thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ...
Kind of like this movie is trying to do.
I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue.
More proof you know nothing.... It may have happend during Bush's watch, but it was Clinton's fault. Clinton did nothing every time terrorist killed Americans during his reign of terror. Why, because it's not popular to send troops, and all democrats care about is your vote. It's Clinton's policies that lead to 9/11. Bush is left to clean up his mess. You probably think that because the tech boom happened on Clinton's watch, that Clinton had something to do with it?
This statement proves that you know as little as he does.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
More proof you know nothing.... It may have happend during Bush's watch, but it was Clinton's fault. Clinton did nothing every time terrorist killed Americans during his reign of terror.
1)After the embassy bombing, Clinton ordered airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, aimed at taking out terror camps and assassinating Bin Laden. Though I disagreed with these actions, and the results were deplorable, it was hardly nothing as you said:
2)After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Clinton's government caught and imprisoned most of the conspirators. Most in 1994, and Ramzi Yousef in 1998. Is this also nothing?:
3)Regarding the Cole Bombing: Took place on October 12th, 2000, less than a month before the end of Clinton's presidency. Al Qaeda did not take responsibility for it until July of 2001. Until then, officials suspected a number of terror agencies to be responsible, but Richard Clarke suspected Bin Laden. They thought it not a good idea to launch a large attack with the incoming administration having to deal with it. Clarke drafted plans to take action, which he handed off to Rice and the Bush administration. The plan languished for months due to administration in-fighting and nothing was done. HARDLY blame on Clinton.
4)Many blame Clinton for not taking Bin Laden when Sudan offered to turn him over. This was a false claim started by Sean Hannity. He misquoted Clinton's statements on the the subject. Read here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005
Why, because it's not popular to send troops, and all democrats care about is your vote.
It's not popular to ANYONE. You want some quotes from Republicans about Clintons' sending troops to Kosovo?:
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
I can agree with these statements to an extent, but now we see that they were just paying lip service to their base at the time. They've completely changed their tune when a Republican president is in office, eh? Funny how that goes.
That's ridiculous considering the Mid East crisis' have been going on for decades. From the overthrow of Iran's elected government by Roosevelt, Israel's creation by Truman, continued armament by successive governments, the Iranian revolution and Reagan's 'election day' hostage release sham, Iran-Contra and the arming of Iran/Iraq, Bush Sr's orchestration of the Persian Gulf war, the CIA's training of Bin Laden and the US's continued policy of starving and cutting off Iraq from the rest of the world, it's no surprise the Mideast hates us. Hardly Clinton's fault.
Now, if you want to get technical, a LOT happened under Bush's watch where he could have prevented 9/11. Multiple threats were recieved days before the attacks, by CIA officials and other world governments. They were summarily ignored. Yet many government officials were told not to fly the morning of the attacks. Strange, eh? The CIA was following, even LIVING WITH the terrorists, including Attah!! They were going to move in on them, but were told to 'back off' by...Cheney! Yea, they're completely innocent of anything. :rolleyes: Keep blaming Clinton. O'Reilly said so. :rolleyes:
The mess was a small, loosely knit organization of terro around the world, angry at US military presence in the Mideast. PERHAPS with Gore, we could have worked to diffuse it. With Bush, we got 9/11, and 2 HUGE MESSES in Afghanistan and Iraq that will never clean up under our watch. N E V E R. Phony wars, poor results and we are less safe. Nice job with the cleanup Dubya. :rolleyes:
You probably think that because the tech boom happened on Clinton's watch, that Clinton had something to do with it?
Clinton's watched showed a balanced budget and a surplus. In the 80's, Al Gore was instrumental in commercializing the internet. Clinton's presidency gave us an optimism and internal growth that fostered the environment possible for a tech boom. Was he responsible? No. Would we have been better off and as wealthy under a republican? Doubtful.
Your hatred for the left and progressives, and willingness to accept bs from talking heads has left you with a skewed view of reality. It's sad, because I know it will never change, and will continue to divide this country. It's politics and vote counts and profits over reality and truth and progression. :( God bless America. :rolleyes:
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
if anyone wants to discuss the facts presented in this movie or by the international scientific community - feel free to do so ...
but that group is as blatant as it gets ...
I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.
I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.
i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...
I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.
Are you positively sure they aren't showing the other side and then bringing someone to contend it? Would that make it more legitimate in your eyes?
If there were a documentary on the Holocaust, would you need to have both sides shown to believe it? Do you need to have those who show proof of the Holocaust, as well as those who believe it's a fabrication in order to believe it's a legitimate documentary? Does the absence of an opposing view invalidate anothers' viewpoint? Especially one that is backed with evidence and logical deduction?
I don't understand how you can dismiss something without having seen/read it, gathered your own facts, and then come to your own conclusion on whether or not they reached a conclusion with which you are comfortable with. It just smacks of close mindedness to me. I've read multiple sources on both sides, and I think it's obvious that human involvement has effected the ecosystem. You may disagree with the content of the movie, but at least detail it rather than dismiss the movie's content altogether without even seeing it!!
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...
they are not one in the same to me ...
Of course they arent. Anyone disagreeing with Al Gores vision is obviously a shill for Big Oil.
i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...
they are not one in the same to me ...
I was separating the movie and the marketing of the movie. The marketing has been doomsday and one sided making it equal to the other side. The movie and the marketing are two completely different things in my opinion.
Are you positively sure they aren't showing the other side and then bringing someone to contend it? Would that make it more legitimate in your eyes?
If there were a documentary on the Holocaust, would you need to have both sides shown to believe it? Do you need to have those who show proof of the Holocaust, as well as those who believe it's a fabrication in order to believe it's a legitimate documentary? Does the absence of an opposing view invalidate anothers' viewpoint? Especially one that is backed with evidence and logical deduction?
I don't understand how you can dismiss something without having seen/read it, gathered your own facts, and then come to your own conclusion on whether or not they reached a conclusion with which you are comfortable with. It just smacks of close mindedness to me. I've read multiple sources on both sides, and I think it's obvious that human involvement has effected the ecosystem. You may disagree with the content of the movie, but at least detail it rather than dismiss the movie's content altogether without even seeing it!!
I wasn't even arguing the legitimacy of a documentary nor was I dismissing it. I said I was not judging the movie but was judging the marketing of the movie. I have not seen the movie and do not even want to pretend to disagree with the content. I also am not going to spend $12 to see this movie since I won't even spend that to see movies that I know I will enjoy.
I was merely stating that the marketing of this movie leaves me with the impression that they are trying to push one side of an issue on the viewer much like the group that polaris quoted is doing to the reader. I may decide that I am wrong once I rent this movie when it is done with its theatrical run. I will be the judge of that though since propoganda is always true to the side who agrees with it (again, not a judgement but I will be the only one to decide my view on whether the marketing and the movie are similar).
The absence of an opposing view does not invalidate a viewpoint but the absence of understanding another viewpoint or refusing to acknowledge the existence of another view is a sure sign of an uneducated viewpoint which the marketing leads me to believe that this movie can create. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a natural product of persuasion.
That sort of ignorance about global warming is dangerous. How is a documentary about scientific facts propaganda? Because you don't like the message? The wisdom of the masses!
lol, sure, do you also blame cavemen for the last ice age that happened. Too many cave fires cause that climate change.
How about this for an crazy theroy: Maybe the Earth's climate changes on its own, like its been doing for the few million years.
People need to stop being sheeple and start being a little skeptic.
please tell me that you would agree with the idea that humans have had a significant impact on mother earth in the last 100 years or so. historically, earth has never felt so much pressure from us. something has got to have happened to the climate because of us. you can't dismiss that logic. yes, be skeptical and investigate. but seriously, you can't honestly say the earth isn't bound to change because of what we have done to it. there is a new piece to the equation. it's not all natural.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I was separating the movie and the marketing of the movie. The marketing has been doomsday and one sided making it equal to the other side. The movie and the marketing are two completely different things in my opinion.
Fair enuf ... i haven't seen the marketing ... but, i have been saying it is the single biggest crisis facing humanity for many years now ... that hasn't changed despite what bush has done or not done ...
having said that - again, the doomsday notion depends on who you are, where you are and what your concerns are ... if you live in the arctic - it is pretty bleak ... if you are one of the many who lost their lives due to yet another major flood - it's too late ... if you sit in a developed country with enuf wealth to withstand major environmental fluctuations - then it probably is not going to be as pressing ...
That sort of ignorance about global warming is dangerous. How is a documentary about scientific facts propaganda? Because you don't like the message? The wisdom of the masses!
You might want to go back and try reading with comprehension next time. You also may want to read up on propaganda. Most propaganda is based on fact.
Many of us agree with each other at some base level, but disagree about where the facts take us.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I wasn't even arguing the legitimacy of a documentary nor was I dismissing it. I said I was not judging the movie but was judging the marketing of the movie. I have not seen the movie and do not even want to pretend to disagree with the content. I also am not going to spend $12 to see this movie since I won't even spend that to see movies that I know I will enjoy.
I was merely stating that the marketing of this movie leaves me with the impression that they are trying to push one side of an issue on the viewer much like the group that polaris quoted is doing to the reader. I may decide that I am wrong once I rent this movie when it is done with its theatrical run. I will be the judge of that though since propoganda is always true to the side who agrees with it (again, not a judgement but I will be the only one to decide my view on whether the marketing and the movie are similar).
The absence of an opposing view does not invalidate a viewpoint but the absence of understanding another viewpoint or refusing to acknowledge the existence of another view is a sure sign of an uneducated viewpoint which the marketing leads me to believe that this movie can create. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a natural product of persuasion.
I think everyone acknowledges the opposing viewpoint. I haven't seen anyone who refuses to see that people hold another opinion on global warming. If a documentary is trying to present evidence on a subject and reach a conclusion, why would they give much airtime to a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence? If I create a documentary on the Holocaust, why should I spend half the movie with people who think it was all a fabrication? I'm acknowledging the 'other' viewpoint, but it doesn't make much sense and the evidence doesn't support their argument. Why give it time? Also, from a 2 minute trailer, how do you know for certain they don't give time to those who ignore global warming? You don't, until you see it.
I'm not one for propaganda, but at what point do you stop throwing that word around? What exactly do you think the makers of this film want to get out of their 'propaganda'? What is the motivation of the general consensus of scientists who agree with this? Votes? Money? I highly doubt that, and would hotly contest you if that is your assertion. The Bush administration and the funding of anti-global warming 'scientists' on the other hand, are far from 'clean'. Follow the money trail and it inevitably leads to a compromising source.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
please tell me that you would agree with the idea that humans have had a significant impact on mother earth in the last 100 years or so. historically, earth has never felt so much pressure from us. something has got to have happened to the climate because of us. you can't dismiss that logic. yes, be skeptical and investigate. but seriously, you can't honestly say the earth isn't bound to change because of what we have done to it. there is a new piece to the equation. it's not all natural.
As I said, it's disrupting the carbon cycle of the earth, taking too much out of the earth and into the atmosphere. There is a natural carbon life cycle, but we are accelerating the portion that goes from earth -> air, while the air -> earth portion remains the same - awfully slow. Of course it won't hurt the Earth, per se, but it is and will disrupt our fragile ecosystem.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Why doesn't this charltan (Gore), instead of profiting off of manipulated mass hysteria, let people see this movie for free if he's so eager to get his propaganda out?
The movie isn't making money at the box office, that's for sure. And even that, it's preaching to the choir..
"It's not that liberals know nothing. It's that what they do know isn't so."
Ronaldus Magnus
I think everyone acknowledges the opposing viewpoint. I haven't seen anyone who refuses to see that people hold another opinion on global warming. If a documentary is trying to present evidence on a subject and reach a conclusion, why would they give much airtime to a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence? If I create a documentary on the Holocaust, why should I spend half the movie with people who think it was all a fabrication? I'm acknowledging the 'other' viewpoint, but it doesn't make much sense and the evidence doesn't support their argument. Why give it time? Also, from a 2 minute trailer, how do you know for certain they don't give time to those who ignore global warming? You don't, until you see it.
Once again, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the movie doesn't give time to the other side much like there is nothing wrong with the fact that the site that polaris said was pushing the other side is doing so. You can reread my other posts and see that I have said this each time. Maybe I will say it again later too. This will not change. What also will not change is the response that I see to this movie being the place to get all facts from. There have been other facts placed within this thread that are completely different than those being used to market this film. There is nothing wrong or uneducated about a documentary omitting these opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with a person trying to say that he comes from an educated viewpoint while ignoring the fact that these other viewpoints exist.
The two minute trailer is not all of the marketing I have seen. The op-ed pieces written on it, the speeches given by Gore, the reviews of this film, etc... are all part of the marketing of this movie. That being said, these have all left me with the impression that it is a doomsday scenario presented within the film.
I'm not one for propaganda, but at what point do you stop throwing that word around? What exactly do you think the makers of this film want to get out of their 'propaganda'? What is the motivation of the general consensus of scientists who agree with this? Votes? Money? I highly doubt that, and would hotly contest you if that is your assertion. The Bush administration and the funding of anti-global warming 'scientists' on the other hand, are far from 'clean'. Follow the money trail and it inevitably leads to a compromising source.
I will continue throwing around the term propoganda as long as people continue to say that this film has all of the facts about the issue and there is no other side that is even remotely valid. Again, if the marketing of this movie has anything to do with the content then that is exactly what it is.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is no money in taking this side. There are also many scientists whose findings are different from what is being marketed for this film who have no other motivation but you will continue to falsely accuse them of having a motive because it fits your agenda to do so. Are you asserting that all scientists who are not as doomsday as the marketing for this film has been are in all cases funded by "oil", "Bush", "corporations" and any other buzzword is convenient at the time? If so, it appears as though you are buying into the propoganda which is exactly what it is at this point.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is no money in taking this side. There are also many scientists whose findings are different from what is being marketed for this film who have no other motivation but you will continue to falsely accuse them of having a motive because it fits your agenda to do so. Are you asserting that all scientists who are not as doomsday as the marketing for this film has been are in all cases funded by "oil", "Bush", "corporations" and any other buzzword is convenient at the time? If so, it appears as though you are buying into the propoganda which is exactly what it is at this point.
Prove me wrong then. Every example shown here to this point has shown me right. Please, find a large, general consensus of scientists who REFUTE global warming theories who are also NOT backed by a group who has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Don't pigeonhole me and don't put me down that I'm buying propaganda until you show me some facts.
Also, you haven't answered my question on what do THESE people have to gain from some propaganda? What do the global warming belief scientists have to gain from fabricating this?
2 very, very important questions you need to answer to back up your opinions. You've called this movie out and those who hold these beliefs as brainwashed. Now I challenge you to back up your stance.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Once again, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the movie doesn't give time to the other side much like there is nothing wrong with the fact that the site that polaris said was pushing the other side is doing so. You can reread my other posts and see that I have said this each time. Maybe I will say it again later too. This will not change. What also will not change is the response that I see to this movie being the place to get all facts from. There have been other facts placed within this thread that are completely different than those being used to market this film. There is nothing wrong or uneducated about a documentary omitting these opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with a person trying to say that he comes from an educated viewpoint while ignoring the fact that these other viewpoints exist.
The two minute trailer is not all of the marketing I have seen. The op-ed pieces written on it, the speeches given by Gore, the reviews of this film, etc... are all part of the marketing of this movie. That being said, these have all left me with the impression that it is a doomsday scenario presented within the film.
Again, I say that I don't see anyone NOT acknowledging other viewpoints. Can you not acknowledge a viewpoint AND disagree with it? The makers of the movie ACKNOWLEDGE the viewpoint of the Bush admin, but disagree with it and show what they believe to be reality. What's wrong with that? Sorry if you mean something else, but I'm taking you by exactly what you say.
Your impression of the film is of a doomsday scenario. How does that make it illegitimate? That still doesn't show that they don't talk about other opinions. Have you seen Gore's speeches, have you really read all the Op-Ed's? Do you know 100% certain they don't present another viewpoint? You can't use the argument that a 2 minute trailer proves this. If you judge a whole movie by that, it is YOUR fault.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
You might want to go back and try reading with comprehension next time. You also may want to read up on propaganda. Most propaganda is based on fact.
Many of us agree with each other at some base level, but disagree about where the facts take us.
"Reading with comprehension?" I knew I missed that day at school! Damn. Do you willfully ignore the educated opinions of 99% of the world's leading scientists?! Is that because you're so much smarter than they are? You're probably right- like myself, they proabably lack the ability to read with "comprehension."
Again, I say that I don't see anyone NOT acknowledging other viewpoints. Can you not acknowledge a viewpoint AND disagree with it? The makers of the movie ACKNOWLEDGE the viewpoint of the Bush admin, but disagree with it and show what they believe to be reality. What's wrong with that? Sorry if you mean something else, but I'm taking you by exactly what you say.
Your impression of the film is of a doomsday scenario. How does that make it illegitimate? That still doesn't show that they don't talk about other opinions. Have you seen Gore's speeches, have you really read all the Op-Ed's? Do you know 100% certain they don't present another viewpoint? You can't use the argument that a 2 minute trailer proves this. If you judge a whole movie by that, it is YOUR fault.
Here are some quotes from the thread so far. I think these help to sum up what I'm really saying.
"finally a movie that tells the truth!"
"they have an agenda, no doubt. it's called the truth."
Again, if truth is subjective then these two claims are valid. Assuming that truth is objective then the marketing of the movie would lead me to believe that omission of another side makes these claims false. I am not faulting the movie for this, I am faulting the viewer for this.
How does this compare to the 20 feet claimed by Gore?"
This was said earlier which is part of the doomsday marketing for the movie.
"thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ..."
The original post that I responded to. I said there that there is nothing wrong with the movie even if the marketing turns out to be true for me much like there is nothing wrong with the other side putting out their own version of the story.
"I wasn't even arguing the legitimacy of a documentary nor was I dismissing it. I said I was not judging the movie but was judging the marketing of the movie. I have not seen the movie and do not even want to pretend to disagree with the content. I also am not going to spend $12 to see this movie since I won't even spend that to see movies that I know I will enjoy."
Just in case you missed this like you seem to have, here is my reasoning for not going to see the movie yet. I have said numerous times that I will most likely rent it when it is out on DVD.
"How is a documentary about scientific facts propaganda?"
I guess this really belongs with the first two quotes but I am keeping these in chronological order to make it more of a summary for you.
"leading scientists"
Who decided this? Was it some machine with no leaning towards any side of any debate? If not then you are looking at a byproduct of propoganda. Very good marketing machine for this by the way.
Your impression of the film is of a doomsday scenario. How does that make it illegitimate? That still doesn't show that they don't talk about other opinions. Have you seen Gore's speeches, have you really read all the Op-Ed's? Do you know 100% certain they don't present another viewpoint? You can't use the argument that a 2 minute trailer proves this. If you judge a whole movie by that, it is YOUR fault.
One more time for you from a few posts up...
"Once again, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the movie doesn't give time to the other side much like there is nothing wrong with the fact that the site that polaris said was pushing the other side is doing so. You can reread my other posts and see that I have said this each time. Maybe I will say it again later too. This will not change. What also will not change is the response that I see to this movie being the place to get all facts from. There have been other facts placed within this thread that are completely different than those being used to market this film. There is nothing wrong or uneducated about a documentary omitting these opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with a person trying to say that he comes from an educated viewpoint while ignoring the fact that these other viewpoints exist.
The two minute trailer is not all of the marketing I have seen. The op-ed pieces written on it, the speeches given by Gore, the reviews of this film, etc... are all part of the marketing of this movie. That being said, these have all left me with the impression that it is a doomsday scenario presented within the film."
Prove me wrong then. Every example shown here to this point has shown me right. Please, find a large, general consensus of scientists who REFUTE global warming theories who are also NOT backed by a group who has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Don't pigeonhole me and don't put me down that I'm buying propaganda until you show me some facts.
I never once said that you specifically were buying into the propoganda. I said that some were. Every scientist I have found who has refuted global warming has found himself pigeonholed and demonized for daring to find a different conclusion from his peers. I thought these things were supposed to be debated on their merits rather than who says it. I think there's another thread around here on that. Some that I have seen (not today but in the past) seem to have found themselves with no job very quickly.
Also, you haven't answered my question on what do THESE people have to gain from some propaganda? What do the global warming belief scientists have to gain from fabricating this?
My local theater is charging to go see this. That money is going to a few different people. Also, have you checked out the "green" products industry? Some of that shit is extremely expensive.
2 very, very important questions you need to answer to back up your opinions. You've called this movie out and those who hold these beliefs as brainwashed. Now I challenge you to back up your stance.
I do not call all who hold these beliefs as brainwashed. Here's another quote that I had earlier in this thread to polaris:
"I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue."
It depends on which side of the ocean you are standing.
Here we call it: finally a movie that tells the truth!
.
mhmm, I had to bring this up again, cause this subject got back to my mind.
I read the SPIEGEL magazine yesterday and in issue 29/ 2006 they published an interview with Al Gore.
The movie starts this week in Germany, so it makes sense that an article is published in "Der Spiegel"
and one line I would like to share here, to make my point above more valid
Interview:
Spiegel journalist:
"An inconvenience truth" is presented in the trailer as the most scary movie you ever have or will have seen.
As an European you think not the movie is scary but the fact, how little the American population is aware of the problems around climate change. How do you explain this ignorance!
Gore:
the goal of the movie is exactly to change this situation, this way of denial.
But the reason why the Americans are so ignorant is to be found in the fact that the oil and coal companies and their spokes men have too much influence on us.
see, the Spiegel brings it again to a point.
... it depends on which side of the ocean you are standing,
to look at this movie and the story behind.
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
But the reason why the Americans are so ignorant is to be found in the fact that the oil and coal companies and their spokes men have too much influence on us.
...yup, but so are we.
with the difference, that we did not go for oil, but had a big green party since the 80ies that put attention to those problems in the media.
So we kinda grew up with facing a problem that soon will appear so clearly, that we all will see.
...and for the rest:
we did go for CAR COMPANIES... all is about cars here instead of oil.
BMW, Mercedes and Audi, Volkswagen and Opel,
the big heads of our society and the ones with the biggest influence here.
I wonder why none of those companies ever constructed a hybrid engine.
... the oil again
so what is the manipulation subject in Canada?
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
...yup, but so are we.
with the difference, that we did not go for oil, but had a big green party since the 80ies that put attention to those problems in the media.
So we kinda grew up with facing a problem that soon will appear so clearly, that we all will see.
...and for the rest:
we did go for CAR COMPANIES... all is about cars here instead of oil.
BMW, Mercedes and Audi, Volkswagen and Opel,
the big heads of our society and the ones with the biggest influence here.
I wonder why none of those companies ever constructed a hybrid engine.
... the oil again
so what is the manipulation subject in Canada?
we don't need to be manipulated here ... people just don't care ... as long as everyone can do whatever the heck they want - its all good ...
we care not for our role in our local community let alone the global one ...
we don't need to be manipulated here ... people just don't care ... as long as everyone can do whatever the heck they want - its all good ...
we care not for our role in our local community let alone the global one ...
but you and many other Canadians seem to be completely different.
and that is great and a big winning, for all of us.
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
Comments
Kind of like this movie is trying to do.
I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue.
This statement proves that you know as little as he does.
1)After the embassy bombing, Clinton ordered airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, aimed at taking out terror camps and assassinating Bin Laden. Though I disagreed with these actions, and the results were deplorable, it was hardly nothing as you said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm
2)After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Clinton's government caught and imprisoned most of the conspirators. Most in 1994, and Ramzi Yousef in 1998. Is this also nothing?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
3)Regarding the Cole Bombing: Took place on October 12th, 2000, less than a month before the end of Clinton's presidency. Al Qaeda did not take responsibility for it until July of 2001. Until then, officials suspected a number of terror agencies to be responsible, but Richard Clarke suspected Bin Laden. They thought it not a good idea to launch a large attack with the incoming administration having to deal with it. Clarke drafted plans to take action, which he handed off to Rice and the Bush administration. The plan languished for months due to administration in-fighting and nothing was done. HARDLY blame on Clinton.
4)Many blame Clinton for not taking Bin Laden when Sudan offered to turn him over. This was a false claim started by Sean Hannity. He misquoted Clinton's statements on the the subject. Read here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005
It's not popular to ANYONE. You want some quotes from Republicans about Clintons' sending troops to Kosovo?:
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
I can agree with these statements to an extent, but now we see that they were just paying lip service to their base at the time. They've completely changed their tune when a Republican president is in office, eh? Funny how that goes.
That's ridiculous considering the Mid East crisis' have been going on for decades. From the overthrow of Iran's elected government by Roosevelt, Israel's creation by Truman, continued armament by successive governments, the Iranian revolution and Reagan's 'election day' hostage release sham, Iran-Contra and the arming of Iran/Iraq, Bush Sr's orchestration of the Persian Gulf war, the CIA's training of Bin Laden and the US's continued policy of starving and cutting off Iraq from the rest of the world, it's no surprise the Mideast hates us. Hardly Clinton's fault.
Now, if you want to get technical, a LOT happened under Bush's watch where he could have prevented 9/11. Multiple threats were recieved days before the attacks, by CIA officials and other world governments. They were summarily ignored. Yet many government officials were told not to fly the morning of the attacks. Strange, eh? The CIA was following, even LIVING WITH the terrorists, including Attah!! They were going to move in on them, but were told to 'back off' by...Cheney! Yea, they're completely innocent of anything. :rolleyes: Keep blaming Clinton. O'Reilly said so. :rolleyes:
The mess was a small, loosely knit organization of terro around the world, angry at US military presence in the Mideast. PERHAPS with Gore, we could have worked to diffuse it. With Bush, we got 9/11, and 2 HUGE MESSES in Afghanistan and Iraq that will never clean up under our watch. N E V E R. Phony wars, poor results and we are less safe. Nice job with the cleanup Dubya. :rolleyes:
Clinton's watched showed a balanced budget and a surplus. In the 80's, Al Gore was instrumental in commercializing the internet. Clinton's presidency gave us an optimism and internal growth that fostered the environment possible for a tech boom. Was he responsible? No. Would we have been better off and as wealthy under a republican? Doubtful.
Your hatred for the left and progressives, and willingness to accept bs from talking heads has left you with a skewed view of reality. It's sad, because I know it will never change, and will continue to divide this country. It's politics and vote counts and profits over reality and truth and progression. :( God bless America. :rolleyes:
nowadays hits you when you're young
if anyone wants to discuss the facts presented in this movie or by the international scientific community - feel free to do so ...
but that group is as blatant as it gets ...
I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.
i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...
they are not one in the same to me ...
Are you positively sure they aren't showing the other side and then bringing someone to contend it? Would that make it more legitimate in your eyes?
If there were a documentary on the Holocaust, would you need to have both sides shown to believe it? Do you need to have those who show proof of the Holocaust, as well as those who believe it's a fabrication in order to believe it's a legitimate documentary? Does the absence of an opposing view invalidate anothers' viewpoint? Especially one that is backed with evidence and logical deduction?
I don't understand how you can dismiss something without having seen/read it, gathered your own facts, and then come to your own conclusion on whether or not they reached a conclusion with which you are comfortable with. It just smacks of close mindedness to me. I've read multiple sources on both sides, and I think it's obvious that human involvement has effected the ecosystem. You may disagree with the content of the movie, but at least detail it rather than dismiss the movie's content altogether without even seeing it!!
nowadays hits you when you're young
Who in the Bush Admin. isn't? lol If it doesn't benefit big oil or defense contractors, it's 'liberal propaganda', right? :rolleyes:
nowadays hits you when you're young
I was separating the movie and the marketing of the movie. The marketing has been doomsday and one sided making it equal to the other side. The movie and the marketing are two completely different things in my opinion.
I wasn't even arguing the legitimacy of a documentary nor was I dismissing it. I said I was not judging the movie but was judging the marketing of the movie. I have not seen the movie and do not even want to pretend to disagree with the content. I also am not going to spend $12 to see this movie since I won't even spend that to see movies that I know I will enjoy.
I was merely stating that the marketing of this movie leaves me with the impression that they are trying to push one side of an issue on the viewer much like the group that polaris quoted is doing to the reader. I may decide that I am wrong once I rent this movie when it is done with its theatrical run. I will be the judge of that though since propoganda is always true to the side who agrees with it (again, not a judgement but I will be the only one to decide my view on whether the marketing and the movie are similar).
The absence of an opposing view does not invalidate a viewpoint but the absence of understanding another viewpoint or refusing to acknowledge the existence of another view is a sure sign of an uneducated viewpoint which the marketing leads me to believe that this movie can create. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a natural product of persuasion.
please tell me that you would agree with the idea that humans have had a significant impact on mother earth in the last 100 years or so. historically, earth has never felt so much pressure from us. something has got to have happened to the climate because of us. you can't dismiss that logic. yes, be skeptical and investigate. but seriously, you can't honestly say the earth isn't bound to change because of what we have done to it. there is a new piece to the equation. it's not all natural.
~Ron Burgundy
Fair enuf ... i haven't seen the marketing ... but, i have been saying it is the single biggest crisis facing humanity for many years now ... that hasn't changed despite what bush has done or not done ...
having said that - again, the doomsday notion depends on who you are, where you are and what your concerns are ... if you live in the arctic - it is pretty bleak ... if you are one of the many who lost their lives due to yet another major flood - it's too late ... if you sit in a developed country with enuf wealth to withstand major environmental fluctuations - then it probably is not going to be as pressing ...
You might want to go back and try reading with comprehension next time. You also may want to read up on propaganda. Most propaganda is based on fact.
Many of us agree with each other at some base level, but disagree about where the facts take us.
I think everyone acknowledges the opposing viewpoint. I haven't seen anyone who refuses to see that people hold another opinion on global warming. If a documentary is trying to present evidence on a subject and reach a conclusion, why would they give much airtime to a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence? If I create a documentary on the Holocaust, why should I spend half the movie with people who think it was all a fabrication? I'm acknowledging the 'other' viewpoint, but it doesn't make much sense and the evidence doesn't support their argument. Why give it time? Also, from a 2 minute trailer, how do you know for certain they don't give time to those who ignore global warming? You don't, until you see it.
I'm not one for propaganda, but at what point do you stop throwing that word around? What exactly do you think the makers of this film want to get out of their 'propaganda'? What is the motivation of the general consensus of scientists who agree with this? Votes? Money? I highly doubt that, and would hotly contest you if that is your assertion. The Bush administration and the funding of anti-global warming 'scientists' on the other hand, are far from 'clean'. Follow the money trail and it inevitably leads to a compromising source.
nowadays hits you when you're young
i didn't say that ... but if you follow this particular website's trail ... you will see a financed bias ... why not see it for what it is?
As I said, it's disrupting the carbon cycle of the earth, taking too much out of the earth and into the atmosphere. There is a natural carbon life cycle, but we are accelerating the portion that goes from earth -> air, while the air -> earth portion remains the same - awfully slow. Of course it won't hurt the Earth, per se, but it is and will disrupt our fragile ecosystem.
nowadays hits you when you're young
The movie isn't making money at the box office, that's for sure. And even that, it's preaching to the choir..
Ronaldus Magnus
Once again, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the movie doesn't give time to the other side much like there is nothing wrong with the fact that the site that polaris said was pushing the other side is doing so. You can reread my other posts and see that I have said this each time. Maybe I will say it again later too. This will not change. What also will not change is the response that I see to this movie being the place to get all facts from. There have been other facts placed within this thread that are completely different than those being used to market this film. There is nothing wrong or uneducated about a documentary omitting these opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with a person trying to say that he comes from an educated viewpoint while ignoring the fact that these other viewpoints exist.
The two minute trailer is not all of the marketing I have seen. The op-ed pieces written on it, the speeches given by Gore, the reviews of this film, etc... are all part of the marketing of this movie. That being said, these have all left me with the impression that it is a doomsday scenario presented within the film.
I will continue throwing around the term propoganda as long as people continue to say that this film has all of the facts about the issue and there is no other side that is even remotely valid. Again, if the marketing of this movie has anything to do with the content then that is exactly what it is.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is no money in taking this side. There are also many scientists whose findings are different from what is being marketed for this film who have no other motivation but you will continue to falsely accuse them of having a motive because it fits your agenda to do so. Are you asserting that all scientists who are not as doomsday as the marketing for this film has been are in all cases funded by "oil", "Bush", "corporations" and any other buzzword is convenient at the time? If so, it appears as though you are buying into the propoganda which is exactly what it is at this point.
Prove me wrong then. Every example shown here to this point has shown me right. Please, find a large, general consensus of scientists who REFUTE global warming theories who are also NOT backed by a group who has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Don't pigeonhole me and don't put me down that I'm buying propaganda until you show me some facts.
Also, you haven't answered my question on what do THESE people have to gain from some propaganda? What do the global warming belief scientists have to gain from fabricating this?
2 very, very important questions you need to answer to back up your opinions. You've called this movie out and those who hold these beliefs as brainwashed. Now I challenge you to back up your stance.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Again, I say that I don't see anyone NOT acknowledging other viewpoints. Can you not acknowledge a viewpoint AND disagree with it? The makers of the movie ACKNOWLEDGE the viewpoint of the Bush admin, but disagree with it and show what they believe to be reality. What's wrong with that? Sorry if you mean something else, but I'm taking you by exactly what you say.
Your impression of the film is of a doomsday scenario. How does that make it illegitimate? That still doesn't show that they don't talk about other opinions. Have you seen Gore's speeches, have you really read all the Op-Ed's? Do you know 100% certain they don't present another viewpoint? You can't use the argument that a 2 minute trailer proves this. If you judge a whole movie by that, it is YOUR fault.
nowadays hits you when you're young
"Reading with comprehension?" I knew I missed that day at school! Damn. Do you willfully ignore the educated opinions of 99% of the world's leading scientists?! Is that because you're so much smarter than they are? You're probably right- like myself, they proabably lack the ability to read with "comprehension."
Here are some quotes from the thread so far. I think these help to sum up what I'm really saying.
"finally a movie that tells the truth!"
"they have an agenda, no doubt. it's called the truth."
Again, if truth is subjective then these two claims are valid. Assuming that truth is objective then the marketing of the movie would lead me to believe that omission of another side makes these claims false. I am not faulting the movie for this, I am faulting the viewer for this.
"For example, the IPCC progects sea levels to rise 0.11 to 0.77 m between now and the year 2100. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
How does this compare to the 20 feet claimed by Gore?"
This was said earlier which is part of the doomsday marketing for the movie.
"thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ..."
The original post that I responded to. I said there that there is nothing wrong with the movie even if the marketing turns out to be true for me much like there is nothing wrong with the other side putting out their own version of the story.
"I wasn't even arguing the legitimacy of a documentary nor was I dismissing it. I said I was not judging the movie but was judging the marketing of the movie. I have not seen the movie and do not even want to pretend to disagree with the content. I also am not going to spend $12 to see this movie since I won't even spend that to see movies that I know I will enjoy."
Just in case you missed this like you seem to have, here is my reasoning for not going to see the movie yet. I have said numerous times that I will most likely rent it when it is out on DVD.
"How is a documentary about scientific facts propaganda?"
I guess this really belongs with the first two quotes but I am keeping these in chronological order to make it more of a summary for you.
"leading scientists"
Who decided this? Was it some machine with no leaning towards any side of any debate? If not then you are looking at a byproduct of propoganda. Very good marketing machine for this by the way.
One more time for you from a few posts up...
"Once again, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the movie doesn't give time to the other side much like there is nothing wrong with the fact that the site that polaris said was pushing the other side is doing so. You can reread my other posts and see that I have said this each time. Maybe I will say it again later too. This will not change. What also will not change is the response that I see to this movie being the place to get all facts from. There have been other facts placed within this thread that are completely different than those being used to market this film. There is nothing wrong or uneducated about a documentary omitting these opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with a person trying to say that he comes from an educated viewpoint while ignoring the fact that these other viewpoints exist.
The two minute trailer is not all of the marketing I have seen. The op-ed pieces written on it, the speeches given by Gore, the reviews of this film, etc... are all part of the marketing of this movie. That being said, these have all left me with the impression that it is a doomsday scenario presented within the film."
I never once said that you specifically were buying into the propoganda. I said that some were. Every scientist I have found who has refuted global warming has found himself pigeonholed and demonized for daring to find a different conclusion from his peers. I thought these things were supposed to be debated on their merits rather than who says it. I think there's another thread around here on that. Some that I have seen (not today but in the past) seem to have found themselves with no job very quickly.
My local theater is charging to go see this. That money is going to a few different people. Also, have you checked out the "green" products industry? Some of that shit is extremely expensive.
I do not call all who hold these beliefs as brainwashed. Here's another quote that I had earlier in this thread to polaris:
"I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue."
mhmm, I had to bring this up again, cause this subject got back to my mind.
I read the SPIEGEL magazine yesterday and in issue 29/ 2006 they published an interview with Al Gore.
The movie starts this week in Germany, so it makes sense that an article is published in "Der Spiegel"
and one line I would like to share here, to make my point above more valid
Interview:
Spiegel journalist:
"An inconvenience truth" is presented in the trailer as the most scary movie you ever have or will have seen.
As an European you think not the movie is scary but the fact, how little the American population is aware of the problems around climate change. How do you explain this ignorance!
Gore:
the goal of the movie is exactly to change this situation, this way of denial.
But the reason why the Americans are so ignorant is to be found in the fact that the oil and coal companies and their spokes men have too much influence on us.
see, the Spiegel brings it again to a point.
... it depends on which side of the ocean you are standing,
to look at this movie and the story behind.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
yup! ... easily manipulated populace!
...yup, but so are we.
with the difference, that we did not go for oil, but had a big green party since the 80ies that put attention to those problems in the media.
So we kinda grew up with facing a problem that soon will appear so clearly, that we all will see.
...and for the rest:
we did go for CAR COMPANIES... all is about cars here instead of oil.
BMW, Mercedes and Audi, Volkswagen and Opel,
the big heads of our society and the ones with the biggest influence here.
I wonder why none of those companies ever constructed a hybrid engine.
... the oil again
so what is the manipulation subject in Canada?
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
we don't need to be manipulated here ... people just don't care ... as long as everyone can do whatever the heck they want - its all good ...
we care not for our role in our local community let alone the global one ...
but you and many other Canadians seem to be completely different.
and that is great and a big winning, for all of us.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.