So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

Actually, Al Gore's statement that he (and the committee he was working on) invented the internet was actually accurate. The quote was butchered and the story manufactured by FoxNews to smear Gore, but the original context was indeed correct. Gore made his comments in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Here's a snippet from the transcript:

CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

AL GORE: Well, I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.

According to Microsoft's very own reference resource, BOOKSHELF '96, Al Gore did pretty much invent the internet. We might assume that Microsoft would have a pretty good handle on that particular issue and would know what they're/it's talking about. Here's an excerpt from an article entitled, "The Internet: How did it originate?"

"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."

To those who have worked in this segment of the IT industry for any length of time we know the history to the development of this medium and the impact the growth and development of what we presently know as the web. Gore put things into basic terms that most people could understand, and did not lie.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

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.

I actually don't have a problem with showing the film in a science classroom, as long as you point out the supposed faults in the science Gore presented.

I really don't think there is an 'other' side...global warming is real, and it is happening. What we DO NOT KNOW, is that man is 100% responsible for it.

I don't have a problem with the message Gore tries to get across...in other words the changes we should be making, because such changes ARE healthy for the environment. But I have a problem with accepting his message as the 'best explanation' and discredit any scientists that disagree with Gore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

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".

Care to provide one 'credited' scientist who disagrees with some of the science Gore presented in his movie, who has ALSO said that global warming is malarky?

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.

Wow. Just wow. Is there even a debate whether or not global warming exists?

Just like I said, whenever someone has a problem with the message Gore is presenting, we instantly get labeled 'global warming deniers.' Complete BS.

I really wonder who is confusing the public here...you and your one-sided, ban all other viewpoints idea....or the rest of us who are still trying to find out all the facts as to whether or not global warming is such a concern that we ought to cut back emissions by HUGE standards in 10 years. Or like Tranny said, whether or not it is worth spending billions, perhaps trillions of dollars to try and prevent something that just might be out of our control. Ever heard of mother nature? I have a feeling she just might be in control of things here.

Funny that people start threads on here bitching about the 456 billion the US spent on Iraq...but has no problem with the whole world throwing billions in the direction of something we are very unsure about.

Way to be unbiased though. Very nice.

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?

Another gem. I see that Captain took care of it.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I actually don't have a problem with showing the film in a science classroom, as long as you point out the supposed faults in the science Gore presented.

I really don't think there is an 'other' side...global warming is real, and it is happening. What we DO NOT KNOW, is that man is 100% responsible for it.

I don't have a problem with the message Gore tries to get across...in other words the changes we should be making, because such changes ARE healthy for the environment. But I have a problem with accepting his message as the 'best explanation' and discredit any scientists that disagree with Gore.

You do understand that CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. And reducing something that is almost zero is going to do.......nothing.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Gore

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

The U.S. Defense Department Created the Internet. “The Internet, originally called ARPANET, dates to 1969, when the Defense Department began funding the project. Gore, then 21, was still eight years away from joining Congress.”

(The Associated Press, 3/11/99)

Im not saying that Al Gore didnt advance the cause of what we see now as the internet, he did lots in Congress along with hundreds of others.

he does however, both make things up and exagerate things beyond belief, like when he claimed that he and his wife Tipper were the inspiration for the movie Love Story.

“Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding in behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story; and Gore’s Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones, who played the roommate of the Gore-like character in the movie version of Segal’s book.”

(Time, 12/15/97)

The reality?

Not According to Love Story Author Erich Segal. “Vice President Al Gore acknowledged Sunday a ‘miscommunication’ on his part in leading reporters to believe he and his wife were the model for the 1970s romance novel ‘Love Story.’ The author, Erich Segal, told The New York Times he was ‘befuddled’ by the comments in the first place. He said he called Gore, and the vice president said it was a misunderstanding.”

(The Des Moines Register, 12/15/97)

So yes, I should be ashamed I question his claims in the movie that have been pointed out by scientists, because obviously he would NEVER make things up or exagerate!!

[Clarkey]

Even though I consider Gore a majore ######-bag and am skeptical about some of the claims in his movie there isn't much dirt on the guy. You have the "I created the internet" quote which was twisted around a bit, then you have the Love Story movie thing (more embarassing than anything), and of course the most popular one currently is his personal energy consumption but other than that he seems to be pretty clean. No major scandals. I guess if he runs for prez in 2008 something will probably be stirred up.

[Azure]

Everyone has their skeletons...and you're right about that...if he runs for President...someone is going to come up with something.

Thats the nature of politics in the US right now.

[Burninator]

For anyone who wants to know more about global outside of youtube videos and news papers articles I highly recommend this book (like I do in every global warming thread) The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery. Very well written book with all the information sourced. If you really want to debate global warming then I suggest you read this book as it will give you a much better understanding of the issue and the science behind it.

Climate change is real, and it will affect all of us. From desertification to rising ocean levels, from killer storms to wildlife extinction, we're already seeing the effects of human activity on the most sensitive part of the global ecosystem. In this extraordinary book, Tim Flannery not only describes the problem of global warming and climate change, he suggests in detail how the world can act to solve it. More than just a #1 bestseller across Canada, The Weather Makers is an international publishing phenomenon that has won praise from critics, scientists and world leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Flannery's clear explanations and practical suggestions bring an issue of monumental scope and importance down to the individual level, making us aware of how everyday activities contribute to climate change and what we can do, personally and collectively, to work against this urgent crisis.

Amazon book page.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Even though I consider Gore a majore ######-bag and am skeptical about some of the claims in his movie there isn't much dirt on the guy. You have the "I created the internet" quote which was twisted around a bit, then you have the Love Story movie thing (more embarassing than anything), and of course the most popular one currently is his personal energy consumption but other than that he seems to be pretty clean. No major scandals. I guess if he runs for prez in 2008 something will probably be stirred up.

You bet they will come out, and in my opinion they arent all that scandalous.

the whole tobacco thing will certainly be mentioned, and in this day and age may grow some legs....more as a character issue though.

My point about bringing these things up is quite simple though....he is not to be taken as the gospel in THIS movie which some claim means I am anti-enviroment and unable to grasp the concept. Its quite the opposite actually, I want information from real scientists and not some politician that is grandstanding in a movie to garner attention for a Democratic issue, which is all the Gore is doing here IMO.

Scientists from both sides hat are highly acclaimed and well published in their fields are making almost polar opposite claims....i would like to see why that is happening and would venture a guess that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[PsYcNeT]

I see those who lack a sense of humour (rightists) completely missed out on the facitiousness of my post.

But that's okay, no one expects you to take anything lightly.

[Cube Inmate]

Someone asked what ulterior motive Al could have for preaching his GW gospel, beyond a healthy concern for the planet.

Have you investigated where his money goes when he supposedly purchases "carbon offsets" to live a "carbon neutral" life? Is there any chance that he utilizes the services of Generation Investment Management? Is there any chance that he will benefit personally (as an owner and chairman) if the above company does well by attracting more and more environmentally-concerned investors?

I'm just asking is all. Have you?

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I see those who lack a sense of humour (rightists) completely missed out on the facitiousness of my post.

But that's okay, no one expects you to take anything lightly.

Maybe it's time you stepped down off your pedastal. No one enjoys tounge in cheek humor on an internet message board.

BTW I'm sure the people actually debating this topic were enthralled at you you placing Moore and Gore in the same sentence.

[MelBridgeman]

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

mmm
________
HASHISH

[Flame Of Liberty]

I'd like to hear Al's response to this (from the article transplant linked):

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Gore is probably the most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the western world. Let's waste billions of dollars, cripple the world economy in order to prevent something that is not even happening (drastic human-caused climate changes). Yeah why don't we do just that, because he looks like a nice fellow...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

mmm

Great information Mel. I was unaware of those links, although they certainly do make sense for a guy to establish a firm like that if he is going to be making these purchases. I think this issue is very interesting and would like to understand the mechanism and what the "investment firm" does. The bottom line is that someone has to produce the energy, and someone has to pay for it. I'm unclear on what the potential problem is with having a management firm making these carbon offset purchases for you. Based on information from their web site they are an firm that invests in companies that participate in green activities. Pretty draconian stuff there. Seems like a guy bent on taking over the world to me.

See, this is the part I still don't get. Gore is accused of being a fear monger and promoting a belief that doesn't exist. You routinely see responses like this:

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Gore is probably the most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the western world. Let's waste billions of dollars, cripple the world economy in order to prevent something that is not even happening (drastic human-caused climate changes). Yeah why don't we do just that, because he looks like a nice fellow...

"Gore is probably the most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the western world."

Comments like this just show how desperate and uneducated some people are.

Dangerous? Cleaning up the environment and trying to shift our energy needs from dirty finite sources to clean renewable sources is dangerous? Opportunitist? Based on the creation of the above management firm, most definitely. But I think it is completely lost on people that Gore has been doing this same presentation for a very long time. He did not JUST jump on this bandwagon, this has been a long belief.

"Let's waste billions of dollars, cripple the world economy in order to prevent something that is not even happening."

Yup, no fear mongering there. I must have missed the part where Gore says we have to "cripple" the world economy. How exactly is that going to happen? Finding ways to generate energy in a more environmentally friendly way and better managing the finite resources we have is going to "cripple" the world economy? Funny, but every corporation I have ever worked for has taken the exact same stance in operations. Find better ways of doing things, and get the most our of what resources we have. What a terrible concept to promote. Gore and co. are obviously off their rockers.

What's ironic is that some people make rediculous comments like the one quoted and think they are saying something intelligent. In a world where the a certain individual (and his puppet masters) has lied and cajoled his way into war, where BILLIONS of dollars a month ARE being wasted, and tens or hundreds of thousands of people are dead of the result, where a select few are making MASSIVE profits as a result, the comment just rings of demagoguery. But isn't that what this issue has shifted into? A chance for the monkeys to hurl their fecies and beat their chests rather than focusing on the base issue; our species doing what it can to halt the negative impact it is having on our biosphere.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Gore is probably the most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the western world. Let's waste billions of dollars, cripple the world economy in order to prevent something that is not even happening (drastic human-caused climate changes). Yeah why don't we do just that, because he looks like a nice fellow...

Wow, really? Al Gore? The most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the Western World? Man... turn on the news, Gore is hardly the biggest problem right now. This debate certainly cranks the rhetoric up by several factors, its like some of you are debating religion here.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I'd like to hear Al's response to this (from the article transplant linked):

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Gore is probably the most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the western world. Let's waste billions of dollars, cripple the world economy in order to prevent something that is not even happening (drastic human-caused climate changes). Yeah why don't we do just that, because he looks like a nice fellow...

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wow, really? Al Gore? The most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the Western World? Man... turn on the news, Gore is hardly the biggest problem right now. This debate certainly cranks the rhetoric up by several factors, its like some of you are debating religion here.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wow, really? Al Gore? The most dangerous propagandist and opportunist in the Western World? Man... turn on the news, Gore is hardly the biggest problem right now. This debate certainly cranks the rhetoric up by several factors, its like some of you are debating religion here.

I love love love the "cripple the economy" hypocrisy.
For some reason those with a hard time with the climate change issue need imperical proof that there definitely is warming going on that we can help rectify, and signed off by every single scientist in the world.
But, yet the economic collapse that they assume will happen is based on very little.
Me I'd rather risk economic collapse than environmental if both are as unprovable as is being debated.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I love love love the "cripple the economy" hypocrisy.
For some reason those with a hard time with the climate change issue need imperical proof that there definitely is warming going on that we can help rectify, and signed off by every single scientist in the world.
But, yet the economic collapse that they assume will happen is based on very little.
Me I'd rather risk economic collapse than environmental if both are as unprovable as is being debated.

Once again, here comes the whole 'need imperial proof that global warming exists.' Like I said, everytime someone has a problem with what Gore presents, this arguement gets thrown in our face. Very nice.

Would you people get over it? There is NO DEBATE as to whether or not global warming exists. The debate is over what causes it.

And frankly, I find it ridiculous that you would risk the welfare of millions of people, just to try to fix something that is could very well be natural.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Azure

Once again, here comes the whole 'need imperial proof that global warming exists.' Like I said, everytime someone has a problem with what Gore presents, this arguement gets thrown in our face. Very nice.

Would you people get over it? There is NO DEBATE as to whether or not global warming exists. The debate is over what causes it.

And frankly, I find it ridiculous that you would risk the welfare of millions of people, just to try to fix something that is could very well be natural.

I find it ridiculous to risk the LIVES of millions if not billions to not take steps based on fears of what very well may not happen to economies.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Once again, here comes the whole 'need imperial proof that global warming exists.' Like I said, everytime someone has a problem with what Gore presents, this arguement gets thrown in our face. Very nice.

You mean the way the "imperial [sic] proof" that it doesn't exist argument keeps getting thrown around? Nice rhetoric, but that's all it is. There is little imperical proof on either side, there is just more supporting evidence on the side that humans are contributing greatly to the failure of the ecosystem.

Would you people get over it? There is NO DEBATE as to whether or not global warming exists. The debate is over what causes it.

Better check your Cliff Notes. The debate is still raging quite hard as to whether Global Warming exists.

And frankly, I find it ridiculous that you would risk the welfare of millions of people, just to try to fix something that is could very well be natural.

More rhetoric, and real lame rhetoric at that.

Risk the "welfare of millions" just to fix something that could be natural? Cancer is natural, yet we "try" to fix that. Polio is natural, but we did everything we could to eliminate that problem. These are just two examples of issues that affect "millions" that we decided to do something about. Now change the magnitude of the argument you are attempting to make. We are talking about a GLOBAL issue that affects every single man, woman, and child on this planet. That is BILLIONS of people. What's worse is that this issue also impacts every living and breathing creature on the globe as well. The failure of the biosphere is not an economic issue, it is an issue of survival for our species and possibly every other one as well.

What does it take for some people to wake the hell up? It took a fishery dying in the Atlantic before the people there got with the program and started to understand the impact they had on that ecosystem. Is it going to take a total failure of our environment, and a mass extinction, for us to get it? People fail to realize just how fragile the environment is until it is usually too late. I hope this is not one of those times because it is an issue that affects us all.

I keep hearing how "Global Warming" is bad for business? How so? So we start using existing fuels more efficiently and exploiting environmentally freindly fuels. How does that hurt the economy? To do all of these things you require greater R&D, and with that come more high paying jobs for highly skilled people. How does that hurt the economy? To clean up these industries you are going to need new equipment, new plants, and new skilled workers, which means more jobs in the training sector. How does that hurt the economy? To bring these new technologies on line you are going to need improvements in the infrastructure that exists, and an extension of the infrastructure itself, which means more construction and more development of services. How does that hurt the economy? To take advantage of these new systems and standrads you are going to have a cottage industry develop to retrofit existing systems and structures to take advantage of the new technology. How does that hurt the economy? Then there is going to be a flood of new products developed to generate and store energy, and then to use the new energy source, which means more jobs. How is that bad for the economy? Yes, there will be a slow change in some jobs and there will be a transition that takes place over time as a new energy standard emerges, but this will take place over time and happen through natural market forces. No big economic armageddon as the fear mongers project.

One last point. If the whole fossil fuel economy is doing so well, why are the North American car manufactures all hurting so badly? Why is it that GM was on life support, and now Chrysler is in intensive care? Isn't this just indicative of the broken economy that people are worrying so much about? Maybe its time that Cerebus took a serious look at the white elephant they just purachased a chunk of and decide to try something new. Maybe Cerebus should sit down with Tesla and work with them to bring their vehicles to market? Wouldn't THAT meet the demands of the market AND be economically sound? It would certainly be environmentally friendly. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?