating. it amazes me what the school systems put in their "education" and what they leave out. I feel very informed now. Once it finished the entire auditorium gave a standing ovation. And I have never seen a movie theater so packed with people buying tickets. This is a must see film you will enjoy!
life is for learning; educate yourself.
rainbowsunshine-281-6324121 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
this is a great film. there was a lot of solid information given along with enough humor to make the whole thing fun and educational. I've never been a believer in global warming because it always seemed to be junk science. it's always a good thing to be proved right :) I never knew about the warm period or the mini ice age....I love learning new factual information :) a must see for everyone who has heard of global warming whether or not you believe in it. it's best to have the whole story, and now, thanks to Shayne and Phil, we do. I love that being a conservative and conservation were equated from the start. I think sometimes that gets lost in the politics and that is a sad reality. for the folks who keep giving a low rating without having yet seen this film, that just shows their character and why one should ignore the low ratings.
Discover the Amazing Secret of Al Gore
tclay-281-320801 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This in depth reporting of the financial gains and conflicts of interest for Al Gore is outstanding. Phil Valentine found experts from the very organizations that Al Gore cited in his movie to totally debunk Gore's claims.
-3000 experts agreed in the UN report that climate change was man made-- FALSE (less than 100 scientist contributed to the report).
-1997 was the warmest year on record--Somewhat FALSE (accurate records have only been kept for the past 100 years & studies shows that global temperatures were much higher in the middle ages).
See for yourself why this movie is consistently getting 9-10 stars from people who actually watched the movie.
***This movie is not available in the markets that keep giving low stars.***
-3000 experts agreed in the UN report that climate change was man made-- FALSE (less than 100 scientist contributed to the report).
-1997 was the warmest year on record--Somewhat FALSE (accurate records have only been kept for the past 100 years & studies shows that global temperatures were much higher in the middle ages).
See for yourself why this movie is consistently getting 9-10 stars from people who actually watched the movie.
***This movie is not available in the markets that keep giving low stars.***
a must see!!!!
sparklew1 February 2012
a must see movie for all old and young people. the people that you trust may have been lying to you for their own personal gain. if you are not sure about global warming if you are sure about global warming humble yourself to go see this for an enlightening surprise that i can not tell you because i do not wan to spoil it for you not a dull moment in this movie, you will be impressed the best money i have spent made the money i spent on popcorn like an investment on my education,so go ahead and buy that popcorn and coke make it a large it will give you a great return for the money
loved it loved it have a great day at this movie
loved it loved it have a great day at this movie
Excellent Documentary Full of Facts
inkyvid1 February 2012
If you wanted to torture a liberal, forget water-boarding. Tie them up and make them watch an listen to this movie and their head will explode. They will be a sobbing limp mess when then finish watching and will do whatever you want them to. A small percentage may have their eyes open and be able to weigh the information and come to an informed conclusion concerning the myth and junk science of so-called "global warming" and how it is merely a ploy to gain control over socio-economic elements of the global governments. Dirt people and tree-huggers BEWARE! This movie will befuddle you with facts. Take a conservative friend with you so they can explain the difficult parts. Actually, that's not true. This movie presents the truth so simply that even a 7 year-old can understand it. Do yourself a favor, go and see this movie and you will come out with your mind cleansed.
A wonderful movie
castillejosg1 February 2012
I have been following documentaries about the cooling of the earth, so this movie add more bases to what I knew. Unfortunately most of the people never investigate and they accept everything they are told, mainly by the politics. This movie is an opener of minds. I hope more people get to see it and they see between reality and fiction. Phil I hope you get to do more documentaries of this type, to continue documenting me and everybody with the truth. Also this movie needs to be translated to other languages, mainly Spanish. I'm a very open minded Hispanic person, but there are so many that truly believe what they see on TV. Hope you get an Oscar for best documentary.
An Inconsistent Truth - TWO THUMBS UP!!!
radulover-281-222702 February 2012
TWO THUMBS UP!!!
For years we've heard only one side of the global warming hype and dealt with the consequences.
Phil and crew do an excellent job of getting together with leading climatologists, laying out facts, and interspersing some of his fabulous humor throughout. It's a sensible documentary that debunks the global warming hype and had the audience applauding several times throughout the movie.
Whether you're a global warming believer or a skeptic, this movie is a "must see".
I haven't seen a movie in a theater since '99, but this was a movie I couldn't wait to see. It was WELL worth the money . . . . . AND worth the 80-mile drive to get to the theater!
For years we've heard only one side of the global warming hype and dealt with the consequences.
Phil and crew do an excellent job of getting together with leading climatologists, laying out facts, and interspersing some of his fabulous humor throughout. It's a sensible documentary that debunks the global warming hype and had the audience applauding several times throughout the movie.
Whether you're a global warming believer or a skeptic, this movie is a "must see".
I haven't seen a movie in a theater since '99, but this was a movie I couldn't wait to see. It was WELL worth the money . . . . . AND worth the 80-mile drive to get to the theater!
Excellent movie that makes you think
twin12-285-5327527 February 2012
I enjoyed the movie greatly. Cinematography was excellent for a smaller project. The movie flows very well. An inconsistent truth doesn't shove facts down your throat. This movie asks you to draw your own conclusions by telling you their details and then asking you to compare issues based on facts. Nice to see a fact based movie take this kind of approach. The movie also has many funny moments as well that compliments the underlying tone throughout the picture. The movie strips away the hype and guilt that surrounds the question of global warming while exposing the truth of the global interests that are involved. Everyone should go into this movie with high expectations... As you will not be disappointed. This is one of the few movies I would suggest seeing twice.I recommend this movie to everyone.
Wonderful! Thanks for the truth!
biscuit091 February 2012
This was absolutely wonderful! Thanks for having the guts to tell the truth! This took a lot of work and time to make, that's obvious. It was so interesting I didn't leave my seat for a second. There was a lot of good information, some I knew and some I didn't. I would recommend this, and have, to anyone with an open mind. Al Gore has lied to so many people for so long, and it's refreshing to get the real information out there. I actually went to see this movie, unlike so many who rated it badly. And I think they shouldn't be able to rate it unless they saw it. The truth may hurt them, but it doesn't change it. Thank you so much, Phil.
Great documentary. Place a scepter in Gore's hand and we are back to the dark ages.
tim-233925 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the film last night, and the theater was packed. It was great.I have always known that plants inhale CO2(more correctly by photosynthesis), and then exhale oxygen. Without C02 all plants would die. Because plants create oxygen, we would then die. Ask a fourth grader. Dr. John Christy points out that C02 rises after temperature's increase. The "carbon-movement" dismisses any differing scientific facts as tainted by the funding sources of the scientists. Strangely,Phil Valentine got NO external funding to make this movie. Dr. Christy is funded by the Government grants. I'm struggling to find collusion here. The opposite is true for most of Gores Scientists. The "carbon-movement" has altered large portions of the known climate record, such as ignoring the little ice-age, turning a blind eye to the fact that carbon rises follow temperature increases, and most importantly, by ignoring the nuclear ball of fire in the sky that we call the sun. The hard fact is that if the public is allowed to here the truth that Co2 doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect, thousand's of people would loose their jobs. Jobs that depend on illogical hysteria surrounding the carbon-movement. The insanity has got to stop!
What disturbed me most of all was the general visceral reaction from Al Gore towards all that wanted to present scientific evidence that CO2 doesn't heat up the earth by contributing to the greenhouse gases. I am one of them, so to Al Gore, I'm a moon-landing denier, a Holocaust denier, and a flat earther. Place a scepter in Gore's hand and we are back to the dark ages. He portrays himself as Galileo and others as the Roman church when the opposite is true. Galileo was chained to a wall,fed prison rations, and surrounded by guards. Gore is chained to the plush seat of a private jet, dines in decadence , and surrounds himself with those that worship his every move-Good analogy Al.Oh, and Galileo was actually correct.
What's really at risk is free speech, free thought, and the scientific method. It's the ultimate extortion scheme when Al Gore's "Charities" get a percentage of all global financial transactions to then invest in Al Gores companies. Bernie Madolf who?
What disturbed me most of all was the general visceral reaction from Al Gore towards all that wanted to present scientific evidence that CO2 doesn't heat up the earth by contributing to the greenhouse gases. I am one of them, so to Al Gore, I'm a moon-landing denier, a Holocaust denier, and a flat earther. Place a scepter in Gore's hand and we are back to the dark ages. He portrays himself as Galileo and others as the Roman church when the opposite is true. Galileo was chained to a wall,fed prison rations, and surrounded by guards. Gore is chained to the plush seat of a private jet, dines in decadence , and surrounds himself with those that worship his every move-Good analogy Al.Oh, and Galileo was actually correct.
What's really at risk is free speech, free thought, and the scientific method. It's the ultimate extortion scheme when Al Gore's "Charities" get a percentage of all global financial transactions to then invest in Al Gores companies. Bernie Madolf who?
Great Job!!!!
cwdigger1 February 2012
I saw the movie last night and give it a 10. Can't wait for the next one if there is one. I find it hard to believe that there are that many idiots in the country that believe the crap coming from Al Gore and some of the other liberals. Thanks Phil for calling these frauds out like you do on your show daily. Al lives in his BelMeade estate and expects us to live in a cave and collect lint. We do have to thank Mr Spotted Algore for one thing THE INTERNET:)I would'nd be able to write this now if he had not made it possible. We must also keep the Republicans to the fire when elected to do what we put them there to accomplish. Sick of this double standard that is placed on the working crowd.
Marty Gates
Marty Gates
Excellent Film
clarkje-281-1467112 February 2012
Job well done in helping to expose the liberal lies and half truths in everything Al Gore, climate change, and global warming. Excellent, informative, funny, well made, interesting, honest, thoughtful, and deserves an Oscar and a Nobel peace prize. Excellent, informative, funny, well made, interesting, honest, thoughtful, and deserves an Oscar and a Nobel peace prize. Excellent, informative, funny, well made, interesting, honest, thoughtful, and deserves an Oscar and a Nobel peace prize. Excellent, informative, funny, well made, interesting, honest, thoughtful, and deserves an Oscar and a Nobel peace prize.
Great documentary you won't fall asleep in.
normalizer-314-29463511 March 2012
I saw the movie opening night in Nashville and loved it.
Let me say up front that I do believe in global warming, and do believe man has a part to play in it. I do not however believe everything I hear or read and I actively search out new sources and opinions on research and data interpretation.
Mr. Valentine, through this movie, is not so much trying to disprove global warming as much as he is asking viewers to be skeptical and ask questions. And he asks some VERY good questions. To say he oversimplifies his criticism of the establishment would be a disservice to those who may not be familiar with his viewpoint, and by ignoring it you yourself prove your unwillingness to learn.
It's more than a documentary about bad science, it's politics and social engineering as well.... Interviews with students at Vanderbilt Univ. show how even the best and brightest have drank the kool-aid without really thinking about it.
Valentine effectively asks us to reexamine what we commonly accept as base fact, and causes us to question what the messenger is trying to hide. Ignoring one while accepting another, without fair consideration of both, is a trap.
Thanks Phil, you done good.
Let me say up front that I do believe in global warming, and do believe man has a part to play in it. I do not however believe everything I hear or read and I actively search out new sources and opinions on research and data interpretation.
Mr. Valentine, through this movie, is not so much trying to disprove global warming as much as he is asking viewers to be skeptical and ask questions. And he asks some VERY good questions. To say he oversimplifies his criticism of the establishment would be a disservice to those who may not be familiar with his viewpoint, and by ignoring it you yourself prove your unwillingness to learn.
It's more than a documentary about bad science, it's politics and social engineering as well.... Interviews with students at Vanderbilt Univ. show how even the best and brightest have drank the kool-aid without really thinking about it.
Valentine effectively asks us to reexamine what we commonly accept as base fact, and causes us to question what the messenger is trying to hide. Ignoring one while accepting another, without fair consideration of both, is a trap.
Thanks Phil, you done good.
True? I can't say. Considerable? I think so.
StevePulaski30 December 2013
I was forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth in fourth grade, right around the time the film had completed its wave of publicity and fame through the cinemas and the awards shows. Roughly three or four classes were gathered into a room where they showed us the film and provided us with a brief lecture on it afterwards. All I remember was being petrified for the poor polar bears and concerned that their safety was threatened. I went home to tell my mother, where I had to be consoled and assured that the polar bears were fine.
My disdain for Al Gore's monumental documentary may come from the fact I was shown it at an age where I was unable to digest information of that size and fall for the film's scare tactics and statistic-advertising, but it also comes from Al Gore's approach to the material, a didactic, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is your fault" kind of approach.
Furthermore, I decided to research opposition on the macro-issue that is global warming, stumbling across radio host Phil Valentine's documentary An Inconsistent Truth, which takes a look at the idea that global warming is either a natural part of the weather cycle or the level of its severity has been greatly stretched and overblown. I want to take this time in saying I still have no idea what the hell to believe when it comes to global warming and believe only time will tell with an issue like this. As with many issues in the scientific universe, for every one-hundred scientists that say something is happening there are another one-hundred scientists who say it isn't happen, both bearing very convincing arguments and statistical data.
Such is the case with the global warming issue, as I consistently find myself ping-ponging back and forth from two sides. On one end I see that perhaps it's better to take action and respond to science by attempting to make our lives a bit more eco-friendly (however you want to define that term), and on another end, I find myself agreeing heavily with Valentine's claims, along with the numerous reputable people he obtains interviews from in this documentary. What's my opinion on global warming? It all depends on what side of the bed I get up on in the morning.
From the minute An Inconsistent Truth begins, Valentine hits the ground running, defining a term like "dirt person," otherwise known as a person who has gone to meticulous lengths to assure they are living a green, environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Valentine also explains how he, himself, while remaining skeptical and often denying the global warming issue, he has combated things like fossil fuel by utilizing biodiesel or vegetable juices to make his vehicle run. Right off the bat, here's a guy who practices a healthy alternative in terms of transportation, while we see a man like Al Gore, who has gone on to make a documentary that grossed millions of dollars, still travel in gas-guzzling vehicles and private jets.
Valentine talks with several individuals who boast degrees in scientific study, meteorology, and other accolades that deem them worthy to comment on the issue of global warming from a scientific standpoint. Dr. Ken Green, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, along with Dr. John Christy, a man who studies meteorology and weather patterns, state how Americans have been sold climate change in a way that makes them feel like they've been a part of the problem when they haven't done anything wrong. Case and point CO2, which we learn has been criminally misrepresented and shortened to "carbon." CO2 is something plants need to thrive and humans release when they breath, and yet, we've been mislead to think it's a harmful, environmentally-threatening chemical that need be regulated and greatly diminished.
On the topic of man-made climate change, Dr. Roy Spencer offers probably the freshest and most insightful takeaway point in the entire documentary. Spencer, a recipient of the NASA Exceptional Science medal, questions why trees, something that has a great effect on its environment, absorbing sunlight and sometimes detracting it from smaller plants, are allowed to have such a pivotal effect on their environment but people cannot.
Valentine does a nice job at getting his group of interviewees to touch on each sub-area of climate change, from the man-made debate, to the issue's potential impact on storms, to CO2 emissions, to the polar ice caps, etc. More time could be made for some issues (IE: the potential that warmer weather's impact on the severity of storms definitely needed more time put to it), but Valentine's well-roundedness on the subject is commendable.
Furthermore, Valentine has the benefit of clearly not being bought and paid for by an anti-climate change committee or organization. He makes multiple attempts to talk to the opposing side, but is either denied or forced out by security. One hilarious scene comes when Valentine attempts to talk with Al Gore at a local booksigning, but can't get a word in edgewise. When director Shayne Edwards tries to get Gore on camera, he finds himself barricaded and blocked by his entourage and repeatedly denied answers to questions and requests for interviews.
Aside from the onslaught of credible people, An Inconsistent Truth largely gets by thanks to Valentine's personality. The man has a voice for radio and TV, and resembles liberal pundit Bill Maher facially. In terms of facts, I still believe that the only way to prove whether Gore or Valentine is right is to see what happens in forthcoming years. I have no clue what to make of global warming as a whole. To compare it to religion, such questions are too big to answer with complete certainty.
My disdain for Al Gore's monumental documentary may come from the fact I was shown it at an age where I was unable to digest information of that size and fall for the film's scare tactics and statistic-advertising, but it also comes from Al Gore's approach to the material, a didactic, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is your fault" kind of approach.
Furthermore, I decided to research opposition on the macro-issue that is global warming, stumbling across radio host Phil Valentine's documentary An Inconsistent Truth, which takes a look at the idea that global warming is either a natural part of the weather cycle or the level of its severity has been greatly stretched and overblown. I want to take this time in saying I still have no idea what the hell to believe when it comes to global warming and believe only time will tell with an issue like this. As with many issues in the scientific universe, for every one-hundred scientists that say something is happening there are another one-hundred scientists who say it isn't happen, both bearing very convincing arguments and statistical data.
Such is the case with the global warming issue, as I consistently find myself ping-ponging back and forth from two sides. On one end I see that perhaps it's better to take action and respond to science by attempting to make our lives a bit more eco-friendly (however you want to define that term), and on another end, I find myself agreeing heavily with Valentine's claims, along with the numerous reputable people he obtains interviews from in this documentary. What's my opinion on global warming? It all depends on what side of the bed I get up on in the morning.
From the minute An Inconsistent Truth begins, Valentine hits the ground running, defining a term like "dirt person," otherwise known as a person who has gone to meticulous lengths to assure they are living a green, environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Valentine also explains how he, himself, while remaining skeptical and often denying the global warming issue, he has combated things like fossil fuel by utilizing biodiesel or vegetable juices to make his vehicle run. Right off the bat, here's a guy who practices a healthy alternative in terms of transportation, while we see a man like Al Gore, who has gone on to make a documentary that grossed millions of dollars, still travel in gas-guzzling vehicles and private jets.
Valentine talks with several individuals who boast degrees in scientific study, meteorology, and other accolades that deem them worthy to comment on the issue of global warming from a scientific standpoint. Dr. Ken Green, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, along with Dr. John Christy, a man who studies meteorology and weather patterns, state how Americans have been sold climate change in a way that makes them feel like they've been a part of the problem when they haven't done anything wrong. Case and point CO2, which we learn has been criminally misrepresented and shortened to "carbon." CO2 is something plants need to thrive and humans release when they breath, and yet, we've been mislead to think it's a harmful, environmentally-threatening chemical that need be regulated and greatly diminished.
On the topic of man-made climate change, Dr. Roy Spencer offers probably the freshest and most insightful takeaway point in the entire documentary. Spencer, a recipient of the NASA Exceptional Science medal, questions why trees, something that has a great effect on its environment, absorbing sunlight and sometimes detracting it from smaller plants, are allowed to have such a pivotal effect on their environment but people cannot.
Valentine does a nice job at getting his group of interviewees to touch on each sub-area of climate change, from the man-made debate, to the issue's potential impact on storms, to CO2 emissions, to the polar ice caps, etc. More time could be made for some issues (IE: the potential that warmer weather's impact on the severity of storms definitely needed more time put to it), but Valentine's well-roundedness on the subject is commendable.
Furthermore, Valentine has the benefit of clearly not being bought and paid for by an anti-climate change committee or organization. He makes multiple attempts to talk to the opposing side, but is either denied or forced out by security. One hilarious scene comes when Valentine attempts to talk with Al Gore at a local booksigning, but can't get a word in edgewise. When director Shayne Edwards tries to get Gore on camera, he finds himself barricaded and blocked by his entourage and repeatedly denied answers to questions and requests for interviews.
Aside from the onslaught of credible people, An Inconsistent Truth largely gets by thanks to Valentine's personality. The man has a voice for radio and TV, and resembles liberal pundit Bill Maher facially. In terms of facts, I still believe that the only way to prove whether Gore or Valentine is right is to see what happens in forthcoming years. I have no clue what to make of global warming as a whole. To compare it to religion, such questions are too big to answer with complete certainty.
Fantastic remedy to "ALGORE-O-PHOBIA "!
jnewbern2-237-8725955 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Using truth and common sense so often lacking in today's discourse, "Ole' Uncle Phil", elevates the actual climate scientists and their findings, to a level completely superior to that of the faux-scientists and their "scientific consensus", used by Al Gore and his minions.
Our society needs a wide release of this film.
Someone once said,"Follow the money". Certainly, many truths have been uncovered by doing just that. "An Inconsistent Truth" represents both the latest, and likely the most overdue example of this maxim. This expose' of the spectacular hypocrisy Gore and others steep themselves in, may make many wonder: "Where has our "watchdog media" has been on this issue?(And others...)" These guys have made journalism look so easy, you'd think more journalists would do it!
This is a very enlightening film I hope to see many more times before I'm through. It's quite an accomplishment for Mr. Valentine to self-finance this documentary, and actually produce it. Can I get a DVD or Blu-ray?
Our society needs a wide release of this film.
Someone once said,"Follow the money". Certainly, many truths have been uncovered by doing just that. "An Inconsistent Truth" represents both the latest, and likely the most overdue example of this maxim. This expose' of the spectacular hypocrisy Gore and others steep themselves in, may make many wonder: "Where has our "watchdog media" has been on this issue?(And others...)" These guys have made journalism look so easy, you'd think more journalists would do it!
This is a very enlightening film I hope to see many more times before I'm through. It's quite an accomplishment for Mr. Valentine to self-finance this documentary, and actually produce it. Can I get a DVD or Blu-ray?
This movie is the perfect counter to "An Inconvenient Truth."
kerzi-55-66093527 January 2021
I actually watched this movie twice at the theater. Once with my wife and I took my mother the second time. The theater was packed both times at a Nashville, TN theater. This documentary rebuts the assertions made in Michael Moore's farce of a movie. Foreign countries finally slapped a disclaimer on Michael Moore's movie while Phil Valentine's movie is rich in facts and good journalism to uncover what is going on with these hucksters such as Al Gore who has greatly profited from trying to scare people about global warming. The movie also shows how these people like Gore do not live their lives like they are concerned with their own carbon footprints. Watch this movie and use your own common sense.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
