Al Gore may not be running for political office at this time, but there is no doubt he was involved in the movie for his personal political gain. Just like when he INVENTED the internet.

I have read both sides of the story on the global warming issue and certainly don't know enough to offer an opinion. I do have an opinion on Al Gore's credibility: It's very low and if anything; his endorsement on the global warming issue is hurting the cause...

Never mind the accuracy or lack thereof of the film, I think this is the scary part:

Right there, the association is saying that by presenting something contrary to the opinions of one of their supporters, they risk losing that supporter's contributions. This indicates that these are NOT just "gifts in kind" as someone above suggested.

This is what's wrong with corporate donations - they ALL have an agenda. Whether explicit or implied, those on the receiving end know better than to bite the hand that feeds. This leads to tainted or slanted information being placed in curriculums, and therefore into classrooms.

And I'm sure it's not just big oil or tobacco doing stuff like this, I'm sure it comes from special interest groups on all ends of the spectrum. The only solution is to disallow corporate donations, which means the gov't has to step up to the plate to up the funding. And even then you'll always get the bias of the current governing party in the curriculum. My wife (an elementary school teacher) and I have discussed this at length, because it seems every time we get a new provincial government here in Ontario the curriculum (or at least parts of it) get rewritten. Not that it shouldn't ever be updated, but it should be done by an arms-length gov't body, independent of the bias of the ruling party.

that's the part i find mind boggeling....

Really? I guess it's who you read. I thought there was widespread agreement on the core message, but that the science behind one or two statistics was disputed.

In any case the film ends (as the credits roll) with a practical list of things that anyone can do to lessen their individual impact on the environment. That list alone would be worth impressing on our children.

I think that the point here is that the film is simply not scientific at all and has been widely disputed by the scientific community.

Is the idea here that it's ok to have our kids watch a film that has false claims in it just because it makes us feel good?

It's funny how the same group that says you shouldn't teach creationism in school because it isn't scientific want to push Gore's movie even though it isn't scientific.

If the school said they wouldn't show a factual and accurate documentary on global warming because they were afraid of Exxon's response I might raise an eyebrow, but I don't think it is unreasonable for Exxon to have the opinion that millions of American youth (their future customers) should not be watching an inaccurate film about global warming in school.

What group is that? It was the producers of the movie that wanted the film being shown in school, not the scientists. And though they may be wrong, clearly the producers believe the film *is* indeed scientific. So even if it were the same group, there's no double standard there.

I think it's completely unreasonable, in fact downright appalling, that Exxon (or any other corporation) has any opinion, say or influence on what American (or any other) kids are learning, watching or hearing in school.

Actually, in the case of "The Passion of the Christ", I think that the opposite is true. There is pretty wide spread agreement on the parts of the historical and scientific communities that a man named Joshua from Nazerith was tried in a Roman court by a Roman Governor by the name of Pontious Pilate, and also in a Jewish court, and was condemned to death by crucifixion. One of many such cases that occured in 1st century BCE.

It's in the interpretation of that man's core message, and what happened 3 days later which seems to be disputed.

So how do we find out who's right?

In the film Gore addresses this very point, and lists something like 500 scientific papers - all of which agree with his thesis and none of which disagree.

Gore claims that 99% of the serious scientific community backs his conclusions - and the naysayers are all in the pocket of Big-Oil.

I am no fan of Gore, and neither am I a scientist who could evaluate his claims independently - but his core message sounded very, very convincing.

From my untutored perspective the thrust of the film is 150% right. We are incredibly wasteful with fossil fuels. There is much we could do to lessen our negative impact on the external environment. There are climatic trends that are very disturbing - and at least in large measure (if not entirely) these trends are exacerbated by the indifference that most people/corporations/nations show towards environmental protection.

Surely there is nothing controversial about these core propositions. Surely we should make our children aware of these concerns. Surely we can find 90 minutes in the school year for this.

And does anyone seriously believe that the entire science behind this film is unsound? That would make this film one of the biggest swindles in recent memory - and I just don't buy that.

While I think this film dabbles in fear-mongering to an extent and would not be surprised if some of the "facts" that Gore presents don't hold up to scrutiny, I think the underlying message is important.

Whether we like it or not, the Earth is growing warmer. There is simply too much evidence to suggest differently. Is man the cause of it? I don't know. Can man change this course? I personally doubt it although I agree with John that limiting production of greenhouse gases, etc., is a noble thing to do.

You can shoot the messenger (Gore) all you like, but it doesn't change the evidence around us.

Mike

And all this time I thought that divergent views are all eligible for discussion without being dismissed "out of hand". Seems as if that is only true when the views presented are the same as the viewer or listener. Anything that does not fit into a tidy little box with a bow is "hogwash" and "junk science". Heck, the world was once flat; the stars and planets revolved around the earth on crystal spheres, and all the other "beliefs" of the past. People were put to death for surmising that stars were other suns and there might be life elsewhere in the Universe.

Critical thought -- that is assuming that there even is a "right" answer.

Quote:

In the film Gore addresses this very point, and lists something like 500 scientific papers - all of which agree with his thesis and none of which disagree.

Al Gore says this knowing that virtually nobody will ever check the "500 scientific papers". I would be very shocked if you could 500 scientific papers that agree on any scientific subject that is less then 30 years old.

Quote:

Gore claims that 99% of the serious scientific community backs his conclusions - and the naysayers are all in the pocket of Big-Oil.

Once again, uncheckable numbers -- which is another way of saying that these are his opinion. Has he done a scientific survey of a randomly selected group of scientists in the scientific community. Does Gore even understand what it is I'm talking about?

Quote:

I am no fan of Gore, and neither am I a scientist who could evaluate his claims independently - but his core message sounded very, very convincing.

Gee. Gore is a politician. It is their "stock in trade" to be able to sound convincing about almost anything. Politicians can sound convicing about anything from defense spending to the justification of multi-million dollar bridge connecting two small Alaskan communities.

Quote:

From my untutored perspective the thrust of the film is 150% right. We are incredibly wasteful with fossil fuels. There is much we could do to lessen our negative impact on the external environment. There are climatic trends that are very disturbing - and at least in large measure (if not entirely) these trends are exacerbated by the indifference that most people/corporations/nations show towards environmental protection.

That's fine. SmileWavy Aside from your use of percentages, I understand your point.

Quote:

Surely there is nothing controversial about these core propositions.

Here's where we disagree. There is certainly something controversial about decisions such as these when they impact real people's jobs, savings, costs of living, etc. Especially when they are mine!

Quote:

Surely we should make our children aware of these concerns. Surely we can find 90 minutes in the school year for this.

You can teach your kids anything that you want. I take time to discuss social responsiblities with my daughters. But if you want to take time from my daughters' study of the essentials to make a demonstration of bad scientific reasoning, you will run into opposition from me.

Quote:

And does anyone seriously believe that the entire science behind this film is unsound? That would make this film one of the biggest swindles in recent memory - and I just don't buy that.

Is the "entire" science unsound? No. As I said, it is substantially unsound. That is not to say that there isn't some sound science in it, but no where near enough to justify the personal investment in time to sit through it. To put it differently, the bad science far outweighs the good science in that film. And given the widespread availability of good science in the world, why waste time with bad science?

It really scares me what people accept as "the truth." I know people who actually believe Michael Moore and his "documentaries" are "the truth". :rolleyes:

Gore is a politician....So is Newt, who lately has jumped on the "science" bandwagon. So, what is the problem? Can a politician be a scientist? an economist? Before they became "politicians" they were most likely something else. One label does not negate another.

Personally, I would rather err on the side of caution and at least consider that there is such a thing as "global warming", no matter what the cause and plan for it. Wouldn't it have been far better if the various governments had planned for something like Katrina which all meterologists said was a possibility rather than waiting it to happen and proving their incompetence? Ignoring a potential problem does not make it go away; that is simply "wishful thinking".

It is not so much that mankind can reverse a trend of nature; it is a matter of devising ways to live with change.

Do you see any pitchforks and torches around here??? http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/2ar15.gif

This is known as civil discourse. Unlike some places in the world were a discussion such as this would result in 10's of thousand of demonstrators pouring out onto the streets burning effigies of the person they disagree with. For some reason people mistake rigorous debate with lynching.

There is a big difference between the two.

So John, help me out here.

I saw the film. I read your critical observations above.

I am a layman, but I have thought critically about both your comments and the film. I have no idea why I should believe your science over that in Gore's film.

That said it seems to me quite incredible to argue against the central message of the film - for reasons I have set out above.

I may incidentally have exaggerated the number of "500" scientific papers. (I cannot recollect how many there actually where - but it was a lot.) There is the specific passage in the film where he throws up some slides of all of the scientific papers on topic that have been published - and ALL of these support his thesis. I cannot believe this is 100% BS.

I don't accept every statistic in the film as "true". I don't have any basis for doing so. But I entirely accept the central message of the film as true and important viz. that the rapid industrialization of the last century has had a significant negative impact on climate and environment - and it is time that we focus on reducing that impact.

hypocrite  / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Does this discribe a person who believes in global warming and that we "need" to get our emission levels down to where they were pre-1970, but yet drives a Porsche that is 20+ years old? Probably doesn't even have a functioning cat. ;)

Really?

Civility is a thin veneer. Sooner or later..........

Point is: Where some may say that definite "proof" does not exist, there is enough "evidence" to conclude that "times are a changin'".

Was there a problem with my post? Do not people tend to dismiss that with which they do not agree, whether it be a principle or another person? As for pitchforks and torches, we are a far too sophisticated group. More subtle means are employed!!!

<G>

Now there's a statement that's complete hogwash. But it's a good debating technique. I'll see your broad, out-of-hand denial and up you one..

It's widely known that the tiny, tiny fragment of the scientific community that denies human involvement in global warming is funded directly or indirectly by oil, power or other industries reliant on the consumption of fossil fuel.

here's a great site to get info on the "global warming deniers"

Funny, actually - one of the most outspoken global warming "scientists" is the same guy hired by the tobacco industry in the 60's to deny the tobacco-lung cancer link....

too funny if it weren't sooo sad and the stakes weren't sooo high.

Here's a name for you - one of the leading "scientific deniers" of global warming. His bio and quotes. I guess if you buy one of his denials you should buy them all....

Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna)

...is an atmospheric physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit group which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change. The group is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between smoking and lung cancer, and between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. Singer has also worked with organisations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

In 1994 Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), of which he was a Senior Fellow.[4] The report attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science".

Ah, so you look to "DeSmogBlog" as your source to debunk those who happen to disagree with the notion that fossil fuels are the main contributor to global warming. The same "DeSmogBlog" that says their mission is to clean up the PR pollution surrounding the debate which they say is engineered by big oil

Wow, nice choice of non-biased site there...might as well cite AlGoreRules.org!

Just to clarify: I don't think there are many scientists who would dispute that the mean temperature of the earth is in fact increasing. What is in dispute is whether greenhouse gases are the cause of that warming, to what (if any) extent fossil fuel emissions are responsible for that warming, whether the warming is due partly or wholly to intrinsic warming and cooling trends of the earth that have been present for millions of years, and finally, what, if anything, we can do about it.