An Inconvenient Truth

[ReverendJay]

I've managed to dig up quite a few interesting little tidbits about Gore that further call into question his credibility with me and whether or not what he is presenting in the movie is true. I am sure there were many truths, but given his propensity for exaggeration, I don't buy everything he said and think some of it is no more than scare tactics. Regardless, his motivations for wanting to clean up this festering ball we call a planet are pure and I applaud his efforts, he just needs to stick to the facts...which is hard for a politician... and impossible for a liberal one!

1) His history of making fictitious/embellished statements he's made over the years which initially made me want to double check everything he says.

a) His military career -

Gore enlisted in the Army in 1970 in a calculated gambit to help his senator dad in an election year. Young Al was given a cushy job writing for the Stars and Stripes newspaper, a bodyguard, and an exit strategy when Pops lost the election. After five months of this hygienic tour of duty, Little Lord Fauntleroy asked to come home, and before long he was safe and sound and preparing to flunk out of divinity school and then drop out of law school.

But over the next 30 years, Gore provided the media with increasingly macho reminiscences of his combat experiences in Vietnam -- almost as vivid and stirring as the impassioned account he gave of being a tobacco farmer.

-- "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." (The Baltimore Sun)

-- "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." (Vanity Fair)

-- "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field." (The Washington Post)

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/...cgi?article=28


b) On tobacco, which he so calculatingly brought into the movie (why, its about global warming?) about his sisters death to show how he noblely stopped growing tobacco after his sisters death (why do politicians pull this crap when its so easy to check their facts...errr lies? and all it does is take away from his true message and call his credibility into question yet again!)

Al Gore defending tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states in 1988, four years after his sister Nancy died from lung cancer.

However in the same month Gore's sister died, he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco. In 1985, Gore voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco.

In a 1996 speech, Gore referred to his sister's painful death from lung cancer. Gore apologized for profiting from his family tobacco farm and accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies in the years following his sister's death, saying, "Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to."

Yet in the film he tries to pass himself off as one who did face up to it right away...again so stupid to give his detractors ANY ammunition with which to discredit him!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies


c) His statement at the very beginning of the movie that no scientists disagree with him. This is patently untrue and so easy to prove otherwise, so why even make such an absurd comment? Surely it would be more productive and less controversial to say that there is a general consensus among scientists about the issue, but not a unanimous one. To make such an outrageously false statement only further serves to undermine his integrity, further calling into question the real message he is trying to get out to the public and giving his opponents further fuel with which to paint him as Chicken Little...the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...3542ef&rfp=dta


2) Politicking and partisanship

Towards the end of the film, he states only 2 industrialized countries have not signed the Kyoto Protocols...Australia and the US. He subtly insinuates that big, bad, pro-oil Bush (which is true and we all know it, so why point it out when it just cheapens your important environmental message by degrading yourself to looking like a petty politician) is the reason why the US has not ratified the Kyoto agreement. Hmmmm, lets back up a minute...

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[17], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations [18]. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second greatest emitter of carbons) and also the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue. [19] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. "[20]

So, basically Bush said exactly the same thing Gore did back in 1997, that until Kyoto does more to include developing nations, the US would not sign on. They agree, what's the problem? Why is Gore playing this stupid game that only contradicts his own stand from the Clinton Administration? Oh yeah, he's a liberal playing the typical liberal strategy of switching gears after the general public has already forgotten what he said before; though I noticed he conveniently forgets to remind people of the fact he was the one that originally stated the US would not ratify the agreement in it's current incarnation.

The fact that individual cities, states and corporations in the US are voluntarily taking the required actions to reduce their emissions to comply with Kyoto is the real message...so stick with that, don't dilute the issue with petty finger pointing at the current administration! Remember Al, when you point a finger, four more are pointing back at you, as is blatantly obvious with this tactic.

And Australia. Well since they are not required under the Kyoto agreement to reduce their emissions, and in fact are allowed an 8% increase, why is this even an issue? Ok, they are the worlds largest per capita emitter, so maybe I'll cut Gore some slack on this one. Though they are also taking actions outside of Kyoto, such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate to reduce their emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Negative campaigning doesn't work if there are simple truths to contradict it, so why doesn't Gore stick to the positive actions that these countries are taking? Maybe because he feels the need to exaggerate and use negative information to scare people into action, but that only feeds his opposition with fuel to tear down his arguments piece by piece, which ultimately is counter-productive and only serves to take the focus away from the actual problem. That we all need to stand together to fix this very real issue.

[KnowItAll]

Like a lot of environmental terrorists I don't take him seriously.

(Hows that for a statement that in someway pisses everyone off?)

[Submariner]

Well, just look at it from his point of view. Few peope care about Global Warming so he has to make stuff up. Seems to make sense. Besides, considering the other false alarms (acid rain, new ice age, etc.) that never really panned out, he needs to differentiate his position and stand out among the other doomsayers.

[Sleuth]

Are you implying that Algore has some sort of political agenda behind his moves and movie???
The big problem with the environmentalist movement is its constant "the world is ending tomorrow" pronouncements. Some day they are going to be right about something and no one will listen because it will be the bazillionith time over the years that they have predicted the end of all life as we know it.

[Lammarite]

Congratulations, you've found a dishonest politician. Had to happen someday!

[ReverendJay]

Someone needs to explain the KISS principle to Gore (Keep It Simple Stupid), after all the "attention span of the average american is about as long as your dick...the american people will believe whatever we tell them to believe." -- hey Michael Moore said it in Canadian Bacon, so don't send me hate mail!

He needs to keep the message short and simple:

Is there a pollution problem - yes

Is it causing global warming - well, there is considerable debate, but we should still do something

Is there a cost to cleaning it up - yes

Is there a cost to doing nothing - you bet your tree hugging arse there is

Here is what can we do - ...

One thing is to pressure the government to lean on the oil and gas industry to stop repressing newer, cleaner technologies that will cut into their profit margins. And for those of you who think I am spouting conspiracy theories...think about it for a minute. The internal combustion engine has been around for over a 100 years, and if you think in the massive technological leaps we took forward in the 20th century that this particular technology wasn't made obsolete, then I'd like to talk to you about some prime real estate I'd love to sell you. Further it will reduce the wests dependence on foreign oil and all the inherent problems that brings.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Walk or bike to work, etc etc etc

[KnowItAll]

http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs...but-guzzle-gas

[Expatriate]

Just look out the window, tell me what color the mountains seem to have and why that color is not green.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs...but-guzzle-gas

Isn't that what Kim says? "America, England, China, Russia, France and India have the nuclear bomb, so I want one too."

[beafan]

but i am surprised these celebs drive hybrids instead of porches and hummers

[canuckinhk]

apparently swartzenegger (sp?) just put his hummers (plural) into storage. gee, thanks arnold.
i just saw Inconvenient Truth and thought it was amazing. it should be required viewing for every person in HK and around the world. we're complaining about, and frankly getting used to, living in this chemical soup every day. when are we going to get off our arses and actually do something about it? i know its human nature not to act unless under immediate threat, but pretty soon we could be at the point of no return.
sure you could pick apart bits of the movie, but the science behind it is undisputed. the polar ice cap and glaciers worldwide ARE melting. CO2 production is through the roof. that's the truth, inconvenient as it may be.

...by the way i think the tabacco story was meant to say that you can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. sadly, a lesson Gore learned too late.