Gore Film Garners Praise and Backlash »
Posted By pagey 1 year, 8 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentThe presidency may have eluded former Vice President Al Gore, but Gore and his work on climate change remain very much in the news, garnering both awards and controversy.
Read Full Story at abcnews.go.com »
Submitted By:
pagey
Welcome to Propeller Everyone! I'm one of the Scouts, here to help.
Lets make this the best Social News Site there is!....
..Any problems ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 98
-
80%
pagey1 year, 8 months ago
I don't know why they need to bring religion into this, there are some facts that we can't ignore when it comes to global warming. I don't think it matters if it is just the natural evolution of the planet or man made pollution causing it, should we not at least try to stop it on our part. I think everyone should watch this film.
Reply -
0%
Virginia1 year, 8 months ago
Gave many as gifts during the past holiday season. In our area no showing at movie theaters but there is a local film society that had arranged several screenings that were well attended. Glad to have the nomination by the Academy that will make it better known to those who basically only are interested in celebrity news.
Reply -
0%
jovial1 year, 8 months ago
See my story:
http://science.netscape.com/story/2007/01/26/un-do
Let the naysayers debate these facts.
Reply-
-
100%
spkguy1 year, 8 months ago
theido
We had 3 severe wind storms in our area in a period of 1 week.
That has never happened in my life time or my fathers.
And as far as what could happen with the weather patterns in
north America, like what happened to your south coast is nothing to laugh at.
Reply
-
-
0%
mcarpentry1 year, 8 months ago
jovial,
Can you explain why in 1970, the year of the first Earth day, University professer Kenneth E.F. Watt claimed, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, which is twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Even Clinton's top advisor, Tim Worth admitted "We've got to ride the global-warming issue, Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and enviromental policy."
Reply-
100%
spkguy1 year, 8 months ago
Simple, they did not have the means to collect data and or analyze the data to the extent they can today.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/weather/hsweath
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 8 months ago
Gore has really done a great deal to bring this subject to the forefront. We must begin NOW to soften the footprint of mankind on planet earth. To not participate in this effort is to contribute to the eventual death of our own species.
Reply -
100%
aniokly1 year, 8 months ago
The current U N is so corrupt, and corruptable that you cannot take anything they say as credible. As long as there are just as many sccientists that rebuke the Global Warming fairy taik that believes it Americans will not be taken in. The believers have been singing the same sad song for 57 years. Does global warming exist? Yes. Is it caused by terrible unbelieving humans,NO, It looks to me if it was so important we do something about it the ding-dong Carter, or the Hillbilly *hore Hopper would have done something about it.
Reply -
100%
IcCaRus1 year, 8 months ago
i wish this movie were required viewing in public schools in america too. there is NO debate among real scientists anymore... as for the messenger; whether you love, hate or are neutral about al gore is NOT the point... the point is the message, and its real!!
here are the 2 MOST important questions you can ask yourself about this subject-
FIRST: what if the movie is wrong, but we believe it and do all the things it suggests anyway? worst case scenario, we clean up the planet, develop alternative energy sources, conserve the natural resources we have, become less dependent on interuptible foriegn sources for our energy needs, and our taxes MIGHT possibly go up a bit (well worth it)
SECOND: what if the movie is right and we DONT believe it? worst case scenario, well, IF you saw the movie, you know what that is. if you DIDNT see the movie, quite frankly, you have no business commenting on it
Reply -
100%
HS571 year, 8 months ago
Remember when Gore visited various talk shows with $200 ashtrays during the beginning of his vice-presidency? He claimed he and Bill were going to eliminate waste and over pricing in the federal government. Didn't happen! Now this clown who claims to be the father of the internet is going to try to stop global warming. He doesn't care about us! This is only a ploy to stay in the limelight. He knows that we are powerless to do anything about this global problem. The politicians don't listen to us. When you try to contact a congressman or senator, you get one of their flunkies who runs interference. The politicians have only their best interests in mind and Gore is part of that crowd. I recycle, don't litter, and try to conserve fuel as much as possible with the technology that is available now. What else can I do? cont.
Reply-
33%
HS571 year, 8 months ago
cont. The government needs to allow new technologies to come to fruition and force the issue of this global problem. Until the big money lobbyists are kicked out of our government and politicians brought to task for not listening to us, nothing is going to happen! Gore as a senator could have addressed this issue but instead allowed his wife Tipper to use our taxpayer dollars to force her agenda on us regarding music. He had 8 years and the power as vice president to do something about this. What is this moron going to come up with next?
Reply
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
-
-
100%
mcarpentry1 year, 8 months ago
uncleT,
Do you understand that CO2 is vital for life on earth?, There has been a 10 percent increase of crop growth in the last decade due to fertilization effect of increased CO2 in the air. The National academy of Sciences released a report in 2001 states," there is NO conclusive link to human activity and global warming".
Reply
-
-
100%
bugluver1 year, 8 months ago
I live in Minnesota 9 months out of the year global worming sounds like a good thing.
Just kidding!!!!
Reply -
100%
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
why wont Al Bore debate this argument with any scientists who don't subscribe to the global warming theory, if he wants this country to spend trillions of dollars over the next 10 years, should we not ask questions.
Reply -
0%
patchett1 year, 8 months ago
I seen the movie (and I can't stand Gore) with an open mind. A couple of things that really hacked me off was his sarcastic comments about loosing the election, and I thought it was about global warming, and though there was a lot of charts and graphs, he always made referance to "friends" of his in the scientific world. There has been climate change for years. I've had the opportinity to travel to both India and China on numerous occasions and until those countries, and others, change the way they pollute, our efforts will be minor.
Reply-
-
100%
IcCaRus1 year, 8 months ago
I noticed the sink you gave the article itself. i guess rightists dont know what else to do when faced with a truly rational argument. actually, he makes no rational argument. his comment boils down to "i hate al gore" .. although he apparently took time to "seen" the movie.
then theres this "A couple of things that really hacked me off was his sarcastic comments about loosing the election, and I thought it was about global warming". while his comment about the election may in fact be out of place, it was less than 2 minutes out of a TWO HOUR film
and lets not overlook "and though there was a lot of charts and graphs, he always made referance to "friends" of his in the scientific world"- charts and graphs, heaven forbid!! and better friends in the scientific community than friends in big oil.
so yes, i gave him a negative comment. you, on the other hand, sunk the whole article... scared of the truth?
Reply
-
-
-
67%
obuzzoff1 year, 8 months ago
A Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory.
Almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.
Why are we not hearing about this from the news media. It is easy for the media to check out by going to Gallup and checking the Heidleburg Appeal of 1992.
Reply-
-
100%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
And, IAmMine, your short-term perspective on this issue is both telling and predictable--a truly unbiased historical perspective on this issue destroys the doomsayers' "truths."
Twenty years from now we may look back on all this GW "noise" and smile, just as we look back to the "groundbreaking and revealing" book "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte in 1976, and smile, realizing that humans cannot yet accurately predict weather, let alone climate!!!.......
Reply -
71%
mcarpentry1 year, 8 months ago
IAmMine, The warmest recorded temperatures since the 1920's and 1930's, the liberal media does not give all the facts, start checking other sources besides them. In fact even according to ACCU-WEATHER the world's largest commercial forecaster," Global air temperatures measured show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the PAST CENTURY. This could be caused by NORMAL climatic variation. Something everyone needs to research and understand, ALL of this GLOBAL warming is THEORY, not FACT.
Reply
-
-
-
86%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
IcCaRus, pagey, jovial and all interested in another perspective (YES, THERE IS ONE! Despite how loudly the doomsayers yell):
1. The day we can say "there is NO debate among 'real' scientists is a sad day indeed. Are we now relegated to blind belief? Is this topic now above debate? Says who?
2. I don't care which non-scientist is the messenger (although the credibility of the non-scientist messenger can be certainly be questioned), the important thing is the CREDIBILITY of the body of scientists that stand BEHIND the message.
In following posts, I am listing 63 "real" scientists who believe that the computer models that are being used to "predict" serious climatic changes (based upon the CO2/Greenhouse gas theory) CANNOT BE TRUSTED. It will not fit into one post, so the document will be fitted into consecutive posts-If you want another perspective, please read the entire document.
(continued)
Reply-
100%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
Here is the statement they ALL signed:
"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas."
"When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy."
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.
Reply-
100%
IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago
Keep spewing big oils lies vettenut... Do some real research for once. The cooling period you keep bringing up from the 70s was nothing but one book and a couple articles, and you go on shouting it out like every scientist was behind it.
You can't trust the models one too is getting a little over used too don't you think? Pathetic.
Just because your ego can't handle it that you might be wrong, doesn't mean to be blind to all the evidence that proves otherwise.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
obuzzoff1 year, 8 months ago
Patcheet- You are right and those places will be the new home of U.S. Industry when they get tired of the global warming BS laws.
Reply -
90%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based."
"If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to 'stopping climate change' would be irrational."
Reply-
0%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas."
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Reply-
100%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Reply
-
-
-
0%
vettenut1 year, 8 months ago
Thanks, GoldStandard. I think the intellectual level (or actually, the lack thereof) in the recent replies(?) to the list I posted speaks for itself.
I do not have any ego at stake here. My name is not on that list. I just believe that, despite all the GW cheerleading by the GW gang, there might be a few people reading these posts that would actually be open to the fact that this is not a closed issue, or a "done deal...."
They cannot admit that there are any "real scientists" who would dare to oppose their politically-motivated agenda. It's much easier for them to scream again and again, "It's BIG OIL."
What profundity of thought!!!
Reply
-
-
100%
johnb300m1 year, 8 months ago
I don't think Getty Images could've found a WORSE picture than Al Gore.
Reply -
0%
CovalentBond1 year, 8 months ago
We still are not as warm as the we were during the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). The UN abolished this because it was an inconvenient fact. They didn't use science to do this. They just did it.
(There were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none) Follow the link for more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne
We are entering a natural warming cycle of the earth. Are we adding to this natural cycle? I personally don't think so. You won't change my mind, anymore than I'll change yours. So we need decide what we do agree on and move forward from there. Like weaning ourselves from oil and coal without destroying our economy.
Reply-
100%
CovalentBond1 year, 8 months ago
I am 51 years old. I remember as I was growing up rivers that would catch fire or so chemically polluted that you could develop black and white film in them. When I was in the army a fellow photography hobbyist friend of mine did just that in one of the rivers in Germany, where we were stationed. The film was a bit flat. But was useable enough to make prints from.
We have cleaned up a lot of this pollution. And we have a lot more to clean up. I personally fear water pollution and over fishing more than global warming.
Personally I think we can do this with present technology.
Reply-
100%
CovalentBond1 year, 8 months ago
Crazy Idea #1: To get us off of oil and coal.
Slowly so as to keep costs down (also add big tax breaks) put solar panels on all homes. Say just one more than needed to run that house. This could in time set up a surplus of electricity to feed back into the grid. This surplus could be piped via the grid toward the east as the sun moved moves west. And west from the east as the sun rises. This of course would only be one part of the energy solution. The houses are already there. We wouldn't have to clear land, put up ugly windmills, build dams etc...And I know it isn't as simple as it sounds. But I'm sure it could done.
So instead slamming each other let's hear your crazy solution. And I don't want to hear about population control. That's a no-brainer.
P.S. I had a tooth pulled today and I am on pain meds. So slam me all you want. I won't feel a thing. Hehehehe.
Reply
-
-
100%
IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago
Heres a little info on the author of the article you shared:
"Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his skepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in the The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign."
Heis also a member of this:
"There are several orders of chivalry called the Order of Saint John, which claim as their origins the Knights Hospitaller Christian crusading order."
But Vettenut would ignore any agendas here....
Reply
-
-
100%
IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago
Show me proof on the 11 straight years of being cooler. Your comments show you know absolutely nothing on the current climate changes taking place. So rather than just acting like a jerk and a homophob, back your argument up!
Reply -
40%
PShooter1 year, 8 months ago
It certainly is an odd coincidence that scientists at NASA as well as other scientific organizations report that Venus and Mars are experiencing global warming too.
Well I guess that our fossil fuel consumption has even far greater consequences than we thought possible.
Imagine that!.....Or is it possible that many leading scientists are correct and the Sun is just experiencing a warming cycle in it's own natural way?... Nahhh...much easier, and more fun, to blame the US and it's people for their gluttonous ways...Or..perhaps W and Chaney are somehow secretly poisoning the solar system, one planet at a time, so that they can arrange for Halliburton to get the clean-up contract!...
Reply
