Judge rules UK schools must disclaim An Inconvenient Truth as biased if showing

Looks like Al Gore's claim that there's not a fact or anything in his film that could be questioned is "just plain wrong". If "the debate is over", then how on Gaia could this have happened?



Why does AL have to resort to hype and one-sided arguments if his film and theory is right?

It amazes me that these days biased and seriosuly flawed propaganda (that's exactly what hsi film is) actually wins you an Acedemy Award, and they're even talking about giving him the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Woe is us..." -Howard Beal

But ...

there is nothing wrong with trying to do good for the environment.

There is nothing wrong with driving in a fuel efficient way, in a fuel efficient car.

There is nothing wrong with purchasing appliances, bulbs, etc. that use much less energy.

There is nothing wrong with recycling.

There is nothing wrong with using renewable resources.


The message itself ... protecting, preserving, repairing the Earth which we all live on, depend on, and pass on ... is completely just and valid.


For me, the argument against him and his film ... is a travesty, it makes the REAL ISSUE take a back seat.

The real issue is, clean water, clean air, less waste, more responsibility, more respect ...


So, my question is to you ... why would you focus on the wrong issues?

Let me put it in another way.

There are people starving, right?

So, if someone made a film that it is because of global warming that caused their land to become a desert ... but others argued that it was because they are living in a desert and not using their brain enough to move out of the desert ...

Does that mean you do nothing to feed them because you cannot agree on the logistics of WHY they are starving, instead of the fact the ARE starving?

Feed them, and work on moving them ... Quit bickering and solve the problem in multiple stages at the same time.


The same should apply to our planet. Regardless if it is man-made, or nature ... I sure don't want to adjust to the 150 F heat my troops are facing in Iraq back in the states ... 100 is bad enough. I sure don't think the people living on the coast and low islands should endure the oceans taking the land away. I don't think we should have to breath and drink pollution (nor be forced to buy water ... a stream/river should be pure).

It doesn't matter the cause, the reason ... what is right is right. Properly disposing of chemicals and finding new ways to safely use them. Not polluting. Not wasting resources. So on and etcetera.



It seems you have a personal vendetta against Gore. If you believe he is evil, than he is just as bad as nearly any other long term politician. What is your agenda for singling him out?

Why not post threads on how Bush can spend trillions of dollars in Iraq, but promises to veto a bill in the double digit billions to support the health of children?

There are a lot of evils committed by politicians former and present ... but you choose to pick to fight against someone who, even if he is nefarious in his presentation, he at least is getting people to think more consciously about how they live and how wasteful they are. That is a good thing. I am not in fear, and I ... as well as my peers have been environmentally conscious our whole lives ... in fact, in the first school elections in middle school kids ran on an environmental platfrom ... reduce, reuse, recycle. Proactive instead of reactive. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Disagreeing with minute details doesn't change the big picture.


I just think this battle you have is misplacing your energy somewhere it could be better served for all of us.



Though, you might be the type that thinks nothing is wrong. Why not just take that nuclear waste and use it for body wash ... since, nothing we do in this world is harmful. Let us play in the runoff of factories and refineries ... sit in a garage with an engine running ... what could it hurt ... apparently nothing is harmful to us or the environment in any way what so ever, just because some guy blames global warming on this stuff and I believe it is false, it mean everything is false.

I would seriously hope that is not the case, and ... I feel you are more intelligent than that.

I saw An Inconvenient Truth a few days in my Environmental Science class at college a few days and I have one thing to say.

Well done.

Who cares if it's biased, inaccurate propaganda? It works. My eyes are opened by it and I want to help. If that's what it takes for people to wake up and see that this planet is dying then so be it.

My respect for Gore has gone up tenfold because of this film. At least he's trying to show us what will happen, not attending conferences and merely 'discussing' the issue. He's out there, spreading the message.

Hey looks like this could be a deep thread. I have so much to respond to your talking points, but I'm on short time this morning (still at work and its bedtime at home).

But I'd like to quickly point out that:
1) Al Gore is a Hypocrite with an Agenda, but his agenda isn't about the environment or human lives.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2) Al Gore is using fearmongering to achieve that agenda.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those should work as quick responses to each of you, respectively.

PS: The darkside of the Agenda that you probably haven't heard:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I probably should have linked those in the first post.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

All interesting links, but I don't think you get what I'm saying.

This film, no matter who made it, is genius. Yes, it uses fear mongering and scare tactics, but in doing so, it makes you pay attention and see that global warming is real and we need to do something about it.

I'm not justifying what Gore has done in the past, I simply think that this is a good film and it's give me a good kick in the arse and set me on the right track.

Global Warming, man made or not, is real and there are things we can, nay, we should be doing to stop it. Because what does political agenda mean when were all 20 feet under water? Not much.

That's not quite right - if global warming isn't man made then there may well be nothing we can do to stop it. If it's all just part of natural climate cycles, then maybe we can't fix it. Of course we should pollute less, but the question is how much less and how quickly. Gore makes it look as if we need to make dramatic changes very soon to avoid a serious catastrophe, but that's not what the evidence actually says. The basic point is sound - we ought to pollute less and generally take more care of the environment - but that doesn't justify misrepresenting the facts to make it seem more severe than it really is. If global warming isn't really going to lead to a huge catastrophe in the near future, then we can work slowly to find technological solutions to pollute less without losing too much of our standard of living. On the other hand, if the most extreme predictions are right then we need to stop all pollution very quickly to avoid disaster, and that would have a huge negative impact on our lives. This kind of extreme reaction has to be justified by the real facts, otherwise we'd be causing a lot of suffering for no reason.

A half truth is a whole lie

If one has a truth to tell one should not base it on lies. If Mr. Gore's motive is to improve mankind's behavior in treatment of the earth using weak science and scare tactics are not the method.

If global climate changes are due to the actions of man(which has not been proven contrary Mr. Gores claims) then he needs to present the evidence in an non-alarmist way and encourage use to take our responsibility to the environment more seriously.

If global climate change is not due to the actions of man, that does not diminish our responsibility to act in an accountable manner.

Scare tactics are the method used by weak minds with a feeble argument.

I agree with the decision of this judge. Other positions need to be presented as the positions presented by Mr. Gore are not the end of the discussion. The debate remains strong with many sound arguments on both sides -- that need to be presented in a non-inflammatory way.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" (an inconvenient truth)

Piman

This is an interesting article found in the Telegraph on 11 March 2007

[Q]
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007


Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

advertisement
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
[q]


The Climate Change junta have started a jihad or inquisition against those who disagree with their religion.

Piman




[edit on 11-10-2007 by Piman25]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Piman25]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Piman25]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Piman25]

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


Excellent post, FTI. You've expanded the whole premise of my sig into an essay that I would've written, if I weren't so lazy

Anyhow here's an article about a climatologist who feels the same way:

Are we asking the wrong questions about global warming?