So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Devils'Advocate]

I like this "SourceWatch" thingy. Like, if I take your last quote and see who you are citing, this Carter person:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

But I'm sure that this Bob Carter that you are quoting is stating the truth 100% completely despite what sourcewatch has to say and that Gore is lying through his teeth.

If Bob says the sky is blue and Joe says it is green doesn't make Bob "inaccurate".

[transplant99]

But I'm sure that this Bob Carter that you are quoting is stating the truth 100% completely despite what sourcewatch has to say and that Gore is lying through his teeth.

I dont know...Im simply stating an answer to a question, something that many seem unable to do. Im no scientist and I dont know which ones are more reputable that the others when both sides claim the same "above board" guys as the truth.

I do know that Al Gore has lied in the past, you know inventing the internet and what not, so I dont think it is unreasonable to want to scrutinize what he says...or is it only the left that can do that to the right? I get so confused on that rule.

I think that most of the explanations in the linked piece seem rather reasonable by some rather high-standing guys in the field, why would I think they are lying and Gore was not being accurate as they state?

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Stunningly we always used to get the most ######ed sex ed movies ever.

Fun fact, girls can indeed get pregnant after having sex in a standing up position in the shower.

News to me.

Speaking of half truth. This is only true if it isn't her first time. Remember kids, the first time is your free pass.

[Clarkey]

I don't think Al Gore's motivation is the environment or money. He is motivated by his own ego and the need to be in the spotlight, the environmental benefits and money are just a side benefit. With that said, I think he does truly believe the message he is trying to put out there.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I do know that Al Gore has lied in the past, you know inventing the internet and what not,

It is really hard having a debate here as you have a thread where people are claiming that Al Gore said he invented the internet, it gets disproven, and then a couple months later we have a thread where people are claiming that Al Gore said he invented the internet.

From Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing...

Maybe I should just keep that in a paste buffer somewhere as I am going to need it a couple months from now.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I don't think Al Gore's motivation is the environment or money. He is motivated by his own ego and the need to be in the spotlight, the environmental benefits and money are just a side benefit. With that said, I think he does truly believe the message he is trying to put out there.

Agreed, lets not forget Gore has a history of going after headline grabbing issues, especially before elections...

Wont be suprised if he is on the ballot in '08.

I saw the inconvient truth for the first time the other day - and i dont know how anyone can take that movie seriously with all the personal garbage sandwhich between images of chunks of ice sheets falling into the sea.

Al Gore is trying to shine over his legacy of losing. He doesnt want to be remembered as the guy who lost to Bush Jr, or the guy who went after free speech in the 80's.

For Al Gore it's all about himself.
________
Drug Test Kit

[MarchHare]

I do know that Al Gore has lied in the past, you know inventing the internet and what not

Oh boy, this again...

Al Gore never, NOT ONCE, claimed that he invented the internet. His exact quote, which his opponents have twisted out of context, was this:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

Which, as it happens, is factually correct. As a congressman and senator, Gore saw the vast potential of the Internet (which in its nascent phase was confined mainly to a handful of university campuses performing research for DARPA) and helped secure government funding to further its development and move it into the commercial sphere.

But don't take my word for it. Let's see what Bob Kahn and Vinton Cerf -- two men who played a key role in the development of the Internet by creating the TCP/IP protocol -- have to say on the subject:

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10...erf_recognise/

[Juventus3]

All I disagree with is the idea of using this type of film as a teaching tool. It would be like taking a film about Canada's foreign policy mistakes made by the NDP. There are two sides to this issue, so if the decision is made to show an inconvienent truth, it should also include The Great Global Warming Swindle.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I agree. Global Warming is only a theory. It has not been proven. It should be nowhere near a high school classroom. Like evolution.

Physics and chemistry are based on theories, so you might as well not teach those either.

Let's all just go back to the stone age.

[Antithesis]

I don't see why you are so upset about teachers showing this video, Juventus. Then again, I showed it to my Science class as an introduction to their Environmental Chemistry unit - to get them used to some of the ideas that would be presented in the unit.

It's topical and new and like it or not, kind of 'hip' - exactly what teenagers are looking for. I don't see what the big problem is.

I agree four teachers showing it is too much ... the only places I can see it possibly being connected to a curriculum would be in Social Studies or Science. Maybe in a Leadership class. Anyway.

[PsYcNeT]

I think all the rightists and propaganda-criers are just angry that their information-machine can't pump out films that people can relate to, instead opting to be reactionary and only create films about the opposing side once a precedent has been established by the leftists.

It happened with Moore, it's happening with Gore, and it happened dozens of times previous to those.

Face it, it's jealousy pure and simple that the right is always beat to the punch, and always has their agenda play second banana in the public eye because they don't connect with normal people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think all the rightists and propaganda-criers are just angry that their information-machine can't pump out films that people can relate to, instead opting to be reactionary and only create films about the opposing side once a precedent has been established by the leftists.

It happened with Moore, it's happening with Gore, and it happened dozens of times previous to those.

Face it, it's jealousy pure and simple that the right is always beat to the punch, and always has their agenda play second banana in the public eye because they don't connect with normal people.

You might not want to put Moore in the same paragraph as Gore, the rest of your post, is mush.

[transplant99]

I think all the rightists and propaganda-criers are just angry that their information-machine can't pump out films that people can relate to

Really eh?

Is that what you call the scientists that disagree with what Gore said in the film?

Hilarious.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Sighhhh. This is unreal. It boggles my mind that people actually believe this stuff. The scary thing is that kids in school now will be exposed to this very one sided video that has more holes in the theory than the Oilers line up.

For those that think CO2 causes global warming watch these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro

[Azure]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really eh?

Is that what you call the scientists that disagree with what Gore said in the film?

Hilarious.

No around here, when you attack Gore, people jump on you to disprove the science, and when you post links from certain scientists that disagree with Gore, everyone runs to sourcewatch to try and flag this scientist as a right-wing fear-monger, who denies global warming exists.

And we repeat the circle everytime a thread gets started up about Gore or global warming.

Nice to see that these same people are the ones that hate Bush because his administration supposedly suppressed their critics.

Riiiight.

Anyone on here that disagrees with the message Gore presents is instantly labeled as someone who doesn't believe global warming exists.

Which is rather sick. There are MANY scientists out there who disagree with Gore's science, yet what, we just ignore them? They have an agenda, supposedly PROVEN by Sourcewatch, but Gore doesn't?

WTF is with the double standard?

[troutman]

Gore did hint this week that he may run for president again in 2008.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by troutman

Gore did hint this week that he may run for president again in 2008.

Stop, drop, kaBOOM!

I'd say that puts to rest the 'what's in it for Gore?' debate.

And, Azure, I don't have a problem with you or other teachers showing the film, and in fact I've seen it multiple times and have learned a bunch of stuff from it. All I'm saying is it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Devils'Advocate]

The double standard is quite easy. The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it's man-made and it is a serious issue that needs addressing. Then the anti-environment right-wingers point to the few "scientists" that say that it is all malarky and say "see.. I told you so".

Like I have said in the other threads, the anti-global-warming folk don't really need to prove that global warming doesn't exist. They only have to confuse the public just enough that there isn't the political will to move forward on this issue and the situation will continue to get worse.

Those who say the class should be 50% "Inconvenient Truth" and 50% "Global Warming Swindle", should science class be 50% "Evolution" and 50% "Intellegent Design"? Should they be given equal footing?

[transplant99]

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it's man-made and it is a serious issue that needs addressing.

What "vast majority" is this though? Prove it, and while you are at it, then disprove the equally respected scientists that say the whole thing is massively overblown and has been bought by the idealists of the world.

Then the anti-environment right-wingers point to the few "scientists" that say that it is all malarky and say "see.. I told you so".

Anti-enviroment? You believe there is a mass group of people that go around wanting to destroy the enviroment? And of course they are automatically labelled right-wingers right? Maybe they are just whackos with no affiliation.....no that wouldn't allow you to paint everyone with your broad brush of hate though.

Like I have said in the other threads, the anti-global-warming folk don't really need to prove that global warming doesn't exist.

Who said it "doesnt exist"? Many are just concerned that a huge reaction to what might be a small if not normal occurence deosnt occur that ends up costing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs....but no its all about wanting to destroy that lovely little daisy growing across the street.

Wow.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

.

Those who say the class should be 50% "Inconvenient Truth" and 50% "Global Warming Swindle", should science class be 50% "Evolution" and 50% "Intellegent Design"? Should they be given equal footing?

Aren't we talking about two different things here. The evolution vs Intelligent design, as I was told in other threads is science vs theology, so in a science class, probably not.

But the pro-Gore, pro-global warming, against researchers who say that it is overblown probably should be since both sides claim to use the same scienctific methods and research methods, so based around the teaching of science they both have validity in the class room.