Barak Obama - Heir Apparant

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Have you been watching Fox? I always thought that argument to be ridiculous. When I first heard it I thought about it. In using that jet he is travelling from place to place to give lectures about global warming. If there was a renewable energy plane i'm sure he'd be using it, but there isn't, which is why he is spreading awareness of how there needs to be. I don't think cycling around the USA would get the message spread as fast and as boldly as he has done. I understand this point but I mean, wouldn't you rather people use private jets to save the environment than to shuttle them to their resort in the Gran Canaria and back every week? I am very aware of global warming myself, but I still drive a car because it's the only viable means of personal transport in my area. I guess I am happy with someone doing anything for the cause, as I recycle and save energy when I can, but does the fact that I drive a car nullify any other work i've done? His movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is a masterpiece IMO, there is very little about him in it, it is'nt self-serving in any way, just factual, with the evidence presented in an articulate and comprehensive manner. I'd recommend it to everyone.

No commmercial airlines? How hard would it be to secure most of the first class section of an airliner going where he needs to go? Do as I say, not as I do kinda thing, so far as I can tell, including the energy consumption at his home. To me, this would have made him "a forfeit", as I'm sure I'm not alone in considering Al a bit hypocritical.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard No commmercial airlines? How hard would it be to secure most of the first class section of an airliner going where he needs to go? Do as I say, not as I do kinda thing, so far as I can tell, including the energy consumption at his home. To me, this would have made him "a forfeit", as I'm sure I'm not alone in considering Al a bit hypocritical.

Well, this was a smear plan spread by Fox according to Gore's people. I recall hearing it and dismissed it immediately as inconsequential - even if it was true (which it isn't) for the reasons cited above.

His overall message does not lose importance or credibility, if not for him, then for us and our children, and our children's children. This was originally on his movie website message boards.

We should at least thank Al Gore for daring to care about the stupid planet while there is a war in Iran to plan. This is inevitably followed by a sneering diatribe on Gore's monthly utility bill. Well, the truth is that Al Gore practices what he preaches and he lead's an exemplary environmental lifestyle. Here are the facts, without the tired old right-wing distortions and lies. 1. Al Gore has recently completed renovations to make his residence a model "green" home. 2. This plan has been in the works for a long time and has only recently been made public because of attacks by the right. 3. Gore's home meets Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council. 4. Al Gore's neighborhood council had zoning laws that previously prohibited the installation of solar panels. That has now changed and Al Gore has installed solar panels on his roof. 5. He has installed a geothermal system that will drastically reduce the cost of his water heating. 6. He has upgraded his windows and ductwork for maximum energy efficiency. 7. He has installed energy-efficient light bulbs. 8. He has created a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management. 9. Al Gore drives a hybrid vehicle. 10. Al Gore's family has signed up for 100% percent green power through Green Power Switch. 11. Al Gore espouses a very consistent belief in purchasing carbon offsets to offset his family's carbon footprint. This is a concept the right-wing fails to understand and I suggest you do some reading before you discount it. 12. Al Gore flies commercial whenever possible. He is also an ex Vice President of the United States and receives numerous threats. Depending upon the security assessment and his schedule he is sometimes precluded from flying commercial. 13. Al Gore maintains his official office in his home which requires adequate staff and space. He's has no other offices, making it unnecessary to use energy in separate locations. 14. The Gores' energy bills are in line with others in their part of the country. They live in the South, where extreme heat and humidity make air-conditioning the main drain on energy usage. 15. The Gores purchase, at great expense to themselves, "green" energy for their home (green energy costs 50% more than energy from conventional sources). 16. One hundred percent of the profits from Al Gore's book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" are going to a new bi-partisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming in addition to having a thousand people offer his slide presentation to groups around the world. The purveyors of pseudo-scientific snake oil, are in reality politically motivated right-wing zealots and Ayn Rand "I'll do what I want when I want" disciples. They stand for enabling and protecting corporate profits at the expense of all of us. It's that simple. Pollution control and cleanup costs money, new technologies make their polluting one's obsolete. They can scream and yell from the highest mountaintop about how that is not true, and that won't change the reality . . . it is true. So is Al Gore's message.

[Cerek]

Here are a few other facts to consider about Al Gore, his energy consumption and his "Inconvenient Truth".

Al Gore has had plans to upgrade his home to green power and energy efficiency for a long time, but couldn't until now. Riiiiiiiiight! The translation is that Gore wasn't smart enough to anticipate critics researching his own energy consumption and had to come up with a backpedal explanation to cover his obvious hypocrisy (Do what I say, not what I do). Gore has been "passionate" about global warming since college, so why did he not build an energy efficient mansion to begin with? Why didn't he set the trend waaaay back when he became Governer of TN?

BTW, GWB's mansion back in TX was using green energy, water capture systems and all the other measures Al Gore is implementing now - only he was doing it before Gore made his "shockumentary" film.

As for the purchasing of carbon offsets, that is the biggest frikken scam I've heard of recently. Why? Because the owner of the company that sells these "carbon offsets" is....dum da da duummm...Al Gore! (at least a controlling interest). In other words, Al says "Everyone must start using less energy. But if you don't use less energy (like me), you should at least buy carbon offsets (which happen to be sold by a company I helped found)." Talk about your double-dipping.

As for having an office in his home to "save energy", that's bullocks. This is a BS explanation to justify his own exorbitant energy usage. It was originally intended as a justification for his higher energy bills, but we can assume he would still be running the air conditioning and other appliances whether staff was there or not, so the office staff usage was just a smokescreen. The same applies to the energy that is being "saved" by NOT having them in a separate office building. Since that office space is likely being used by some other company, not having his staff there is not "saving" ANY energy consumption. It just prevents the consumption from being traced back to him. However, since his home is out in the suburbs, what should be factored in is the effect of gasoline used by all those staff members to drive out to his mansion rather than to an office downtown. And I doubt all the staff members drive a hybrid vehicle.

And as for his "shockumentary", an English judge last year ruled the film contained at least 9 serious flaws and/or outright lies regarding the danger and effect of global warming. This was done in response to schools wishing to show the film in classrooms across England. The veracity of the information was called into question and the matter was taken to England court system. After hearing expert testimony from different sources, the judge concluded the film contained a minimum of 9 flaws and/or outright lies regarding the urgency and effect of global warming. He ruled the film could be shown in English classrooms only if it was prefaced with a disclaimer listing these refuted assertions made by the film.

Al Gore is brilliant, in a sense. He is a brilliant salesman. He created a film containing half-truths and exaggerated claims of global disaster and received a Nobel Prize for his work of fiction. If nothing else, you gotta tip your hat to the shell game he pulled off.

[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."

[Ilander]

Well...it's this debate exactly why he was never considered for VP again...the nation feels just like we do. Completely waffled over a millionaire who uses more energy than we do to tell us to use less energy because it's the right thing to do, since even a small event, if copied 300 million times has a huge impact.

So, I was thinking today...are the conservatives going to string McCain out to dry, come November?

[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

[SpiritWarrior]

You're right, it certainly is biased. It's a blog afterall - someones online opinion. I could make a blog saying the opposite and then link that here. A blog has no real context screening standard and cannot be contested if the writer doesn't listen to feedback or care to be accurate.
Our sources differ. According to wikipidea on "The Dimmock Case" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconve...e_Dimmock_case), the judge concluded that "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine 'errors', i.e. statements that he found to depart from the mainstream.
See, they added more errors in that blog. I did take a look at it and some of them are questionable at best. Just with a very brief glance of my non-expert eye, I immediately spotted two suspicious "errors", which coincidentally happens to bring the number back to nine. While some are accurate, many seem to be creative interpretations of the truth, that really could not be decided either way. Yet, alot of the time in these cases they'd dismiss claims that are unproven, as 100% untrue. Hardly open-minded or nuetral. Like this, for example:

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

I have seen numerous documentaries on National Geographic about how global warming is threatening Polar Bears. This drowning situation is always cited, and footage is shown of them half dead as crewman try to help them. To me, this is a sure inaccuracy. Some Polar Bears may die in storms, maybe those ones did, but this situation with increased mortality rate due to them being forced to dive longer as a result of sea ice shrinkage has and is happening. If they discovered that it is totally untrue then I think they forgot to inform the rest of the woirld and the National Geographic channel.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Then there's this. I don't know if the claim is true or not but when a court is unable to substantiate something it is unable to substantiate it. Why does it suddenly become false simply because no-one knows for sure? Usually it is determined that not enough evidence is present and so they can't press charges on a criminal for example. Odd that it was different here. Spin? I don't know, but something is up with that.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

I have an issue with this one too, even though for the most part it's true. That's the problem, the movie "suggests" that this could have caused the hurricane. I never once took that as him having evidence, because we all know there can only be expert speculation in this case and nobody knows for sure. What the movie did point out is the hurricanes and other natural disasters are becoming more frequent, which they are.

[SpiritWarrior]

I amn't sure about the Snopes articles. I did a review search on the site and alot of reviewers seem to think it is less than nuetral. But, I will go with it for now and see how it pans out. The info. I pasted from his site's message boards did say that he indeed had a massive "green" project in the works for his house at the time, and has since completed that project. So I don't get how that energy consumption makes sense unless it was before that date.

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 am interested in seeing more about GWB's ranch. Any photos etc.? I am actually pleasantly surprised about his "green" home if this is the case. If it is indeed true, then he is almost the reverse of what you claim Al Gore is: A person who practices it in his home, but not in his office or presidency at all. Food for thought.

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?

This discussion also leads to me ask two more of you.

1) Have you seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

2) Do you believe Global Warming is an issue?

[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.

[SpiritWarrior]

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.

I know you didn't claim Bush as a champion for global warming, I was simply comparing. I amn't sure what Al Gore did while in office (like I said I paid little attention to him until I saw this movie), and unless we have actual proof that he did "practically nothing", then we cannot come a real conclusion. Opinion is one thing. I'm sure there are logs of everything he was involved in pertaining to the environment (bills, protocols, speeches) but this would require quite a bit of digging and time, alongside a fair and unbiased eye so as to avoid cherry-picking results. Kyoto itself is monumental. It is sad to say it, but the miniscule amounts of emissions it aims for are something rather than nothing. In this day and age, and as far as the environmental awareness goes, that is a giant step. It's just a pity GW didn't get on board...

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.

It was a little more than a few thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
"Earning $49 million at the box office worldwide, An Inconvenient Truth is the fourth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States (in nominal dollars, from 1982 to the present)"

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.

Well, you didn't see the movie and don't intend to. In effect, all you have is second-hand info. to argue with. We don't know where the info. and opinions you are going with came from and how this information could have possibly been "tainted" also. The movie is hardly about marketing and preaching the virtues of buying carbon offsets, it is mentioned I think once, maybe? In my view like I said, I felt it wasn't self-promoting and was quite selfless. There are easier ways for the former VP to make cash, come on.

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.

But here we get to the root issue. If the movie was flawless you still could not get behind it, and would always disagree with the overall message because you don't believe in it to begin with.

I do understand to some degree, per the points you made, as to why you don't believe, but look at it this way; we don't have another planet to run the experiment on. Therefore, can we afford to take the risk of it not being true? Let's think awhile on our answers here and understand that they will have to be written down and passed on to our children for their kids to read, explaining the reasoning as to why we didn't bother to do anything because we thought it was all one big hoax.