An Inconvenient ....fiction

[bj229r]

link

This here's funny, but I don't expect much mention of it in the main-stream-media

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow."

Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20":

    SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

    (Voiceover) Al Gore's 2006 documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth," makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?

    AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)

    And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.

    SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

    (Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of "The Day After Tomorrow."

    KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

    Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

    SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

    (Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

Apparently, ABC tried to get a comment from Gore concerning the matter, but none was forthcoming:

     
   
    SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

     

    (Off-camera) And it raises another question for you to consider. Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point, even if there's science behind it? Well, we tried to ask Al Gore and the movie studio, but neither responded to our calls.

I wonder why.

Yet, another mystery here is that ABC posted a video of this segment at its website. However, for some reason, the clip ends BEFORE the discussion of Gore's film.

I wonder why.

No great wonder he does no combative interviews nor debates

[Airscrew]

Bj,  you need to drink more koolaid... come on you can do it.... Gore is great... man is evil...man is destroying the planet... its ok to use hollywood special effects for the documentary... it saved money... it saves polar bears... if they had actually film there they would have contributed to global warm... er... global climate change....

[Leslie]

Using part of another movie without permission or a credit line is called copyright infringement.  I wonder if the makers of the original movie will pursue the matter as a theft of intellectual property.

More importantly, using the computer generated segment without disclosing its origins discredits the entire film.  Films presented as documentary or educational cannot be justified if they contain even one bit of intentional misinformation or manipulation, i.e. if one part is manipulated, how many other parts are? 

Al Gore won two Oscars for the movie.  One was for best documentary and the other for best song.  They probably won't be rescinded, but I wouldn't be surprised if a credit line would be required to be placed in the opening credits of the film.  It would state that the glacier shot was a computer generated image from the movie The Day after Tomorrow.



Les

[lazs2]

yet.. if Ben Stein had used the shot in his film as "proof" that it somehow showed that gods hand was involved...

The "critics" would have devoted several thousand websites to debunking it and showing the source of the CGI clip even before the movie was out.   

With a lefty agenda film..  they not only give a pass but all the highest honors they can.

No honest person can fail to see this.  Drink the kool aid indeed.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Yeah......but what if you wanted to boil a frog?   

[SIK1]

All of you are so wrong.. A Nobel Laureate would not lie. Look at the fine company this man is in. Yassar Arrafat won the Nobel peace prize too, and he spent his whole life searching for peace.

It was in a documentary that won an Oscar so it has to be true. The people in Hollywood never lie or twist the truth for their own personal agenda. Just ask Micheal Moore.

More koolaid all around!!

[lazs2]

In all fairness to the critics and albore acolytes...  "the day after tomorrow" wasn't really seen by too many people.. it was a pretty big stinker.

lazs

[GtoRA2]

It would be pretty funny if the movie Studio sued for copy right infringment! lol

I wonder how good old Al feels about the world food shortage?

[iWalrus]

Just trying to understand here - How do we know he didn't have permission to use the clip?

Also, I watched the movie but it has been quite a while. Can anyone refresh my memory as to what exact point he was making with the clip in question? I just can't remember anything about that movie clip supporting any of his arguments.

I did watch the full clip of the ABC story. What is omitted in the article is that the visual effects supervisor, Karen Goulekas, says she is "very happy he used it(the clip in question)." If she's happy about it, that might indicate that they are not in danger of getting sued. Her happiness, and her willingness to discuss it, may also indicate that they are not trying to hide the source of the clip.

[Airscrew]

It doesnt matter one wet willy if he had permission or not.   He used CGI graphics and presented them as real... he lied...

[AWMac]

Burn the Witch!!!!

[iWalrus]

It doesnt matter one wet willy if he had permission or not.   He used CGI graphics and presented them as real... he lied...

Oh good! I was hoping to get clarification on this. How did he present them as real? Did he say, "This is a real shot..." or anything like that? I know he said something like, "flying over the glaciers in a helicopter you can see..." But did he say anything like, "...and this is that footage of flying over."? I just can't remember it's been quite awhile since I've seen it.

Ah and I think it does matter if he had permission. That would kind of blow a lawsuit out of the water. I know that Leslie and GotoRA2 were wondering about a lawsuit. Anyone come up with anything on whether he had permission or not?

And, to AWmac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[Gunslinger]

.

[GtoRA2]

Oh good! I was hoping to get clarification on this. How did he present them as real? Did he say, "This is a real shot..." or anything like that? I know he said something like, "flying over the glaciers in a helicopter you can see..." But did he say anything like, "...and this is that footage of flying over."? I just can't remember it's been quite awhile since I've seen it.

Ah and I think it does matter if he had permission. That would kind of blow a lawsuit out of the water. I know that Leslie and GotoRA2 were wondering about a lawsuit. Anyone come up with anything on whether he had permission or not?

And, to AWmac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

I dont give a toejam if he got permision or not, that he used the clip in the movie without saying in his awfull droning voice, "this is a CGI simulation of whats happening", means he is a liar, but I knew that already from watching the steaming pile of dung he called a movie.

[Maverick]

I must be confused here. I though documentaries were supposed to be about facts. Perhaps star wars can be considered a documentary as well since they use CGI as well.