Please explain something to me....
What does a movie about global warming have to do with peace? Especially when said movie contains numerous inaccuracies.
Oh, and in case everyone had forgotten, Gore argued against signing Kyoto.
Oh, and in case everyone had forgotten, Gore argued against signing Kyoto.
I suppose you could argue that global warming, desertification, and climate change have the potential to be serious factors influencing world conflict, the same way HIV has been in Haiti and sub-saharan Africa.
The inaccuracies don't really bother me. Science always has inaccuracies. Newton still gets credit for gravity even though his theory didn't account for frame-dragging. Darwin gets credit for evolution even though he didn't understand genetics, and Mendel gets credit for genetics even though his theory didn't account for nucleotide sequences. Science cares a lot more about progressive refinements - "pushing the ball forward" - than absolute accuracy because the ball is always being pushed forward which means we're always approaching better accuracy.
It's also worth noting that Al Gore has done a lot more for climate change than just "An Inconvenient Truth". He's been doing work in this area since he started holding congressional hearings back in the 1980s.
ps; Where are you getting "Gore argued against signing Kyoto"? I can find no evidence of this.
In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[64][65] He was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".[67] On November 12, 1998, Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[68] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Reply
And there is a difference between not knowing about something (as in Newton's, Darwin's, or Mendel's cases), and blatant falsehoods.
And the VP can't sign treaties anyway, so it was an empty symbol.
Reply
I'm sure that Glenn Beck has a few seconds of out-of-context video in which Al Gore said something stupid. That doesn't change the fact that there are decades of public record in which Al Gore pushed climate change awareness and extensive documentation of his support for Kyoto.
And there is a difference between not knowing about something (as in Newton's, Darwin's, or Mendel's cases), and blatant falsehoods.
You're telling me that you can not only explain where Al Gore is producing "blatant falsehoods" but can prove that he knew at the time he said them that he knew what he was saying was wrong? I'm all ears.
And the VP can't sign treaties anyway, so it was an empty symbol.
And that changes things how? We're not arguing whether Al Gore made the United States a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, we're arguing whether "Gore argued against signing Kyoto." Making a big public (albeit empty) gesture of signing the treaty wasn't exactly an argument against it.
Reply
And you're the only one arguing anything. I'm simply answering a question you asked. I'm also maintaining my position that he was a foolish choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Reply
Got a pointer to this? (DVD title, air date, etc.)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment