At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I find it interesting that a UK judge just ruled (yesterday I think) that Gore's An Inconvinient Truth had a number inconvenient untruths in it.
I think that instead of putting it up as a candidate for "Best Documentary" it should be up for Best Fiction film. And perhaps instead of being up for a Nobel prize, he should be up for a Pulitzer... Pulitzer's are for fiction.
Yeah, now he'll be even more of an insufferable, arrogant, pompous .
I'm sure you've seen this before, but just for old times' sake, I'll repost:
Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush's comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.
Hypocrisy apparently is no longer a bad thing. In fact, it helps you win awards and look good.
On the eve of Al Gore's expected win of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British judge said his global-warming documentary is riddled with nine glaring errors and should be accompanied by a warning about its "alarmist" and "exaggerated" claims.
Gore, whose "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar this year, is the heavy favorite to pick up a Nobel when the prize is announced today in Oslo, Norway.
But Judge Michael Burton ruled at the High Court of London that the movie is biased and contains "nine scientific errors."
The film depicts a bleak future in which the world is threatened by climate change, which it claims is already responsible for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the disappearance of snow from atop Mount Kilimanjaro.
But Burton said the scientific community doesn't buy those claims.
The film dramatically warns that polar bears are drowning as they try to swim up to 60 miles to find rapidly disappearing Arctic ice.
But the evidence that came out in court says it's just not true, said the judge.
"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm," he said.
The film also claims the world's sea levels will rise up to 20 feet "in the near future."
The judge said scientists dispute this "Armageddon scenario" and say that the sea levels would rise that much "only after" thousands of years.
Earlier this year, a prestigious U.N.-sanctioned group of scientists, the International Panel on Climate Change, predicted that by 2100, sea levels would rise by seven to 23 inches.
Burton was responding to a British father, Stewart Dimmock, who sued his government because it was "brain-washing" his two children by sending copies of the film to schools.
The judge said the "powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film" was "broadly accurate."
He agreed with Gore's assertion that the Earth is slowly being warmed by the emission of carbon dioxide.
But Burton added that "it is not simply a science film . . it is a political film" with an "apocalyptic vision," and should be shown in schools only if teachers are given information to offset its "one-sided" agenda.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Washington Post that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."
Gore and a fellow global-warming activist, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, are favored to win the Nobel when it is announced today, said Stein Toennesson, director of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.
So if fiction is the basis fo a Nobel Peace prize, then yes, Gore is a winner. And considering some of the other past winners, that probably is indeed the criterion. Jimmy Carter won it for bringing peace to the Middle East (most certainly a fiction). Arafat won it for renouncing terrorism and negotiating in good faith for peace with Israel (another fiction). The UN and Kofi Annan won it for their works benefiting the entire world (probably the biggest fiction). So Gore is in good company with his Inconvenient Untruth.
I think the judge who made that ruling should share the Nobel Peace Prize.
But Excon ;in all seriousness I have always thought of Gore as the strongest contender on the Democrat side. But he has other priorities like getting rich selling distortions.
Call to return Inconvenient Truth Oscar
12th October 2007, 8:08 WST
A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America's Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.
Former New Zealand MP Dr Muriel Newman, director of web-based think-tank the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, said she had taken the measure in response to a British High Court ruling Thursday.
She said she emailed Academy president Sid Ganis and executive director Bruce Davis with the request on Friday morning.
A British judge ruled an Inconvenient Truth, whose director Davis Guggenheim won an Academy Award for best documentary feature, contained scientific errors.
The judge said the film could be shown in British schools, although it must have guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
The controversial documentary starred former US vice president Al Gore talking about the perils of global warming.
"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism.
"Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not," a statement from Newman said.
"This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next placegetter elevated.
"While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected," she said.
But, irrespective of whether you LIKE him or not, if you could be the president of the United States just by saying YES, would you? I believe, after this prize, the presidency is his for the taking.
I disagree. Roughly 50% of the country is conservative. Gore might have 50% of the country in his pocket, but he would still have to convince at least part of the other 50% to vote for him. And frankly, I don't think he can do it. And the movie would actually make it MORE dificult for him to do so. It would be really easy for Conservatives to use the distortions of the film against him to call him a liar and anti-industry and anti-capitalist. How long would he have union support if he gets labled anti-industry? How many moderates would support him if he gets lables anti-capitalist?
Plus, he's still the most boring guy in the Democrat party. Hillary, for all I dislike her, is not boring. Obama isn't boring. Edwards is boring, but less so than Gore. People don't like boring. Boring puts them to sleep. It most certainly does not get them out to the polls.
This is nothing new for the Nobel peace prize. If you recall, Adolf Hitler was in the running in 1938. The Nobel peace prize, it seems is almost just for old war criminal.
Linear Mode
