|
An Inconvenient Truth (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dirichlet |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
with the polar ice caps falling apart (this isnt speculation, this is truth), logic tells me that only the demise of the world as we know it will be the result |
Unfortunately, it isn't true... The antarctic ice cap is increasing in thickness.
- I'll put this out there.... I have no doubt that we are changing the global environment. One only has to fly over the middle states of this country to see that not an acre has been left unchanged. However, to use a sweeping term such as "global warming" to describe the changes that are occuring does a disservice to science as a whole.
There are many facts that are posted by proponents of 'global warming', such as; "The annual number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes is higher than has been recorded in the last 30 years: this is due to global warming." What they don't tell you is that before this 30-year period, hurricanes of that magnitude were higher in frequency than they are now... so what 'global' phenomenon was causing them then??
I used to believe whole-heartedly in 'global warming' as the coming doom of the world, based upon what I had heard from myriad media sources. Then I actually did some research... I looked into a number of actual scientific papers (i.e. peer-reviewed journals such as Nature). There is no doubt in anybody's mind that we are affecting this planet. However, what you have to remember is that movies, magazines, and television shows are products. And what sells?? Sensationalism.
A final thought... Current computer models can barely predict weather patterns a few days in advance. Keep in mind that these models are employing some of the largest and fastest computers in the world. And, we all know the "it's going to rain all day" but turns out to be sunny and warm weather report. . . They can't correctly predict the weather in a small location, on a daily basis: how can you believe that they can predict the weather on a global scale, decades into the future? |
|
|
| Konijn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Choobak
Well, then we're are just disagreeing on the definition of propoganda. It doesn't have a negative connotation in my book. It's just the presentation of information that is not impartial with the goal of influencing opinions if you ask me. |
propaganda by definition is rooted in doctrinal absolutism and thus isn't merely a synonym for a friendly point of view. it implies a formal stridency and rigidity of opinion with the express purpose of influencing others. |
|
|
| southbound24 |
MAN BEAR PIG
Im cereal you guys, he going to get us
Thank God for Matt and trey |
|
|
| BiG MiKE |
| quote: | Originally posted by LuNaSeA
(Y) |
You use msn? Add me :happy2: |
|
|
| Jayoza |
| I saw this on myspace and it really hit me , we need to find alternate sources of energy before its too late. At times it did feel like propoganda or what have you , but wouldnt everyone agree that bush is not the best president ? Maybe it would have been a differnt world right now if Al Gore was president.. |
|
|
| Blake |
Don't need Gore's documentary to be made aware of environmental issues.
Going to school helps with that. So does reading.
This thread reminds me of a few years back when an Astronomy professor of mine spoke of how New Orleans would be completely fludded over one day because of massive storms caused by environmental disturbances. Of course, New Orleans was completely fludded over within a year of him stating that it would be.
I don't feel like digging up statistics or general facts right now but Global Warming will definately be a major issue for us 20something's and younger. One of the main things though, about environmental science is that it's not very time specific. Much of the worst things that could happen, could take place next week, or 30 years from now, or 50 years from now. We will more than likely have to deal with famine and civil war within our lifetimes as a result of the environment being screwed up. When I say "we" I don't necessarily mean the US. We've done a great job raping the world of its resources so that we don't have to deplete our own. We won't be nearly as bad off as some other countries.
I suppose I'll see the documentary at some point, while being aware that its probably no different from most US media: Sensationalism with some truth mixed in. Gore is motivated by at least some self-interest I think. There's always self interest. It's not the Presidancy though. He's not running for President again and probably wouldn't stand a chance if he did. It is good for politicians to keep their faces on tv and in the news though, and what a noble cause to associate yourself with as a politician :rolleyes: . Maybe he's setting himself up to support another Presidential candidate when election time does roll around. *shrugs*
Sure, his documentary might open some eye's or make people even more skeptical, but either way, it's probably best that people go out and do some kind of valid research of their own (whether it's for or against).
*Even if global warming was completely made up, it's interesting to note that people would actually defend destroying the eco system.*
good job ;) |
|
|
| partyhopper |
| Save the world. Stop driving your car. |
|
|
| ProggieGuy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blake
*Even if global warming was completely made up, it's interesting to note that people would actually defend destroying the eco system.*
good job ;) |
Exactly. Whether or not you belived global warming is a proven issue or not, are some of you out there really of the opinion that its a good thing to let pollution go unchecked just for the sake of Fortune 500 companies? I believe the point was raised in an article posted showing the possiblities of some simple economic theory that could encourage environmently friendly industry. How is this a bad thing? |
|
|
| SiLveR_NrGy_985 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ProggieGuy
Exactly. Whether or not you belived global warming is a proven issue or not, are some of you out there really of the opinion that its a good thing to let pollution go unchecked just for the sake of Fortune 500 companies? I believe the point was raised in an article posted showing the possiblities of some simple economic theory that could encourage environmently friendly industry. How is this a bad thing? |
i agree |
|
|
| peace n trance |
| the sooner we die, the sooner we all go to that big club in the sky :toocool: |
|
|
| euphoria |
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/D...ls.asp?eid=3298
At The Movies: An Inconvenient Truth
***1/2
Sasha Stone
Mirror Film Critic
Davis Guggenheim’s An Inconvenient Truth is to Westside liberals what The Passion of the Christ was to the Bible belt. It is a film that has the power to energize the movement as well as lend some validity to what they believe. Unlike The Passion, however, Truth is slathered with undisputed fact. It is a fact no American wants to acknowledge, particularly if it means giving up their Escalade or air conditioning or any other indulgence we’ve come to rely on.
In his first public media outing since losing the election to George Bush (whether or not you believe it was fair), Al Gore brings our attention to what he was to us before he became the wooden micro-manager who couldn’t let go of the vote counts in Florida. Gore went from being “the environment guy” to being the sore loser in about the time it took Katharine Harris to hand the election victory to Bush. It was an unfair characterization of a very smart, very compassion man. But he has come back with a vengeance.
An Inconvenient Truth walks a fine line between being an ego project for Gore and being a vital message every American, hell, every human being, should be required to see. By the end of the film, after the compelling facts are presented and much of Gore’s reinvention has been laid out, there is no denying the power of the message. Gore himself almost shrinks into the background to become a crusader for the planet rather than the Democrats’ Great White Hope.
Directed by Guggenheim, Truth is based on a series of lectures Gore has been giving for many years now. His lecture is interesting on its own. But much of the film takes us into Gore’s private world of pain – how he almost lost his son, how his sister died of lung cancer, and of course, the elephant in the room: losing to Bush. We’re shown a tender side to a man who doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve. But it spends more on his commitment to getting this inconvenient truth out. And oddly enough, for the first time, he looks like he could not only win the next election but that he might make a good president after all.
But putting that aside for the moment, the film depicts a planet on the verge of catastrophe. More to the point, it isn’t the planet that is about to suffer – it is the human race. Life is vulnerable anywhere. One need only look at the dinosaur’s collapse to see that it doesn’t take much to wipe out an entire population in a relatively short amount of time. What we are doing to the planet currently is causing global warming. Global warming is going to cause super storms, unlivable heat and God knows what else in the very near future.
These facts are indisputable by every acknowledged scientist there is. Somehow this “inconvenient truth” has been marginalized as a liberal cause when it is not. It has been given the tobacco treatment of being talked about as a “theory” when it is not. Unfortunately, to get this film made, Gore had to rely on Hollywood liberals like Laurie David (Larry’s wife) and Lawrence Bender and who knows who else’s deep pockets. Because of that element alone, many will think twice about seeing the film, let alone taking to heart the film’s message.
An Inconvenient Truth is not a documentary; it is a rallying cry. It is “The British are coming.” It is not “The sky is falling,” even though the sky is literally falling. If the film has a weakness, it is the moment Gore takes aim at the “current administration.” When it comes to environmental issues, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel; what has Bush and co. done but worsen it? But in doing so, it makes a global issue a partisan one, which will ultimately invalidate the message. |
|
|
| BiG MiKE |
| quote: | Originally posted by euphoria
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/D...ls.asp?eid=3298
At The Movies: An Inconvenient Truth
***1/2
Sasha Stone
Mirror Film Critic
Davis Guggenheim’s An Inconvenient Truth is to Westside liberals what The Passion of the Christ was to the Bible belt. It is a film that has the power to energize the movement as well as lend some validity to what they believe. Unlike The Passion, however, Truth is slathered with undisputed fact. It is a fact no American wants to acknowledge, particularly if it means giving up their Escalade or air conditioning or any other indulgence we’ve come to rely on.
In his first public media outing since losing the election to George Bush (whether or not you believe it was fair), Al Gore brings our attention to what he was to us before he became the wooden micro-manager who couldn’t let go of the vote counts in Florida. Gore went from being “the environment guy” to being the sore loser in about the time it took Katharine Harris to hand the election victory to Bush. It was an unfair characterization of a very smart, very compassion man. But he has come back with a vengeance.
An Inconvenient Truth walks a fine line between being an ego project for Gore and being a vital message every American, hell, every human being, should be required to see. By the end of the film, after the compelling facts are presented and much of Gore’s reinvention has been laid out, there is no denying the power of the message. Gore himself almost shrinks into the background to become a crusader for the planet rather than the Democrats’ Great White Hope.
Directed by Guggenheim, Truth is based on a series of lectures Gore has been giving for many years now. His lecture is interesting on its own. But much of the film takes us into Gore’s private world of pain – how he almost lost his son, how his sister died of lung cancer, and of course, the elephant in the room: losing to Bush. We’re shown a tender side to a man who doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve. But it spends more on his commitment to getting this inconvenient truth out. And oddly enough, for the first time, he looks like he could not only win the next election but that he might make a good president after all.
But putting that aside for the moment, the film depicts a planet on the verge of catastrophe. More to the point, it isn’t the planet that is about to suffer – it is the human race. Life is vulnerable anywhere. One need only look at the dinosaur’s collapse to see that it doesn’t take much to wipe out an entire population in a relatively short amount of time. What we are doing to the planet currently is causing global warming. Global warming is going to cause super storms, unlivable heat and God knows what else in the very near future.
These facts are indisputable by every acknowledged scientist there is. Somehow this “inconvenient truth” has been marginalized as a liberal cause when it is not. It has been given the tobacco treatment of being talked about as a “theory” when it is not. Unfortunately, to get this film made, Gore had to rely on Hollywood liberals like Laurie David (Larry’s wife) and Lawrence Bender and who knows who else’s deep pockets. Because of that element alone, many will think twice about seeing the film, let alone taking to heart the film’s message.
An Inconvenient Truth is not a documentary; it is a rallying cry. It is “The British are coming.” It is not “The sky is falling,” even though the sky is literally falling. If the film has a weakness, it is the moment Gore takes aim at the “current administration.” When it comes to environmental issues, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel; what has Bush and co. done but worsen it? But in doing so, it makes a global issue a partisan one, which will ultimately invalidate the message. |
I'm assuming out of 10? |
|
|
|
|
