Al Gore wins Oscar! BEST DOCUMENTARY!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Al Gore did not win an oscar.

That is correct. He wasn't listed as a producer. He didn't get the Oscar, a film he played a major role in did. But the Oscar did not go to Al Gore.

He wasn't even supposed to be allowed to speak, let alone for so long without the music coming up in the background.

[Ardentfrost]

ib.liberal hollywood

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

changing "nothing about" to "little about" and that is exactly what an IC did, and why its a good chance he'll get a Nobel Peace prize in addition to the Oscar

It's a good thing the Nobel Peace Prize lost credibility once the Norwegian government started being political about it.

And one would have to be a fucking dullard to not recognize how liberal Hollywood is, especially when the loudest political voices in the entertainment sector all happen to be liberal, i.e., Susan Serandan, George Clooney, Rosie O'Donnel, Alec Baldwin, et al., plus let's not forget our tubby little friend Michael Moore. Speaking of, didn't he win Best Documentary a couple times as well?


Jesus Camp was hardly one of the best, but at least it was a documentary. An Inconvenient Truth, regardless of the topic being discussed in it, was complete and utter shit. This is just another reason why the Oscars shouldn't be meddling with things that require people to actually be intelligent.


PS-
I remember before An Inconvenient Truth came out, I told you that I saw a private screening of it and said that he never cites his sources and he incessantly uses the phrase, "My scientist friends tell me..." At the time, you didn't believe me. I figured now is as good of a time as any to ask, did you choke on your hat when I made you eat it?

[Thorgrim]

His film changed that attitudes of millions of people, and helped them to do either do research on their own or some other cause that got the issue to the forefront of american politics

It could be the early turning point in a battle to save mankind from disaster, much more important than anything else done he past year or so

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

His film changed that attitudes of millions of people, and helped them to do either do research on their own or some other cause that got the issue to the forefront of american politics

It could be the early turning point in a battle to save mankind from disaster, much more important than anything else done he past year or so

He's certainly pulled himself back together over the past few years. He really went to hell for a few years after the 2000 election, but now he seems to be a very likable guy.

[northhunter]

Or more likely it could have been nothing more or less than another political statement from hollywood. Giving the same award to Michael Moore removed any credibilty.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by northhunter

Or more likely it could have been nothing more or less than another political statement from hollywood. Giving the same award to Michael Moore removed any credibilty.

Somehow I think Born into Brothels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would disagree with you, especially considering 2002 no one thought of Moore as an outrageous film maker, when I first saw bowling I didn't think he was left wing at all...he made a big point about canada owning a lot of guns and it not being a problem

F911 didn't even get nominated

[RMNIXON]

Since I came under fire for posting this in the global warming thread I will move it here:


Here is interesting story about AL Gore:

"In 1991....Will Harper (government scientist) who took leave from Princeton and Jason (DOD Advisory Group) to direct the Department of Energy's Office of Science, said publically that Vice President Al Gore's claims of environmentally dangerous amounts of ultraviolet light hitting the ground were based on unreliable measurements, then proposed to make more reliable measurements and was fired."

Source: "The JASONS: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite" by Ann Finkbeiner 2006.

That tells me just about all I need to know about Al Gore on this issue. Not that I wont listen to more rational voices.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

His film changed that attitudes of millions of people, and helped them to do either do research on their own or some other cause that got the issue to the forefront of american politics

It could be the early turning point in a battle to save mankind from disaster, much more important than anything else done he past year or so

So hyped emotional distortions of an important scientific issue are a good thing? Brings credibility to the problem?


Reason Magazine - An Inconvenient Truth

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Since I came under fire for posting this in the global warming thread I will move it here:


Here is interesting story about AL Gore:

"In 1991....Will Harper (government scientist) who took leave from Princeton and Jason (DOD Advisory Group) to direct the Department of Energy's Office of Science, said publically that Vice President Al Gore's claims of environmentally dangerous amounts of ultraviolet light hitting the ground were based on unreliable measurements, then proposed to make more reliable measurements and was fired."

Source: "The JASONS: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite" by Ann Finkbeiner 2006.

That tells me just about all I need to know about Al Gore on this issue. Not that I wont listen to more rational voices.

wow, someone published a book, and all we know is

1) Someone may have been fired because of something they did

anyone can get a book published, and you can say pretty much anything about a public figure unless it not only defames them but has "reckless malice" a basically impossible standard where you have to prove in court to a judge that there was a scheme to bring down a person and the sole purpose was to hurt them and they took facts and disregarded them...if you fail any part of that test you are guiltless

so, sorry if I don't believe you

the books i read are generally by "Oxford University Press" and other top-knotch publishers that do vigorous fact-checking and peer-review

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

His film changed that attitudes of millions of people, and helped them to do either do research on their own or some other cause that got the issue to the forefront of american politics

It could be the early turning point in a battle to save mankind from disaster, much more important than anything else done he past year or so

Changed attitudes of millions?

[lew]

I liked Bowling for Columbine.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the books i read are generally by "Oxford University Press" and other top-knotch publishers that do vigorous fact-checking and peer-review

Hard to believe given that you also read Kos.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the books i read are generally by "Oxford University Press" and other top-knotch publishers that do vigorous fact-checking and peer-review

The smugness in this thread is amazing.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So hyped emotional distortions of an important scientific issue are a good thing? Brings credibility to the problem?


Reason Magazine - An Inconvenient Truth

It's pretty invigorating to know that your far-out libertarian magazine, and its hit piece, have nothing on him

Gore says specifically "IF this goes" and everyone around me knew it was only a minor possibility, I don't have the exact words but if you see the movie you'll know

Still, the main point is that it doesn't matter if its a minor possibility because ITS NOT STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT and IT'S THE WAY WE ARE HEADED...are we resigned to just giving up florida and new york...?

cites a minor point in gore's movie, that they admit just is not 100% certain, a russian study not dealing with man-made global warming says 6000 years ago there may also have been a spike, which misses the point entirely that the significance is such a large spike over such a short period of time, the study said nothing like "in only several decades, temp rose..." so the point is moot and the author seems to realize this

everyone agrees global warming will hurt polar bears...he doesn't seem to actually get around to making a point...

europe had a heat wave before that intense...ok...and it rained hard in texas...again the author doesn't make any "aha!" claims, he just seems to be mounting a defensive retreat while sustaining minimum losses

hurricanes and global warming is being debated...no kidding! That must be why Al Gore never called it a fact

Then they admit Gore was right about temps...good job reason

then, there's a counter interpretation to gore's CO2 demonstration, not that Gore is wrong, just that there's another way to look at things...truely devastating

they bring up vaccines, and we all know they are a fraud! seriously though, he makes no point on diseases, ofcourse diseases aren't totally isolated except due to geography in modern times of jet travel, Gore's point was that there was a world wide expansion from neighboring regions and other areas, not that if someone gets sick in NY its global warming

"Perhaps some global warming skeptics are paid advocates (liars), but many are not. " No proof, and ofcourse we all know exxon mobil is giving out buckets of money to anyone for refuting the scientific communities consensus

yes, in 1991 there was a lot less evidence than after 15 years of study, shocking

In the end, even the libertarian gore haters have to say:

On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science

There only complaint is that by bringing up possible future problems, he is being alarmist, which is somehow bad science? I never knew talking about possibilities and saying they were possibilities was a bad thing to do in science


Seriously though, that is the best gore hit piece ive seen yet, and like the others, its pretty fucking pathetic

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

His film changed that attitudes of millions of people,

So did Hitler's speeches. ()

and helped them to do either do research on their own or some other cause that got the issue to the forefront of american politics

That just means he's a good politician, i.e., he's doing his fucking job as a POLITICIAN.

It could be the early turning point in a battle to save mankind from disaster, much more important than anything else done he past year or so

It could also be the early turning point that will involve wasting economic resources that we don't have.

[Ardentfrost]

Are we still talking bad about him getting an oscar, or possibly a Nobel Peace Prize? Because even if global warming is true, Gore getting a peace prize for starting a path to enviro-enlightenment for a million people means DICK compared so saving BILLIONS of starving people like my previous example. And Borlaug was saving and teaching (how to farm) in the millions when Gore was still in diapers. 20 years later and a billion+ people saved from the real threat of hunger, and he gets the nobel peace prize... and then, he certainly didn't stop. He's saved billions more since then. Even now at 93 years old the man tries to spread the wheat to hungry countries (mostly through getting other people involved, but the man is old, give him a break ). And Gore will get a peace prize for his work over a 10 year span of time (concentrated in the past 5 years)?

That insults my brain.

I don't really care too much about it getting an oscar, though I think calling it a documentary is a stretch. It's more like a scary bedtime story as read by Al Gore. It's full of "This is happening, which means this might happen." That's not a documentary at all, and by giving it that title, it misleads the audience... but it's not the first time it's happened.

I just think a documentary about enviro-conscious people would be more effective. Set it up like "Family A does this which takes very little time out of their schedule and it helps the environment in this way." Even expand it out so that if 50% of the population did it, it would help this much and if everyone did it it would help that much... That at least gives people goals and lets them know in what ways they can help.

[Thorgrim]

Then he should have gotten the Peace Prize 20 years ago...and I really doubt we'd be a 20% or so drop in population if it wasn't for his efforts...I mean really, a billion more dead?

This year, who did something specific, that guys sounds great, give him a prize...but why this year, why not any of the last 20 years...because Al Gore wasn't nominated? Now that he is we have to find every person who ever did anything good on the earth and try to screw over Al Gore?

I have no idea what rules of a documentary you think it violates, but its a much better documentary than most other documentaries ive ever seen from a film-making standpoint

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

wow, someone published a book, and all we know is

1) Someone may have been fired because of something they did

anyone can get a book published, and you can say pretty much anything about a public figure unless it not only defames them but has "reckless malice" a basically impossible standard where you have to prove in court to a judge that there was a scheme to bring down a person and the sole purpose was to hurt them and they took facts and disregarded them...if you fail any part of that test you are guiltless

so, sorry if I don't believe you

the books i read are generally by "Oxford University Press" and other top-knotch publishers that do vigorous fact-checking and peer-review

The book is about and fully quotes many of the top scientists in the country. The quote had little to do with the subject of the book other than an example of some of the political pressures that scientists who work for the government can encounter. It is a very respectable well researched work and does not have a political agenda. Not everything worth readin