An inconvenient review of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel”

By |2017-01-23T10:56:50+00:00January 23rd, 2017|Climate|49 Comments

An Inconvenient Sequel to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth premiered Thursday night at Sundance.

I joined the crowd at the film festival’s Eccles theater where my reaction ranged from bored, to emotional, to appalled that I let this film manipulate my emotions even for a moment.

The film is not aimed at thinking people. If there’s a legitimate case to be made for global warming, this is not it. It doesn’t even try. Instead Gore abandons science in favor of tired global warming talking points that have long been debunked. It’s shameless.

It’s also all about Gore, whom the film portrays as someone anyone can walk up to and chat with in depth. He tries to come off as an average person with a heroic passion. Sadly for Gore, whenever his climate advocacy gets momentum he hits barriers: A satellite he didn’t get to launch, the Bush administration, the terrorist attacks at Paris’s Bataclan, India abandoning renewables for coal, and now Trump. If you’re not careful you actually feel sorry for him. 

The film did a good job of taking the famously stiff Gore and (when he’s not showing PowerPoint slides) presenting him as likable, funny and tireless. Not, however, humble. Gore is the hero of his own film, which works hard to chalk up any gains the warming campaign has made to Gore himself. We see Gore after the UN adopted its Paris climate agreement walking down a hall alone in a way that implies that he has just accomplished the great feat of his life. He loosens his tie as if to say, “I did it and now I’m going home.” 

In scenes where Gore’s eyes start to water, you could hear and see sniffling and tears in the audience. A man of at least 6 foot 3 sitting in front of me began to cry while his lady partner rubbed his back.  Of course (excepting me and few others) this was an audience of true believers. It remains to be seen whether this film can gain a mainstream audience and whether they will be similarly affected.

In scenes where Gore whips outs his iPhone and starts talking to various people in an attempt to coax India away from from coal, you can clearly see that his phone’s screen is black.   I’ve had an iPhone for six years and my phone’s face is never black unless it’s off. Those scenes appeared fudged and poked a few little holes for me in their credibility.

In a scene at Gore Farms, where Gore looks at photos in a house built by his parents, I was surprised that the “farm” is decorated with white carpets, white furniture and white bedspreads. None of my friends’ working farms would go all-in for white.

These are nothing, however, to the whoppers the film tells about the climate.

The film shamelessly exploits examples of extreme natural weather (as climate campaigners are wont to do) and the human suffering that comes with them. When the science doesn’t support the warming campaign’s argument they scare, scare, scare. “Every night on the news,” Gore tells us, “is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations.”

In a scene Gore is so proud of that he released it on the internet, he somberly opines that, “ten years ago when the movie An Inconvenient Truth came out, the single most criticized scene in that movie was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 911 memorial site which was then under construction. And people said, ‘that’s ridiculous, what a terrible exaggeration.’” They then cut to scenes of water from Hurricane Sandy inundating the subway station near the memorial.  Next we see New York Governor Andrew Cuomo loudly attributing this to “climate change” and proclaiming that this makes the warming argument “undeniable.”

Gore shows us crosses in the Philippines marking the graves of those who succumbed to Typhoon Haiyan. He shows us melting ice in Greenland and asks his audience where all the water went; Miami of course, as he predicted in his first film. If Gore has an explanation for how the water made it from Greenland to Miami while bypassing the rest of the Eastern Seaboard, he doesn’t share it. Nor does he tell the audience that Antarctica, Earth’s serious ice chest, has inconveniently failed to melt with southern ice hitting record highs.

Gore blames fires, droughts, tornadoes, etc. on “climate change,” but for much of the film remains fixated on floods, the solution to which he tells us, is converting to one hundred percent renewable energy. The fact that sea level is only rising a tiny one to three millimeters per year, as it has since before the industrial revolution, is not the sort of thing Gore feels a need to share with his audience. Nor will you come away from the film informed that climate computer models have been predicting warming that hasn’t occurred since their creation.

I had a chance to question Gore himself.  As the former Vice-President and Nobel Prize winner was trudging through the snow to his oversized Chevy Suburban SUV, I asked him an inconvenient question.

“Hey Al,” I asked, “I just saw your sequel ‘Inconvenient’.”

Gore: “Oh great, thank you!”

Question: “My friends make fun of me about the 10-year tipping point, what do I tell them?”

Gore: “Well, we gotta keep working.” Gore then gave me a momentary stare, ignored the question, entered his “Executive Car Service” Chevy Suburban and drove off.

An Inconvenient Sequel aims for your heart, not your brain.  If you’re prepared to unquestionably accept what the climate establishment tells you on faith, or the kind of person ready to believe that windmills and solar panels could have protected Miami from king tides, ground subsidence and plate tectonics, Al Gore made this film for you.

If you’d like a deeper understanding of the techniques Gore’s film employs to manipulate the facts and its audience give CFACTs Climate Hustle, available on disc or to stream immediately, a try.

Click and watch the facts


  1. Concerned January 23, 2017 at 1:08 PM

    We are pretty sure that this type of film does not address the fact that the satellite data shows virtually no global warming in the last 20 years, perhaps global cooling in the last 10 years. In addition they don’t mention that the entire (unproven) hypothesis is based on error prone models that miss their target by 2X to 3X real measured values. Some of the latest research papers show our current temperatures as being nearly equal to temperatures 129,000 years ago when the sea-level was 6 to 9 meters (27 feet) higher than they are now. Even his California beach-front property might be in jeopardy….

  2. J T January 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM

    Where’s brain-dead Dano today? Still hiding from the truth?

  3. The Deplorable Joe H. January 23, 2017 at 1:15 PM

    Al Gore is so concerned about man-made global warming and rising sea levels that he bought a multi-million dollar condo right on the beach in San Francisco. Funny that!

    • Dano2 January 23, 2017 at 2:55 PM

      a multi-million dollar condo right on the beach in San Francisco.


      I loveloveLOVE that joke! It’s my absolute favorite and I LOLz every time I see it, even after all these years!

      This one put a new spin on it, with “beach” being in SFO! Hooooot!!



    • JeromefromLayton January 24, 2017 at 11:28 PM

      Well, that just goes to show stupid is as stupid does. Sooner or later, that structure will be in the Pacific due to natural beach erosion that does not involve any ocean level change other than the tides. This has already happened to other houses out there.

  4. ninetyninepct January 23, 2017 at 3:29 PM

    Take a close look at the pictures of Gore. Blazing red and severely bloated face. Is this redness related to high blood pressure from drugs or alcohol? Does he have some kind of deadly medical condition? Has this spread over his entire body? Could it be infectious? Should he be in an isolation ward? Why is he out in public? Is he hiding something the public needs to know?

  5. ninetyninepct January 23, 2017 at 3:32 PM

    Why does everybody think a slightly warmer climate is disastrous? Greenhouses increase temperatures and add considerable percentages of CO2 to improve plant growth. Why is that same thing bad for the whole world?

    • Dano2 January 23, 2017 at 7:40 PM

      Because the planet is not like a closed greenhouse? Is this a trick question?



      • Francisco Machado January 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM

        The greenhouse is not a closed system. We introduce elements to it, such as plants, water, soil, carbon dioxide, humidity – to a degree, we regulate its temperature, even artificial light and sun exposure with shades. The greenhouse is a human controlled environment, not a closed one. Earth is also not a closed system, given factors like added water from ice meteorites (Oort cloud, comets) and a varying input of solar energy, even to the extent that we could be enveloped in deadly energy from a solar flare. The difference: We can control the greenhouse. The earth is not a human controlled environment.

        • Dano2 January 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM

          Thanks, exactly why arguments based on “we pump 1000 ppm into greenhouses, so keep burning fossil fool, yo!” are flawed.



          • Francisco Machado January 24, 2017 at 1:02 PM

            I doubt anyone is advocating burning fossil fuels to increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, they are just citing the insignificant increase as a potential beneficial adjunct since there is sound empirical evidence that it does promote plant growth. I would judge any group promoting the increased production and release of carbon dioxide for that purpose alone, otherwise just wasting energy, are as loony as the AGW crowd. Was that ever proposed when we were facing the impending ice age forty years ago or was carbon dioxide a problem then because it was insulating us from solar energy? I do remember the proposal to spread coal ash on arctic areas to save the planet by reducing the solar energy reflectance factor. I don’t think anyone got nuts enough to do it. Fortunately.

            • Dano2 January 24, 2017 at 1:05 PM

              I’ll take those points on offer:

              o CO2 means more plants/food/is good/is life [10 points]

              o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]




            • Grant August 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM

              Fossil fuels was a theory that was debunked in the 1950’s. No one has found dinosaurs on other moons or planets but they have found gas. A definate give away. If it’s not a fossil fuel then what is it? You’ll learn that there is in fact a carbon cycle. Very important fact.
              If you want to learn more;

    • Francisco Machado January 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM

      Not everyone thinks a slightly warmer climate is disastrous. That impression is made by an extremely noisy subgroup of fanatics. Polls indicate that the majority of people don’t even put climate change, never mind AGW, high on their current list of concerns. The balance is currently on the warming side, but hasn’t always been so. In the seventies, the cooling faction (since there had been cooling since the fifties) had the majority. It could shift back, but since we’re on the long-term temperature upslope from the last ice age there’s some probability “warmers” are right – long after it’ll have any effect on any of us – since the planet is currently below the temperatures it has been for most of its existence. Dating back into pre-history there appear to have been power groups dedicated to altering weather (I doubt they though in terms of thousand-year shifts in climate), almost always by making sacrifices of something (or someone) other than themselves. Note the use of multiple homes, private jets, lavish conferences in exotic locations and SUVs by the AGW change fanatics.

      • Dano2 January 24, 2017 at 1:46 PM

        Logical fallacy alert!



      • Dano2 January 24, 2017 at 1:47 PM

        In the seventies, the cooling faction had the majority.

        I’ll take those points on offer:

        o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]



        • JeromefromLayton January 24, 2017 at 11:30 PM

          I have a copy of the book titled The Cooling.

          • Dano2 January 25, 2017 at 3:17 AM




    • jreb57 August 7, 2017 at 5:47 PM

      “Why is that same thing bad for the whole world?”
      Short answer: It’s not. What is harmful to the whole world is when governments tax industries whose efforts produce energy and actually improve our lives instead of making them more difficult and more expensive.

  6. islesfan January 23, 2017 at 4:01 PM

    Great review. Only one small point. An iPhone has a proximity sensor right near the front facing camera. When you put the phone up to your ear, it shuts off the screen to prevent accidental presses (and to save power). So, if you’re talking on your iPhone, the screen will be black.

  7. BiffWellington January 24, 2017 at 10:10 AM

    He’s right, you know. The water level in my bathtub is measurably higher than it was just last Saturday night. You can tell by the dirt ring. Global Warming is real!

    • ninetyninepct January 24, 2017 at 5:58 PM

      Could the level have increased because of your personal methane emissions?

  8. JeromefromLayton January 24, 2017 at 11:21 PM

    OK, Did he make any predictions? Like the ten year tipping point Ms. Undercover asked Al Gore to explain. Had Al been right back in 2006, people would be riding jet skis up and down Wall Street to day. He also said that “Snow would be a memory in Central Park.” Rush Limbaugh ran a ten year countdown clock on the last one that ran out with none of the predictions coming true.

    • Dano2 January 26, 2017 at 10:05 AM

      Algore (isfat!) perdicted! Drink!



  9. ptsstaff July 28, 2017 at 12:24 PM

    Even though humans were on earth 200,000 years ago, about 18,000 years ago when virtually few humans lived on earth, there was no industrialization pollution, and no emissions, the most recent glacial age was near its peak, and vast expanses of the northern continents were covered by glacial ice. Maybe Al Gore can explain the climate change that caused the meltdown and produced many of our National Parks such as Yosemite and the Grand Canyon.

  10. VirgoVince July 28, 2017 at 1:13 PM

    SHUT DOWN his gw/cc BS!!

  11. MarcJ July 28, 2017 at 1:58 PM

    In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    To resume this criminal comedy in 3 acts performed by the US-taxpayer-paid ($25 billion per year) drones supervised by the UN socialist panel:

    1) New Ice Age panic in the 1970’s; remedy = our unilateral disarmament plus
    nationalize everything and establish a United Nations-supervised world
    socialist government “to spread the wealth around”, as proclaimed in 2009 by
    our Marxist Muslim ex-President from Kenya B. Hussein Obama; when that ice
    failed to show up the same criminals invented

    2) Global Warming scam in the 1990’s; remedy still the same. After 21 consecutive years of global COOLING as dictated by the 30-year solar cycle the same bunch of
    criminals declared

    3) Climate Change hoax; remedy – see above.

    Our former (thank God!)
    Marxist Muslim President B. Hussein Obama from Kenya bestowed $50 million of
    our money to the United Nations Climate Change fund organized by that criminal
    Paris Conference comedy. Mr. Trump – PLEASE – nullify this waste of our money
    and stop that socialist conspiracy! Yes – he did it

  12. Johnstoirvin July 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM
  13. MartinV July 28, 2017 at 3:35 PM

    A Convenient Analogy:

    Someone you’ve loved all your life – Mother, Sister, Daughter, Friend, no matter – goes to the hospital for a routine scan, and the scan proves positive: there’s a malign tumour, and it would appear to be inoperable.

    Let’s call her ‘Gaia’.

    The lady is given only one year to live. Max.

    EVERYONE is devastated.

    Six months later, she goes for a second, confirmatory scan – and it’s negative ! What’s going on ?

    A third scan repeats the results of the second: no tumour. Although the hospital fails to admit it, it would seem that – somehow – the results got mixed up with someone else’s.

    EVERYONE is positively TEARFUL with Joy.

    Understandably……………………………..(wouldn’t YOU be ?)


    Why don’t ‘Climate Change’ Groupies display the SAME sense of relief – and the same immense joy – at the FIRST hint that the ‘science’ that made them despair initially might actually be WRONG ?

    If they GENUINELY cared about the health of the planetary Gaia, isn’t that the reaction you’d expect ?

    Rather than ANGER (which is rather WEIRD, if you think about it) ?

    Answers on a postcard, please……………………….

  14. Otter July 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM

    Why do you put up with this dano asshole? Block the mindless bastard.

  15. meteoadvanced July 29, 2017 at 7:19 AM

    Because Al Gore is a loser he became a nazi like climate prpagandist

Comments are closed.