I'll eventually watch the Gore work of fiction and I'd guess there is a reasonable chance my list of really BAD movies will grow to three.

So Spee, you started this thread by critisizing Al Gore and his movie and followed it with critisism of anyone who may have liked that film,

and then you tell us you haven't even watched it. I would call that an inconvenient hypocrisy.

If you have never seen it yourself, do you really think I should take your critisism of the film seriously?

Should I gauge all other posts by you, with this same degree of knowledge that you claim to have?

I'll eventually watch the Gore work of fiction and I'd guess there is a reasonable chance my list of really BAD movies will grow to three.

So Spee, you started this thread by critisizing Al Gore and his movie and followed it with critisism of anyone who may have liked that film,

and then you tell us you haven't even watched it. I would call that an inconvenient hypocrisy.

If you have never seen it yourself, do you really think I should take your critisism of the film seriously?

I'm no Gore fan, but Robski has a very valid point here.

The premise upon which the film was made is flawed and Gore is a self-aggrandizing bore who also claims to have invented the internet...

The premise upon which the film was made is flawed and Gore is a self-aggrandizing bore who also claims to have invented the internet...

So you don't like him then ?

And you're a climate expert ?

One of the UBC movie channels has been trailering

a Discovery channel program on Yellowstone going

"end of the world" KABOOM.

I googled "Yellowstone super volcano" and it turned

out to be fun. There were some boring sites that

explained it might go pop in the next 100,000 years

but the real skinny is that it's a plot which includeWW3

starting in the ME and a nuclear attack on NY and some

other stuff all to facilitate the arrival of the Antichrist.

Scary really. I'm going to stock up on ciggies and beer ,

just in case.

The premise upon which the film was made is flawed and Gore is a self-aggrandizing bore who also claims to have invented the internet...

Well, Boon, it seems you don't like the chap; maybe he doesn't like you either...

But, it's most likely he doesn't post on TV, would he?

btw: are you a republican?

LaoPo

That's rocket science for ya, or at least basic math.

But does it get you there as fast ?

Can we stop shouting now ? It's scaring the horses.

I'll eventually watch the Gore work of fiction and I'd guess there is a reasonable chance my list of really BAD movies will grow to three.

So Spee, you started this thread by critisizing Al Gore and his movie and followed it with critisism of anyone who may have liked that film,

and then you tell us you haven't even watched it. I would call that an inconvenient hypocrisy.

If you have never seen it yourself, do you really think I should take your critisism of the film seriously?

I'm no Gore fan, but Robski has a very valid point here.

Hardly valid at all. I knew what I was writing. If there was any validity, I wouldn't have made the post.

I did a heck of a lot of reading (from left, right and center) about Moore's 9-11 before watching. It was exactly what others had said it was.

Same thing for Gore's piece. I've done a heck of a lot of reading about it (from left, right and center). This includes reading quite a few excerpts from his previous public writings and speeches upon which the film is based. The most significant that I've read so far is Gore's own admission that he purposely strayed from the truth to try to scare the audience into a different viewpoint.

Now I'm sorry, but in any kind of rational thought process, when the creator of a "factual" documentary says that he fibbed when he made it in order to make a point, that has to raise a huge question mark with the entire work. When someone lies and attempts to sell it as the truth, it is a simple matter to be critical and to be entirely justified in being critical. Gore's past history of doing the same merely reinforces the point.

Of course it's valid, it doesn't matter where you did you're research you didn't actually watch the film yourself.

In your own words;

Now I'm sorry, but in any kind of rational thought process, when the creator of a "factual" documentary says that he fibbed when he made it in order to make a point, that has to raise a huge question mark with the entire work.

I wouldn't call your views a fib, but there not based on your own personal personal view, even though you claim to have looked at all sides you are hardly impartial, I think what you are saying about Al Gore is how could I trust the views of a man with no integrity? , and I think the same could be said of you.

You've never even seen the film, yet you wish to make a thread critisizing it, why should I believe the integrity of your argument.

Actually, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did take credit for initiating the funding for it, but the rest is urban legend spread by the partisan hacks and trailer park gossips.

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

Well, whether or not Al Gore invented the internet, more and more skeptics are coming out of the woodwork debunking the Global Warming hysteria. For example, one of France's most prominent scientists was quoted here saying not all the data is in.

“Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials.”

Hollywood and Al Gore...a real dynamite combination!

Actually, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did take credit for initiating the funding for it, but the rest is urban legend spread by the partisan hacks and trailer park gossips.

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

Are you dissing my man, Boon Mee?

Actually, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did take credit for initiating the funding for it, but the rest is urban legend spread by the partisan hacks and trailer park gossips.

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

Are you dissing my man, Boon Mee?

Yeah, I don't think cdnvic likes me...

You've never even seen the film, yet you wish to make a thread critisizing it, why should I believe the integrity of your argument.

I said I haven't seen the entire film, as in at the theater or on DVD. I've seen trailers and several free clips available on the web, which total almost 10% of the total film length (including credits). Presumably those are the "highlights." In those clips, there is nothing more than Gore pontificating falsehoods in front of an obviously partisan audience.

I've read a couple dozen "movie critic" reviews all of which fall under three very distinct categories: a) typical hollywood gushing over a trendy topic, the film is more a political homage to Gore than anything, or c) the film is the poorest of poor documentaries, completely devoid of fact.

Gore himself has admitted that he stretched the truth to try to make his point. Even the little "drowning polar bear" scene was admittedly a computer-generated cartoon purposely inserted to grab the audiences emotions.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

But what the heck, let's not quibble. In one tiny penninsula of Antarctica, there has been a measured reduction in the amount of ice. But as a whole, the total ice mass of Antarctica is growing, and by huge numbers. That is undisputable science FACT, not Algore science FICTION. Yet what does the film focus on? Non-factual scare tactics and propaganda of catastrophic "what-if" scenarios.

Every reputable scientist in the field of climatology and climatological research has made statements and written papers that the film completely ignores all recent scientific research and findings. There are pages upon pages on the web written by qualified scientists who work every day in this field and who discount and discredit the film and the book, solely for the reasons that they contain multitudes of statements which have no basis in fact. In other words, they are fiction being sold as the truth to anyone who will listen.

The comparisons of how the guy lives versus what he preaches provide every indication of a living hypocrisy. Do what I say not what I do. That is obvious to the most casual of observers.

The MPAA's own rules for documentaries have been substantially altered in recent years so that these kinds of politically slanted non-fact-based diatribes could even be eligible for nomination. Does anyone think this was done by mistake?

Now what was that about validation?

PS.

And by the way, the Gore hypocrisy started long before Al became the self-appointed Captain Planet that we all know and love today. Years ago, where were Al and Tipper, those bastions of liberalism, those free-thinking hippies of the 60's, those fervent protectors of human rights? Yep, you guessed it. They were trying to censor and ban music albums strictly on the basis of content. Acting as big brother, trying to tell people what kind of music they can or can't make, and what kind of music you can or can't buy.

I would put good money on the fact that the veins on the side of your head are pulsing like billy'o right now ...almost a samba.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Source please?

Same thing for Gore's piece. I've done a heck of a lot of reading about it (from left, right and center). This includes reading quite a few excerpts from his previous public writings and speeches upon which the film is based. The most significant that I've read so far is Gore's own admission that he purposely strayed from the truth to try to scare the audience into a different viewpoint.

I've read a couple dozen "movie critic" reviews all of which fall under three very distinct categories: a) typical hollywood gushing over a trendy topic, the film is more a political homage to Gore than anything, or c) the film is the poorest of poor documentaries, completely devoid of fact.

The phrase shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind, this is just so easy..... left, right and centre...

If we're 'shooting fish in a barrel', show where the scientific evidence proves global warming is strictly man-made, eh?

But what the heck, let's not quibble. In one tiny penninsula of Antarctica, there has been a measured reduction in the amount of ice. But as a whole, the total ice mass of Antarctica is growing, and by huge numbers. That is undisputable science FACT,

Every reputable scientist in the field of climatology and climatological research has made statements and written papers that the film completely ignores all recent scientific research and findings.

Now what was that about validation?

If you can validate these two statements I will never, ever doubt you again..... really...

The Algore School of Environmentalism is crashing down about his head...

The Algore School of Environmentalism is crashing down about his head...

Watch out, Boonee - you're quoting a Frenchman in your defence

Help a confused old fogey out here.

Is this thread about the climate/planet/environment or about trashing

Al Gore?

If Gore is picking global warming as a political platform it is an unusual

choice. Can't see a huge amount of votes in it. Why are you so concerned ?

Why not open a thread boosting Guilliano ? Then you can be nice about

someone and follow your political persuasion ?

It's so nice to be nice.

The Algore School of Environmentalism is crashing down about his head...

Watch out, Boonee - you're quoting a Frenchman in your defence

Well, this is a smart Frenchman.

If we're 'shooting fish in a barrel', show where the scientific evidence proves global warming is strictly man-made, eh?

Can't be done..... it doesn't exist.

The Algore School of Environmentalism is crashing down about his head...

Watch out, Boonee - you're quoting a Frenchman in your defence

Well, this is a smart Frenchman.

Well. there is a first time for everything..... perhaps in time he will be proved to be wrong, but still held in great esteem as one of the great French men of all time..... that's never happened before.

(I didn't read the link btw, French, it's a personal issue .... I just can't handle arrogance that has no foundation)

Help a confused old fogey out here.

Is this thread about the climate/planet/environment or about trashing

Al Gore?

It's about Spee showing he'll believe anything the ultra right will tell him without actually looking himself,

and Boon showing he hasn't lost the nack of moving the goal posts.

Right now they're both doing a very good job.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Source please?

I'll have to find the link again. In the meantime, you can start working on the math:

From:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565...Antarctica.html

"The total volume of the ice sheet covering Antarctica is estimated to be 29 million cu km (7 million cu mi), or about 90 percent of the world’s ice. If the ice sheet melted, the oceans of the world would rise by 60 m (200 ft). Some 11 percent of the ice sheet consists of ice shelves—massive floating slabs of permanent ice fringing the continent—that are anchored to the rock and extend into the surrounding ocean. The largest, Ross Ice Shelf, is about the size of France. The Antarctic ice sheet has an average thickness of 2,160 m (7,090 ft); its greatest recorded depth is more than 4,700 m (15,400 ft)."

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Source please?

There are many. This one is from the US Geological Survey.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml

"Maximum sea level rise potential: 73.44 m"

That's two. How many more do you want?

Is this thread about the climate/planet/environment or about trashing

Al Gore?

It's really about neither. It's about the lies and propaganda in the movie, which have nothing to do with the sciences of climatology and man's impact upon the planet, and everything to do with using those lies and propaganda to sway people's opinions to serve a political agenda.

But you know what? Don't believe me. Here are the words of university professor whose business it is to study these sorts of things. His is one of the more concise summaries of the film that I have read.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

If you don't want to follow the link, then at least read his final summary statement:

""An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."

As for the part of trashing Al Gore, that is simply a by-product of the steer turds dropped from on high on to the heads of the general population by his film and the well-known and well-publicized fact that he preaches one religion and practices another when it comes to conservation, ecology, and things of that ilk. That is the textbook definition of a hypocrite. IMHO, any hypocrite deserves whatever criticism happens to come their way.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I as an individual have far-left beliefs (which I don't) or far-right beliefs (which I don't). It has to do with separating fact from fiction, thinking for oneself, deciding for oneself, and letting the chips fall where they may with the rest of it.

If you can validate these two statements I will never, ever doubt you again.....

You know what, Robski? I do my homework to satisfy my own curiousity primarily. I may occasionally choose to redo some of it to satisfy someone who I feel may genuinely have an interest (see replies to Thaddeus above). But for someone who seems to get the most joy from this forum when breaking my b*lls, sorry, but I choose to decline.