[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Well, let's see some evidence concerning the above statements/opinions. Links, photos etc. (preferably not from bloggers or pundents but rather, hard proof). I am hardly biased, I didn't like Gore until I saw his impressionable film. I always thought of him as boring before this. Some quick points... I don't think he's that braindead as to make a movie about global warming but never once think that anyone would look at his house. I'm not talking media even, just for example a person visiting him who liked his movie and possibly wanted to discuss it. In the film, he is flying commerical alot, I don't know if it's an act for the movie which some may then suggest (?), but why even show him flying from airport to airport if it was something he wanted to hide? 100% profits from the film were put into an educational program for schools about environmental issues. If he wanted to hit big, why make a film then give the profits away? I know nothing about the ownership of the carbon offset companies, and if he owns it. This is another instance where we need proof. I could rant on about how Bush is in bed with the oil companies and is steered by special interests all day every day but y'know... Just to clarify, the judge in that case came to the conclusion that the film is basically accurate, save for 9 errors/exaggerations, but emphasized that the overall message was true and valid. Thousands of those copies were offered to schools absloutely free. Also thousands were offered to American schools for free, they were refused most likely due to the smear tactics run by Fox and friends on Gore. I don't understand it, what does it matter if all the smears are true? Isn't the overall message noble, selfless? Would it hurt to make people, our kids and our grandkids aware? Do we suddenly stop listening to that song we love if the artist says something we don't agree with? To end with a quote, "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

"Just to clarify", the judge in that case determined that teachers who chose to show the film to their students must inform the students beforehand that the film is a "political work and only tells one side of the story". He further determined any teacher who did not preface the movie with this disclaimer would be in violation of the British Education Code and would be guitly of political indoctrination. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the film.

The judge also determined there were 11 "material inaccuracies" contained within the film. In non-legalese, that means there were 11 outright lies in the film. There were also other misleading statistics in the film, but they weren't considered serious enough to be labeled "material inaccuracies". In other words, they were only little lies or partial lies that didn't meet the full definition of "material inaccuracy".

The article is too long to post so I've provided a link.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...nvenient-truth

Of course, I'm certain that source will be "attacked" as biased with the "logical conclusion" being that any information there should be discounted. Wrong. The site does admittedly put a bias spin on some of the information, but it does NOT and CAN not, put a "spin" on the judges' decision about the the existence of the material inaccuracies. No matter how a source "spins" the fact that the film contains at least 11 "material inaccuracies", that does not change the fact that those inaccuracies actually exist within the film. Now, you can choose to ignore those inaccuracies if you wish, but that doesn't eliminate their existence.

As for Al Gore's carbon offsets, here is a link exposing his personally vested interest in convincing consumers to buy from (t)his company.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54528

As the article correctly points out, Al Gore not only is essentially paying himself for his carbon offsets, he also has a significant personal interest in convincing others to purchase offsets from his company as well.

So let's pause to look at a few facts for a moment.
Al Gore created a political film predicting catastrophic disasters due to man-made global warming. At least 11 of his "catastrophic claims" were proven in court to be "materially inaccurate".
Al Gore claims to be passionate about halting global warming, yet did nothing to actually affect global warming during the 8 years he was VP and had the perfect opportunity to DO something about his supposed life, long passion. The only global warming measure put into effect during the Clinton/Gore administration was the Kyoto Treaty. This measures agreed upon in that treaty will reduce global warming by a grand total of .07% overall, and Clinton/Gore tried to get more exemptions for placed into the treaty than are already there.

Regarding Al Gore's personal energy use, here is a link from a source everyone should be able to agree is unbiased...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

The snopes article concludes that Gore's energy use is closer to 12 times the national average rather than the exaggerated claim of 20 times the average. It is also higher than other homes in the area, but snopes does take into consideration mitigating factors (like the home office) and concludes that Gore's usage is relatively the same as other homes in the area. Of course, what snopes does not factor is the energy consumption of the staffers who have to drive the extra distance to Gore's home instead of a centrally located office. It also doesn't consider the fact that none of Gore's neighbors fly around the globe warning about the catastrophic effects of global warming and telling everyone else to use less energy. As the quoted article on the snopes site says, Al Gore needs to walk the walk, which he has only recently taken steps to do.

Finally, here is the comparison between Al Gore's house and GWB's ranch. Again, the source is snopes and there is no denying that GWB was actually "walking the walk" better than Al Gore.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp