Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on April 22, 2008, 07:12:27 PM
-
link (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth)
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 :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
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....
-
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
-
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
-
Yeah......but what if you wanted to boil a frog? :rolleyes:
-
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!!
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
It doesnt matter one wet willy if he had permission or not. He used CGI graphics and presented them as real... he lied...
-
(http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/uploaded_images/monty_python_witch-701441.jpg)
Burn the Witch!!!!
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)
-
.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
I dont give a poop 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.
So at some point during the clip he said something like, "This is footage of what's really happening."? Or maybe at some point he said something to the effect that no CGI was used? Yes, if that's the case he certainly is a liar then.
Of course, he may be a liar for other reasons as well. I don't need any help with that issue. I'm just trying to figure out how he was lying by using this clip. Can anyone tell me?
-
It doesnt matter one wet willy if he had permission or not. He used CGI graphics and presented them as real... he lied...
The charts and graphs he used are not natural either: they are artificial constructs...they show the prevailing theory, but are totally synthetic.
This is a pretty petty issue ASAIAC.
-
So at some point during the clip he said something like, "This is footage of what's really happening."? Or maybe at some point he said something to the effect that no CGI was used? Yes, if that's the case he certainly is a liar then.
Of course, he may be a liar for other reasons as well. I don't need any help with that issue. I'm just trying to figure out how he was lying by using this clip. Can anyone tell me?
Hilarious.If you can't figure it out,then we're wasting bandwidth trying to explain it to you.
Up next:CNN demonstrates the horrors of war with clips from the movie "John Rambo".
-
geeze walrus.. even when the guy gets caught red handed lieing to you.. you still worship at his feet because... just like the lefty critics and such....
The end justifies the means.
lazs
-
Hilarious.If you can't figure it out,then we're wasting bandwidth trying to explain it to you.
Up next:CNN demonstrates the horrors of war with clips from the movie "John Rambo".
:aok :lol
-
but it's such an important issue that any lie or exaggeration is justified to move people to act
Ironic that the some of the people here who deride religion as an opiate have swallowed this kool-aid without even reading the label.
-
the religion of socialism is.. "the end justifies the means"
honest people know that you only have the means.. the end is never clear as to if it is good or bad.. desirable or no. All you have is the means.
lazs
-
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
I think I'm an honest, objective person and:
Michael Moore is an intellectually dishonest boob who's so-called documentaries are really pure fictional entertainment with a wacko left-wing agenda.
Ben Stein is an intellectually dishonest boob who's so-called documentary is really pure fiction with a wacko right-wing agenda. (Can't really call "Expelled..." entertainment - at least Michael Moore occasionally succeeds at humor).
Al Gore, while taking some liberties and often overstating his case, is generally agreed by the vast majority of experts in the field as being mostly right on the science in his documentary and this information does nothing to rebut that.
-
I think I'm an honest, objective person and:
Michael Moore is an intellectually dishonest boob who's so-called documentaries are really pure fictional entertainment with a wacko left-wing agenda.
Ben Stein is an intellectually dishonest boob who's so-called documentary is really pure fiction with a wacko right-wing agenda. (Can't really call "Expelled..." entertainment - at least Michael Moore occasionally succeeds at humor).
Al Gore, while taking some liberties and often overstating his case, is generally agreed by the vast majority of experts in the field as being mostly right on the science in his documentary and this information does nothing to rebut that.
Hope your kool-aid doesn't kill us all but it very well may.
-
Hope your kool-aid doesn't kill us all but it very well may.
You are jumping to conclusions.
All I said is that, for the most part, "Inconvenient Truth" got the science right. I said nothing about the conclusions drawn.
If you are asking, I personally question whether global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is, I haven't yet heard a public policy that appropriately addresses the problem, so I say there's no government solution here. Asking the federal government to solve the climate change problem (assuming it is a problem) through policy is like asking the Three Stooges to perform a ballet. They might come up with some lame-brained idea like promotion of biofuels which result in the creation of MORE greenhouse gases and skyrocketing of food prices. Oh, wait...uh oh.
-
You are jumping to conclusions.
All I said is that, for the most part, "Inconvenient Truth" got the science right. I said nothing about the conclusions drawn.
If you are asking, I personally question whether global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is, I haven't yet heard a public policy that appropriately addresses the problem, so I say there's no government solution here. Asking the federal government to solve the climate change problem (assuming it is a problem) through policy is like asking the Three Stooges to perform a ballet. They might come up with some lame-brained idea like promotion of biofuels which result in the creation of MORE greenhouse gases and skyrocketing of food prices. Oh, wait...uh oh.
My apologies. However, I disagree that there was any science in Al Bore's presentation. He completely ignored the fact that his charts clearly showed c02 lagging temperature rises in every instance. Perhaps ignore isn't the right word, he basically said it was too complicated for his listeners to understand.
-
If you have to misrepresent the truth to make your point, you've failed--it cannot be defended (despite Gore's sycophants efforts)
-
geeze walrus.. even when the guy gets caught red handed lieing to you.. you still worship at his feet because... just like the lefty critics and such....
The end justifies the means.
lazs
I actually don't like Al Gore. I don't like his politics, and I don't like the man. I don't know how a simple question caused you to jump to that assumption.
Still, no one has said exactly how his use of the clip was a lie. That was the point of this thread, I believe - that he was lying by using this clip. No one has an answer? I usually like to have a clear understanding of why I am accusing someone of a lie. I freely admit that I do not know what the point of the clip was. That is why I can't call him a liar - yet. If I did know, then I could call him a liar, or I could say that he wasn't lying because he did not present it as "real". With all these people calling him a liar, with regard to this clip, I figured they must know. Everyone who called him a liar knows exactly how the clip was presented, right? Can anyone share this knowledge?
I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming that you all know your facts about the clip before crying, "LIAR!" I mean, that is what anyone with half a brain would do.
-
I actually don't like Al Gore. I don't like his politics, and I don't like the man. I don't know how a simple question caused you to jump to that assumption.
Still, no one has said exactly how his use of the clip was a lie. That was the point of this thread, I believe - that he was lying by using this clip. No one has an answer? I usually like to have a clear understanding of why I am accusing someone of a lie. I freely admit that I do not know what the point of the clip was. That is why I can't call him a liar - yet. If I did know, then I could call him a liar, or I could say that he wasn't lying because he did not present it as "real". With all these people calling him a liar, with regard to this clip, I figured they must know. Everyone who called him a liar knows exactly how the clip was presented, right? Can anyone share this knowledge?
I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming that you all know your facts about the clip before crying, "LIAR!" I mean, that is what anyone with half a brain would do.
iSheeple, why use CGI when if you claim something is happening you can just go and use real footage of that something?
-
If you have to misrepresent the truth to make your point, you've failed--it cannot be defended (despite Gore's sycophants efforts)
If only that were true. Unfortunately Gore added many more believers to the church of Global Warming. A church that may wind up killing more than all the other religions throughout history combined.
-
*pssst* "No matter what Rev Jones sez, Don't drink the Kool~Aid!"
-
If only that were true. Unfortunately Gore added many more believers to the church of Global Warming. A church that may wind up killing more than all the other religions throughout history combined.
The good news is that a big majority have and are falling from the grace Of Rev Al after the magic is being shown as only smoke and mirrors.
You still have the super naive and the sheep though. They will always be there waiting for the next snake oil saleman`s wagon to roll into town or the Wizard Of Oz to direct them down the yellow brick road.
-
Dunno about Gore's facts, only saw slabs from the film. Maybe I should however call him and tell him of bumble-bees in Iceland .... in April. As well as I'm finishing my field jobs in a time on the calendar where I usually hadn't started.
He could film that, and not use any hype at all :D
-
samiam.. I think you are fooling yourself because you want to believe that algor is right. His science is even more off than the first UN report.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?extend.29.2
In the UK is has been deemed "propoganda" and sentimental blush with too many inaccuracies to be used as a documentary.
If you think moore is a left wing tool who lies to get his point across then how could you not think the same of algor? algor get's caught many more times and lives a life that is the carbon footprint of 50 third world families all at once.
Why should I listen to the left? My guns have killed less people that ted kennedys car.. I use one hundredth of the energy of albor... I don't have armed bodyguards like the people who think I shouldn't have guns and I don't live in a gated community...
As for Ben Steins movie? I haven't seen it. I do notice that the left wing critics and hollywood types and many other lefties are all over it.. their protests are legend and the movie hadn't even come out.. so why would I listen to such a blatent hack job when they praised the likes of moore and algor? Obviously.. they are not capable of discerning truth or.. believe that the message is the important thing.. not the content.
sooo.. have you seen the movie?
lazs
-
iSheeple, why use CGI when if you claim something is happening you can just go and use real footage of that something?
Ok, I think we are getting closer. So then, he claimed that what was happening in the CGI shot was happening similarly in the real world? Maybe then you can tell me what his claim was, as far as his use of the shot.
CGI vs. a real shot? I don't know. I am no movie producer, director, film editor, ect. All I can do is hazard a guess that CGI is cheaper than filming something on location. Though, again, how do we know he was claiming this was an actual depiction of real life?
Furthermore, what exactly is in the clip that is such a offensive claim? All I can see from the video in the link is a shot of some ice shelves. It sure doesn't look they are doing anything spectacular like caving, melting before our eyes, or exploding due to solar radiation. They are just sitting there existing. We all agree that ice shelves exist don't we? Al Gore didn't trick me into thinking they existed. I already knew they did.
Go ahead, watch the video again. Look at the 5 -8 second clip. What do you actually see? Keep in mind that the separate shots of ice shelves caving, ABC calls, "actual video." Also, notice that ABC adds additional footage to their story from "The Day After Tomorrow" that Al Gore never used. But who eats it up? Anyone thirsty for the Kool-Aid I suppose. Burn the witch indeed. I'm sure Al Gore weighs the same as a duck.
-
samiam.. I think you are fooling yourself because you want to believe that algor is right. His science is even more off than the first UN report.
The difference between Al Gore and Michael Moore (and Ben Stein) is that the latter are completely intellectually dishonest.
There's a whole bunch of (scary, but otherwise bright) folks who have tons of evidence to show you proving that the 9/11 attacks were a Bush conspiracy. There are as many who will dispute climate change. That doesn't change the fact that Al Gore, for the most part, represented the science correctly.
I can at least appreciate that distinction between him and the wackos without buying into the left wing agenda that climate change is a) a looming disaster form mankind, or b) that government policy plays any role in a "fix".
Gore, at least, believes what he is saying and mostly is backed up by a preponderance of existing scientific research.
I think we agree that Gore's agenda is misguided and possibly very bad for the global economy, which, as AKIron points out, has much more direct impact on the well being of mankind. I'm just not willing to toss Gore into the same slimy cesspool where Moore and Stein lurk.
-
I'm just not willing to toss Gore into the same slimy cesspool where Moore and Stein lurk.
I am...hell he probably invented the slimy cesspool.
-
sorry samiam.. I have not seen the Stein movie but I bet there are less inaccuracies in it than in algors. Algor also flat out lied.. over and over.. there can be no other explanation for the things he was saying.. he could not have done even cursory research and come up with such BS. the science in his movie is just horrible.. the drama queen stuff is even worse.. he is a lying, self important ahole.
moore is of the same cloth.. the message is the important thing to him.. if the facts don't work or are not sensational enough.. then.. exactly like albor.. he just makes em up.. he lies.
I don't know about the Stein movie.. maybe he is lying but.. the "science" is good.. by your criteria.. he should be absolved of any errors since.. his message is basically correct.. there is indeed an agenda to silence and persecute those who believe in ID in the halls of academia..
you seem to be selective, based on what you yourself would like to believe, in how you judge.
you believe man is heating up the planet.. that we are the biggest contributors to the global climate sooo.. you excuse any trash movie that gets that message out.
Have you seen Steins movie?
I watched the albor one after it came on cable so that he wouldn't get any of my money.. it was horrible.. I had to take it in two or three sittings since I would walk out in disgust every time.
lazs
-
Yes, and Stein absolutely does NOT have the "science" correct - as he completely throws science out the window.
As I've pointed out in another thread, there is no "agenda" in science to silence and persecute those who believe in ID.
There is an agenda to be perfectly clear that ID is NOT SCIENCE. As soon as "magic happened" enters the conversation - by definition - it's no longer science. That's all.
Saying that academia persecutes IDers is false on the face of it.
Scientists DO eschew IDers in the same way that the Catholic church would any Muslim or Jew who wanted to be a priest. As soon as you say, "Christ did not rise", you are outside the realm of Christianity and, however right you may be, you have no business being a priest and the Catholic church is well within its right turn its nose up at your desire to join the priesthood.
Same for any so-called scientist who uses "magic happened" as part of his "scientific" research. At that point, he's no longer doing science. Even if he's 100% correct - it's not science.
Stein is also guilty of, among other things, staging the lecture (it was cast with paid movie extras and applause was fake), completely misrepresenting the cases of the "persecuted" "scientists", and selectively quoting Darwin in very misleading ways (just as Moore selectively used snippets of Charlton Heston's speeches).
Same watermelon - different wacko agenda in my book.
-
Stein is also guilty of, among other things, staging the lecture (it was cast with paid movie extras and applause was fake), completely misrepresenting the cases of the "persecuted" "scientists", and selectively quoting Darwin in very misleading ways (just as Moore selectively used snippets of Charlton Heston's speeches).
Can you point me in the direction of proof of this?
-
I will attempt to answer Walrus' question about why the usage of the CGI raised a red flag to me. First, there is nothing wrong with using CGI to illustrate something which is occurring, as long as the viewer can reasonably ascertain the imagery is computer generated. The glacier scenery is harmless because it represents reality. Nothing is going on there in that scene except a view of glaciers. The scenery is beautiful, and maybe even enhanced using the computer. Nothing wrong with that at all. So far so good.
I have not seen Al Gore's movie, so I have not read the credits. I have tried to locate the credits using Google unsuccessfully. It likely is a moot point whether permission was granted to place the scenery, as it is only a few seconds of footage, does not damage the movie from which it was borrowed, and the messages of both movies are similar. As was pointed out, one of the (original) movies' directors was delighted that scene was included. There probably is no lawsuit to worry about because the message of both movies are in agreement.
All in all, that CGI shot in and of itself is not a big deal. As I said, I have not seen the movie credits, so there may well be mention of the borrowed segment. However that mention should be there if it is not, and this is why.
It used to be that it was easy to tell if something was a special effect. Computer generated imagery is so good nowadays that it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. I watched a show on tv a couple months ago which was about scientists in a sailboat time machine. They started in modern times and went further back in time on each successive voyage, stopping awhile during certain time periods and diving underwater with cameras. I started watching this show about a half-hour into the action. To make a long story short, I was completely fooled that what I was watching wasn't real, until it was obvious the sea creatures were computer generated. In other words, the CGI was so good (along with the dialog) I thought the giant sharks these scientists were "filming" were real. I thought the show I was watching was modern day reality. It wasn't until they started diving amongst giant crocodile-like creatures that I began to realize something was amiss. I was completely fooled for about an hour into the show (having come in after it had started and not knowing the nature of the movie.) Needless to say, this was a little disconcerting and confusing to me because I thought they were filming the real thing. I thought I was watching real footage of prehistoric creatures somehow existing today. Some new and fantastic discovery being filmed. Once I realized it was CGI, I couldn't believe that for awhile I thought what I was watching was real. It was that good.
Here is the problem as I see it. This day and age it is pretty easy to fool people with CGI. There is a danger it will work its way into news clips, and I believe it has already been done with photography in the newspaper. Of course we all know about photoshop. The bottom line is, folks are wary of this and become rightfully upset whenever it is exposed being used by trusted news sources.
There is no real harm done by the short CGI segment in Gore's movie if it is properly identified as being CGI. The harm would come if it is not identified as being CGI, presented as real. Not so much from the harmless clip segment of a glacier just being there, but from the idea that CGI was used for that segment and could have been used in other parts of the movie too. And then the question arises, which other parts might it have been used in? While not intentionally lying perhaps, a seeming harmless and minor oversight on the part of a director or whoever is responsible for movie credits and pertinent information, could undermine a movies' trustworthiness. It could potentially call in question source credentials required of an educational film presented as a documentary. Gore's movie is designed to move people to action. Naturally it is under close scrutiny.
If the credits mention the presence of CGI, then any concerns of visual manipulation and, by extension, possible misinformation would be properly addressed and not an issue. If the credits are not there, it is an oversight which should be tended to.
Les
-
Can you point me in the direction of proof of this?
Well, this web site gives the facts about the "expelled" - and these are verifiable: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth).
And here's info which shows how similar Stein is to Michael Moore: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know).
-
Is anyone using the term "climate change" these days that was using the term "global warming" last year? I really wonder why that is.
-
There is an agenda to be perfectly clear that ID is NOT SCIENCE. As soon as "magic happened" enters the conversation - by definition - it's no longer science. That's all.
<snip>
Same for any so-called scientist who uses "magic happened" as part of his "scientific" research. At that point, he's no longer doing science. Even if he's 100% correct - it's not science.
Hmm . . . there was nothing . . . then there was a "big bang" . . . and then there was the universe . . .
Sounds kind of magical to me.
-
global warming? Yeah...whatever. Warmest year in recorded history......and they've been recording for less than 200 years.
A pee in the red sea as far as history goes.....
Humans contribute greenhouse gases......sure...whatever... .the pine beetle in British columbia......the damage it's done, rather.....is causing more co2 to be released than all of canada's automobiles combined.
this is interesting
http://www.iceagenow.com/
-
global warming? Yeah...whatever. Warmest year in recorded history......and they've been recording for less than 200 years.
You sure about that?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has data that states differently.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html)
-
The difference between Al Gore and Michael Moore (and Ben Stein) is that the latter are completely intellectually dishonest.
Ben stein-education-Columbia university,Yale.
taught at-American university,U.C. santa cruz, Peperdine
worked for-poverty lawyer in Connecticut and D.C., trail lawyer for the fedaral trade commision, speech writer for both nixon and ford(many thought he was deep throat), authored 27 different books(20 nonfiction), countless movie and tv roles,
( I consider him one of the most honest people in the country)
source-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
Al gore-education-St. Albans school in D.C. and Harvard, also attained a one year rockefeller scolarship, two years at Vanderbilt but attained no degree before running for congress
worked for-U.S. army,as a reporter, The Tennessean as a reporter
source-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
Micheal Moore- education-Davison high school, University of Michigan at Flint(dropout), also once described as "a very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy"
lifetime member of the N.R.A.
worked for-"one day" at the Genaral motors plant, editor of "Mother Jones", a liberal political magazine( fired after four months), suporting role in Lucky numbers, has made seven films.
source-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Moore
Im not sure why you think Ben Stein is the one who is "completely intellectually dishonest" his life time acheivments would certainly point otherwise!
you dont have to believe what he believes to understand what he stands for! I'm not sure you can say that about the other two?
maybe i read your statement wrong?
-
samiam.. if those allegations against Stein are correct then he is no better than moore or algor.. It is odd tho that there is no talk of academy awards or nobel prizes for his work tho and just all this outrage.
mini.. yep..."man made climate change" is the newspeak on what mother nature is doing.. the idiot scientists painted themselves into a corner yet again with the whole "man made global warming thing"
Didn't they realize that mother nature could do em in within their lifetimes? they thought they were safe predicting disaster and doom for 50 or 100 years in the future.. long after they had spent the money but... it is getting colder. Now the weak shift to "man made global climate change" they better hurry up and panic everyone before it becomes obvious that they don't have a clue what is going on.
The really smart ones have shifted from being "climate scientists" to earthquake scientists.... If you predict an earthquake for 50 years in the future.. you can live quite well.. and probly be dead... by the time it is proven that you are full of it.. and hell.. there is even a chance you will be right.. even if there is a normal and small earthquake.. you can say that it is just the precursor or whatever.. make it up as you go.. so long as the money rolls in for the research.
did you guys know that this latest doom and gloom major earthquake prediction came just days after it was learned that Bush was cutting funding for earthquake research in half?
http://science.house.gov/randd/budget_demstaff-analysis03.htm
how easily led are you sheeple?
Was listening to NPR and the show was on the impending earthquake.. it was dire in the extreme.. it also told of how with enough research we could save billions of lives!!!!!! but alas.. the end of the program explained how this was all for naught as the evil booooosh had cut this vital (and so far useless) earthquake budget.
lazs
-
Dunno about Gore's facts, only saw slabs from the film. Maybe I should however call him and tell him of bumble-bees in Iceland .... in April. As well as I'm finishing my field jobs in a time on the calendar where I usually hadn't started.
He could film that, and not use any hype at all :D
Yeah..he could call it......weather.
-
You sure about that?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has data that states differently.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html)
Sox, what I meant was that when they talk about everything as being record this, and record that.......the records only go back 200 years.
Statistics have a nasty habit of being able to state what you want them to state. Geologiecally, 200 years won't give you a trend
-
Im not sure why you think Ben Stein is the one who is "completely intellectually dishonest" his life time acheivments would certainly point otherwise!
you dont have to believe what he believes to understand what he stands for! I'm not sure you can say that about the other two?
maybe i read your statement wrong?
By intellectually dishonest, I mean that he knows the truth is very different from what he is portraying in his movie. Same with Moore. Al Gore, at least it's my impression, firmly believes what he says. You may not, and he does overstate the case, but I don't think he knows he's wrong but throws BS out at the rest of us as do Moore and Stein.
-
By intellectually dishonest, I mean that he knows the truth is very different from what he is portraying in his movie. Same with Moore. Al Gore, at least it's my impression, firmly believes what he says. You may not, and he does overstate the case, but I don't think he knows he's wrong but throws BS out at the rest of us as do Moore and Stein.
if that is true then he is more of a moron than i thought,(al gore) i just figured he was out too pad his pocket like most of the rest of the global climate bunch, and i bet when he finds out the truth do you think he will give all the money back, or too feed the millions that he helped too starve ? i doubt it!
-
Just look at the company he keep(albore). I know it's guilt by association but hey if the shoe fits.
-
In earlier times Bore would have needed a brightly painted wagon and a load of snake oil medicine.........or possibly a rain making machine.
-
samiam.. are you saying that because algor is dumber than Stein or moore.. that he is not to blame for the abortion of a film? that you give him extra credit for wanting to do something good.. even if it proves (like the DDT ban and MTBE) to kill millions or destroy water supplies? Are you saying that because of that he deserves all the awards...
Yet.. moore got awards too and his hoaxes were loudly and soundly praised.. the errors glossed over and dissmissed..
Why then not Stein? Are you maybe being a tad bit dishonest with yourself?
lazs
-
Note the date on this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
"In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."
-
People have become wise to the socialism regime.
Global whatever is an attempt to disguise socialist priciples.