# An Inconvenient Truth



## Scott (Jun 6, 2006)

Al Gore has a movie/documentary out called An Inconvenient Truth. The thrust is that the earth suffers from gloabl warming and people must do something fast. 

Gore is a relativist. His title's statement that global warming is a "truth" is interesting. I wonder how he would respond if some said this:

"I watched your movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Truth is relative. Global warming may be true for you but it is not for me. I have no place for global warming in my truth structure. So, I personally don't want to spend any money or do anything, but you feel free to if that is your belief."

As an aside, I was teaching apologetics to our youth class. I did this test, which was memorable and stuck with them (I found the idea elsewhere). I had a bag of Cheerios. I had the students guess the number of Cheerios. I also had everybody state their favorite song and put it in a list given to the whole class. 

I announced the real number of Cheerios. I had the class look everybody's answers and asked, "Which is closest to being right?" No problem here. Everybody got it. It was a simple fact. Nobody says, "there are 100 Cheerios in the bag for you, but 150 for me. 

I then had the class look at the list of songs and asked, "Which one is closest to being right?" Everyone protested. There was no "right" answer. It was a matter of opinion, or a relative truth.

I then asked is one's selection of a religion more like determining the number of Cheerios or picking a favorite song. Of course American culture treats religion like an opionion. We understand that it is fact. I used this experiment as a platform to make them think through which category is right for religion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 11, 2006)

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

By Peter Schweizer 

Thu Aug 10, 2006
USAToday.com

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin." 

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed. 

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. 

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. 

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas. 

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River. 

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of _Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy_.


----------



## Theoretical (Aug 11, 2006)

I'd love to see the face of Gore or some other environmental extremist when posed with your hypothetical. 



> "I watched your movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Truth is relative. Global warming may be true for you but it is not for me. I have no place for global warming in my truth structure. So, I personally don't want to spend any money or do anything, but you feel free to if that is your belief."





[Edited on 8-11-2006 by Theoretical]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 15, 2007)

My company is showing this movie to the employees.

It is optional. The first showing is tomorrow with 80 employees. 

So should I bother watching this?


----------



## calgal (Feb 15, 2007)

Unless they welcome MST3K style commentary.......


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 15, 2007)

Lest people be swayed by the majority mob-think, a contrary view that points out the manipulation going on with the data:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

I studied climatology in the late 70s and early 80s. Back then everyone was afraid of the coming ice age. We all were aware of the medieval golden period when you could raise crops in Greenland and prosperity started to come to Europe. Everyone also knew that the 20th century had a long way to go before reaching those levels again. The institutional memory has faded drastically. In its place is, apparently, science by consensus.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 15, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Lest people be swayed by the majority mob-think, a contrary view that points out the manipulation going on with the data:
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
> ...



Thanks for this info, Vic! I too remember the dire warnings in the 1970's of the coming ice age.


----------



## Poimen (Feb 15, 2007)

I remember coming across an old copy of the National Geographic from 1977 (the year I was born!) which emphatically stated that we were going to enter into an ice age!

Silly scientists (and politicians and media personnel); objective truth is for rational people who are not swayed by hype and tripe!

Here is a link with some interesting (rational/balanced) thoughts:

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759


----------



## puritan lad (Feb 15, 2007)

I have a .pdf that someone sent me from the April 28, 1975 Newsweek Magazine. The article is entitled, "Our Cooling World". I always like to bring this article up to those who promote the modern doomsday myths. Here is an interesting quote from the article.

_"Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in over-all temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supply"_

In short, the Global Cooling of the 1970's causes the exact same thing as the Global Warming of today. The solution remains the same as well, more of your money in the hands of Caesar.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 15, 2007)

I remember that too. 

We've been through a few of these "the world is coming to an end" scares. There was the exponential population growth scare, the coming ice age scare, the running out of oil scare; and then there were other scares too, like science running amok with too many advances coming too fast, biology adcancing far too quickly for morality to keep up; and what about the nuclear catastrophe clock in Chicago? 

Put that together with the fact that all the Grand Ol' Opry stars are dying, so "who's gonna sing the Opry?" 

You know, I don't mind one bit that people like Al Gore are trying to reign in industry as far as the effect it is having on the rest of us is concerned. We have a coal-fired generating plant near us, and we can now confidently say that behind every cloud there's a sulphur lining.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 15, 2007)

JohnV said:


> . . . .that behind every cloud there's a sulphur lining.



 

I agree with the importance of stewardship. Acid rain and noxious pollution are very real problems. 

But old Al's agenda seems to be more concerned with an artificial gloomsday rather than dealing with the pressing issues. It's just another version of a War on Something Abstract.

BTW, Long ago, when Gore was a senator, I sat across from him at a barbecue lunch in Montana. We both ate burgers. He seemed like a relatively sensible and down-to-earth guy that day. He was interested in our farming practices and understood (it seemed) agricultural market dynamics.

The higher he has ascended, the loopier he seems to have gotten.


----------



## puritan lad (Feb 15, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> The higher he has ascended, the loopier he seems to have gotten.


Inventing the Internet will do that to you...


----------



## JohnV (Feb 15, 2007)

Yes, but these things have a way to running themselves into the ground. Right now its a bandwagon that everyone wants to get on. There's also the thing going on in Tanzania: whether or not the Anglican church is going to split over gay ordination and gay marriage. 

What I don't understand is that there are so many doomsday scenarios going around, and have been for many years, but in all that fuss over these things these very same people don't see the greater doom that is looming. They see the greenhouse gases, they see the climate changes, and they see pollution everywhere, but how do they miss morality degenerating? Surely that's always been the biggest scare to any society, hasn't it? 

This reminds me of an episode of Gilligan's Island, where the professor scared everybody into believing that the island was sinking into the sea. He was going by his marker in the lagoon. The problem was that Gilligan was using it as an anchor for his traps, and was moving it every day. Of course, everyday he had to move it deeper into the lagoon, so the marker showed rising water each day. When the professor finally found out, then the scare was over; all his careful scientific calculations were for nothing.


----------



## lv1nothr (Feb 15, 2007)

JohnV said:


> You know, I don't mind one bit that people like Al Gore are trying to reign in industry as far as the effect it is having on the rest of us is concerned. We have a coal-fired generating plant near us, and we can now confidently say that behind every cloud there's a sulphur lining.



 

Ok, hubby who worked at a coal-fired gen. station for 22 yrs. said to tell you, he doesn't know about Canada's laws, but here in the U.S. the laws are actually very strict now, and violations are easy to come by. Though regulated, the pollutants are still going up. 

The joke around the plant to him was always that they were spending a lot of $$ to get rid of NOx


----------



## bookslover (Feb 16, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> But old Al's agenda seems to be more concerned with an artificial gloomsday rather than dealing with the pressing issues...The higher he has ascended, the loopier he seems to have gotten.



Al Gore is a loon. In the film, _An Inconvenient Truth_ (file under: fiction) he tries to claim that the oceans are going to rise by 20 feet (!) over the next century.

Well, the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change, in its latest report to its sponsoring organization the United Nations (don't get me started) has revised its predictions and projections DOWNWARD from those they entertained in 2001. They now predict that the world's oceans may rise approximately 17 inches over the next century. 

17" is a long way from 20', Al.

Also, the IPCC must not be too concerned about saving trees. Its report (due in May, I think) is actually three connected reports, totalling (wait for it) 5,000 pages!

Yes, global warming is real. But, much of it is just the planet doing it's planet thing. There have been periods of such warming in the past (the middle ages, for example). And, how much of it this time around is caused by us hooman beans is debatable. During the 20th century, the planet's temperature rose by a whole 0.7 degrees centigrade.

What really gets my goat is the political correctness of it all. Whenever the Left decides what it believes (on any subject), that becomes the official position and no other opinions are allowed. For example, now that the Left has decided to take an extremist position regarding global warming, I read recently that some fellow loon (a friend of Al?) wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any TV weather person who isn't sufficiently rah-rah about global warming. "We've made up our minds! No other opinions allowed!"

Some of these Leftist global warming nuts are the same nuts who were running around 30 years ago wearing out their deodorant trying to convince us all of - global cooling! I still remember it; we were going to be buried under tons of ice, etc., etc. Well, that didn't pan out, so now they've decided that we're all going to fry! 

Sigh...


----------



## KMK (Feb 16, 2007)

Science is the way! Science is the truth! Science is the life!

Signed,

Pluto


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 16, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I agree with the importance of stewardship. Acid rain and noxious pollution are very real problems.


Acid rain was the global warming of the 1980s, inspired lots of doomsday movies like Earth Star Voyager and what not. Mostly acid rain has been debunked as the global killer it was made out to be, I'm not endorsing all out pollution but even that threat was exaggerated by Greenpeace types.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 16, 2007)

Has anyone watched the relatively recent movie _The Day After Tomorrow_?

The premise behind the new ice age was global warming. They even addressed the paradox during a scene in which the “evil” Vice President was playing the skeptic.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 16, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Has anyone watched the relatively recent movie _The Day After Tomorrow_?
> 
> The premise behind the new ice age was global warming. They even addressed the paradox during a scene in which the “evil” Vice President was playing the skeptic.



I saw it. Entertaining, great special effects. Bad science, in my opinion. I noticed the parallels with the current political "climate."


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 16, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I saw it. Entertaining, great special effects. Bad science, in my opinion. I noticed the parallels with the current political "climate."



I agree. My wife and I really enjoy this movie, except for the leftwing politics that are obvious.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 14, 2007)

Some more criticism here.



> Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”


----------

