|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 18:51:16 GMT -5
And there was a better way to do it other than making it sensationalist. Panic is never a good thing, Vene. Panic is when you lose all reason and run around screaming that the sky is falling. What we needed was reason. Instead, we got sensationalist propaganda that, while true, ended up dividing the nation. If it hadn't been Al Gore trying to make money off of a real issue, we probably wouldn't have had nearly much opposition to efforts to countermand climate change. Also, NOW Al Gore is making efforts to make his house more climate friendly, after getting his ass bit about it. He's a politician. Always has been, always will be. Get back under your bridge, troll.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 20, 2011 18:54:27 GMT -5
I think calling Al Gore "the most important modern Democrat." was hyperbole too much?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 20, 2011 21:13:53 GMT -5
Panic? People are not panicking nearly enough over it. We needed to do something about it decades ago. At least Gore successfully brought attention to it. Not to mention he actually got the facts right. And there was a better way to do it other than making it sensationalist. Stating scientific fact is not sensationalist, it is stating truth. Would you prefer the danger to be downplayed? The fact of the matter is that global warming is a major threat to humanity and the current biosphere. The fact of the matter is that we have triggered a mass extinction event with it and are past the point of no return. In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, sixty-six percent of viewers who claimed to have seen An Inconvenient Truth said the film had “changed their mind” about global warming and eighty-nine percent said watching the movie made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (75%) viewers said they changed some of their habits as a result of seeing the film.[93] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truthI'm also confused about what is so damning about it if the facts presented were true? What, exactly, makes it propaganda? Should he have used something other than facts? You know that the film was not originally his idea, right? It was adopted from various slide show presentations he gave which was watched by Laurie David. It was David who had the idea to make it into a film, not Gore. I really, really do not give a fuck. It doesn't mean he isn't right or that his cause isn't right.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 22:23:55 GMT -5
How hard is it to comprehend the fact that a politician can use the truth and exploit it? That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying he lied, I'm saying that it was how he used the truth that makes me not trust him.
And I'm not just talking about the film, I'm talking about all the grandstanding he did.
The problem is that he took a just cause... and then made it a big show. And in doing so, he created more resistance to the just cause than it would have if, say, the government as a whole (republican and democrat) had released a public service announcement about it, told the schools to teach about it, and then took major steps in solving the problem right away. There still would've been resistance, but these people would have been regarded as the outlandish lunatics... not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 20, 2011 22:30:28 GMT -5
So, you're going to ignore this? In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, sixty-six percent of viewers who claimed to have seen An Inconvenient Truth said the film had “changed their mind” about global warming and eighty-nine percent said watching the movie made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (75%) viewers said they changed some of their habits as a result of seeing the film.[93] Back up your claim about it doing what you say it is. All I see are baseless words. Provide some evidence that it did more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 20, 2011 22:33:51 GMT -5
How is this a problem? If something is true AND it is beneficial for the politician, then it's a win-win for all parties involved. Unless, say, people decided to be retarded, & project all of their personal issues towards said politician onto the issue itself.
I don't know what he supposedly did, but it is irrelevent, Al Gore has the same relationship to the data as the overachiever high school kid. All he did was make a big, neat presentation on data he researched.
Look at how evolution has been reacted to & then tell me if you still think that would work. Also, how else do you propose government awareness is to be raised? If we can take anything we personally dislike about an advocate of a belief & justify opposition to that idea as a whole, then how do we progress at anything?
Not that it matters, as I think your conclusion is wrong. The reason why there is so much climate denial is because certain groups have a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 22:43:35 GMT -5
So, you're going to ignore this? In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, sixty-six percent of viewers who claimed to have seen An Inconvenient Truth said the film had “changed their mind” about global warming and eighty-nine percent said watching the movie made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (75%) viewers said they changed some of their habits as a result of seeing the film.[93] Back up your claim about it doing what you say it is. All I see are baseless words. Provide some evidence that it did more harm than good. Gee, how many FSTDT quotes talk about people turning on all their lights just to spite the people who are trying to stop climate change, because of it being a "liberal agenda"? I'm pretty sure it amounts to "a lot". Not to mention the overall attitude among the conservative movement that climate change is a "liberal agenda", and considering how many people are conservative... As for the movie, it specifically says that it said it convinced 66% of viewers. This does not amount to 66% of everyone.How is this a problem? If something is true AND it is beneficial for the politician, then it's a win-win for all parties involved. Unless, say, people decided to be retarded, & project all of their personal issues towards said politician onto the issue itself.And bingo was his name-o. Either way, I don't like Al Gore, and anyone who says he's the most important democrat in the USA probably deserves to be laughed out of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 20, 2011 22:50:48 GMT -5
So, you're going to ignore this? In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, sixty-six percent of viewers who claimed to have seen An Inconvenient Truth said the film had “changed their mind” about global warming and eighty-nine percent said watching the movie made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (75%) viewers said they changed some of their habits as a result of seeing the film.[93] Back up your claim about it doing what you say it is. All I see are baseless words. Provide some evidence that it did more harm than good. Gee, how many FSTDT quotes talk about people turning on all their lights just to spite the people who are trying to stop climate change, because of it being a "liberal agenda"? I'm pretty sure it amounts to "a lot". Not to mention the overall attitude among the conservative movement that climate change is a "liberal agenda", and considering how many people are conservative... As for the movie, it specifically says that it said it convinced 66% of viewers. This does not amount to 66% of everyone.That is true, but it is a far greater number than the handful of idiots at Rapture Ready. It is a piece of data that backs up my argument, yours is an anecdote. You have still presented zero data.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 20, 2011 22:58:23 GMT -5
Zachski, I paralleled it with evolution for a reason. In spite of the lack of political or celebrity endorsement, you still see most of these problems. It is not Al Gore's fault, regardless of whether or not you like him personally.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 23:04:42 GMT -5
Gee, how many FSTDT quotes talk about people turning on all their lights just to spite the people who are trying to stop climate change, because of it being a "liberal agenda"? I'm pretty sure it amounts to "a lot". Not to mention the overall attitude among the conservative movement that climate change is a "liberal agenda", and considering how many people are conservative... As for the movie, it specifically says that it said it convinced 66% of viewers. This does not amount to 66% of everyone.That is true, but it is a far greater number than the handful of idiots at Rapture Ready. It is a piece of data that backs up my argument, yours is an anecdote. You have still presented zero data. Oh you and your data. www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspxIt doesn't point fingers directly, but it does show that while Al Gore's grandstanding did increase awareness and concern, it started to bottom out afterwards, meaning people were re-changing their minds. Zachski, I paralleled it with evolution for a reason. In spite of the lack of political or celebrity endorsement, you still see most of these problems. It is not Al Gore's fault, regardless of whether or not you like him personally. It is not solely Al Gore's fault. However, that doesn't mean he's innocent in all of this. Admittedly, the right wing had a lot to do with it, and Al Gore just provided them with ammo. I think that if climate change hadn't been a "liberal issues" like evolution seems to have been forced into by the right wing, it would have been more widely accepted.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 20, 2011 23:06:23 GMT -5
Gee, how many FSTDT quotes talk about people turning on all their lights just to spite the people who are trying to stop climate change, because of it being a "liberal agenda"? I'm pretty sure it amounts to "a lot". Not to mention the overall attitude among the conservative movement that climate change is a "liberal agenda", and considering how many people are conservative... As for the movie, it specifically says that it said it convinced 66% of viewers. This does not amount to 66% of everyone.That is true, but it is a far greater number than the handful of idiots at Rapture Ready. It is a piece of data that backs up my argument, yours is an anecdote. You have still presented zero data. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Public_opinion_on_falsified_global_warming_research.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Public_opinion
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 23:07:34 GMT -5
Thank you, Wykked.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 20, 2011 23:23:58 GMT -5
Don't worry, Vene. This isn't about your silly 'logic' or 'reason'. This is just Dragon's personal ire towards Al Gore, that he holds for some reason (did Gore kick your puppy?). It should have been obvious from his willing swallowing of refuted conservative propaganda. His trolling has become undeniable after he claimed that Al Gore- for making the case for action against climate change in the public- is responsible for everything else that happens in that policy area. Trolling, pure and simple. I think calling Al Gore "the most important modern Democrat." was hyperbole too much? In the long run, media reform is everything. His lefty documentary was a start, and his moderate TV station is an extremely important first step. In the long run, a rationalisation of the media (which is to say, kicking off Conservatrolls and replacing with people who are capable and willing of telling the truth) is far more important than whatever the hell Obama isn't doing today.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 20, 2011 23:26:23 GMT -5
That is true, but it is a far greater number than the handful of idiots at Rapture Ready. It is a piece of data that backs up my argument, yours is an anecdote. You have still presented zero data. Oh you and your data. I know Zach, shame on me for wanting to base opinions on reality instead of gut feelings. This is a very interesting graph: As is this one: And, you know, Gore raising awareness at first only shows that it did work, but the effort needed to be kept up. But, right wing propaganda (which actually is based on lies) hindered the efforts. You could make the argument that increased awareness lead to the counter-campaign, but it is unfair to hold him responsible for the actions of his critics. Is this like how the CRU provided right wingers with ammunition by getting their words twisted by liars and idiots? Because the whole thing about Gore's home using more electricity was certainly twisted as well. t's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area. www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.aspSo, it actually was average for its location and he went out of his way to buy from climate friendly sources. How very hypocritical. It's almost like he did nothing wrong at all and instead a grain of truth was spun into a falsehood. It is inconvenient for business, that is why it's a political issue. To combat it requires abandoning many conservative ideals, which is why it is a political issue.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 20, 2011 23:28:51 GMT -5
The first couple things here have more to do with the leaked CRU emails than Gore and the last one is irrelevant.
|
|