[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Let's not even talk about Bush and Kyoto protocol, lol. I remember him saying he opposed it because of the "strain it would put on the economy". I guess he opted to use the economy for cheaper things like the Iraq War. Clinton/Gore left the US treasury with a surplus when they left. Look at the economy now.

I didn't claim Bush was a champion of global warming and the environment. Then again, neither has he. What is important about the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Al Gore (who does promote himself as a champion of global warming) is that this is the ONLY measure he and/or Clinton even attempted during their 8 years in office with respect to cleaning up the environment - and they tried to get more exemptions put into the Protocol so it wouldn't have as much of an impact on American corporations.

The point being that - while Gore was in the position do really DO something great and effective about global warming - he did practically nothing. And he tried to lessen the impact of the one measure he and President Clinton did sign off on.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I am still awaiting an answer to my most important question which I posted previously. 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?

If all the smears are true, then the message is tainted. And in Al Gore's case, it has been shown that his motives are hardly "noble" and "selfless". He owns a major share of the company he wants everyone to buy carbon offsets from. Since this business focuses on investments in "green technology", it is very self-serving for Gore to fly around the globe raising the alarm of global warming as loudly and as often as possible. Even if consumers don't buy the carbon offsets, there will be a push for the "green technology" the company invests in. Either way, Al Gore's stock in the company goes way up. So, no, that doesn't sound "selfless" to me.

All the proceeds from Inconvenient Truth went to environmental causes? Whoop-De-freekin-Do. How much money did the film actually make? Several thousand dollars, maybe? Only a portion of that would have gone to Gore in any case. For a multi-millionaire like Gore, this income is hardly missed. So, again, it's a win-win for Gore. He gains the appearance of donating to a worthy cause in support of his own global warming efforts while "sacrificing" an income that would amount to little more than a pittance to him.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior This discussion also leads to me ask two more of you. 1) Have you seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

No. I have not seen it and I have no plans to see it. I place Al Gore firmly in the same category as Michael Moore - a person who makes politically motivated films showing one side of the story and twisting the facts to exaggerate the "EEEEEVIL" of those that disagree with the message. If these films were presented as political op ed pieces, that would be more honost. Instead, they are listed as "documentaries", implying an [i]impartial[/b] presentation of the facts. Any google for lies and misleading content in their films will yield a plethora of results. Bowling for Columbine is a perfect example. Moore used creative editing (splicing different speeches made at different times and presenting them as one speech), half truths (regarding the NRA meeting in Denver shortly after the Columbine shooting) and outright lies (demanding an apology from Charlten Heston for an event he had absolutely no connection with or responsibility for). His beratement of Heston is even more heinous since it was known by then that Heston was suffering Alzheimer's. Moore sadistically tried to use that to his advantage by demanding an apology for an event he knew Heston would not remember (since he never did what Moore accused him of).

Back to Al Gore, he has admitted that global warming scientists in general DO exaggerate the dangers and effects of global warming to deliberately raise "alarm" over the issue. He has also admitted to exaggerating the facts himself. And now a judge has ruled there are 9 "material innaccuracies" in
Gore's mockumentary film. You claim that "unsubstantiated" doesn't necessarily mean a claim was false. However, that also doesn't mean it is necessarily true. What it means is that particular fact did not meet the required standard to be deemed a "material inaccuracy". Again, many of Moore's own antics would not meet that criteria (Moore is very, very careful about that), but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE intentionally misleading. Given the fact that at least 9 errors WERE found in a film that should contain NONE, it is reasonable to assume that many other inaccuracies occurred, but didn't meet the strict standards of the court's definition.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior 2) Do you believe Global Warming is an issue?

Honostly? No, I don't. All of the alarmist exaggerations over the last 30 years have left me more than a little skeptical of any current claims. Al Gore claims CO2 levels are higher than ever and this is the fault of man-made industries. Data has been provided which proves CO2 levels have been this high in centuries past and occurred long before mankind ever came close to the Industrial Revolution. If man IS responsible for the CO2 levels, then these levels should NEVER have occurred before. Since they DID occur when there was literally NO INDUSTRY at all, the claim that man is causing the current crises simply cannot be believed.
In the 1970's, temperatures were cooler than normal. Back then, the environmental alarm was that we were headed for another Ice Age. Then temperatures warmed up. Rather than be embarassed by their reverse occurance of their alarmist predictions, environmentalists just flipped the record over and now started claiming the ozone depletion was going to lead to the sun burning Earth to a crisp. When evidence was presented to counter that alarmist claim, environmentalist switched to a more generalized alarm call of global warming.

The Amazon forest has been "burning down" for at least 25 years that I can recall, and probably longer than that. Thunderous bells of alarm were rang in the 80's that global disasters were inevitable in the next 20 years if the burning of the forest was stopped immediately. Twenty five years later, environmentalist STILL make the same claims, ignoring the fact that their initial timeline for disaster expired. They simply keep regurgitating the message figuring the new generation won't remember that the same alarms were being raised before they were born.

So, do I think global warming is an issue on the scale Al Gore and others would have us believe? No, I don't.