I sat down and watched it all the way through, taking notes so I wouldn't screw up my analysis, and found its science slipshod, at best. Regardless of mindset, the evidence presented was unconvincing, and seemes to me to be merely an attempt to poke holes in a single aspect of the whole argument ... the C02 aspect. I apologize if my previous post did not make that clear.
I'm curious ... of those of you who have seen the Gore film (I haven't), what aspects of it were unconvincing to you? Similarly, how about the Durkin film? What did you think of the scientific analyses presented in each film? For you, how does it relate to previously presented scientific analyses with regard to this issue?
If I'm on the wrong track, I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. It sure would take a load off my mind.
