Maybe it was this:
British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Lewis Smith
Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”
2007-10-11 06:54:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lavrenti Beria 6
·
1⤊
4⤋
Look, I know that it's fun to bash the opposite side of the isle. You probably are offended when, let's say, Rush Limbaugh is bashed.
Yes, some people take an alarmist view of things, and sometimes blow things out of proportion. But you can't blame someone for having a passion about something. It's like bashing someone who vehemently supports Small Business over Big Business and points out all the flaws of Big Business. When we know that there are alot of benefits from large Corporations, although many times they are small business killers.
The fact of the matter is it is almost a complete majoral consensus of the Scientific Community that Global Warming is happening. They are only quibbling about what is causing it. Man-made factors, or a normal cycling.
Whichever is true may be irrelevant. We should allow this event to change our thinking and habits. There would be much to gain by accomplishing things that would, whether in actuality or symbolically/figuratively, benefit us by creating better technology.
We could sever our ties with corrupt/human rights violating countries who supply us oil in creating alternative fuels that do not pollute and can be produced locally. We could fuel our homes with alternate fuels that don't pollute and could eventually cause individual self-dependence and liberate us from high electrical and heating/cooling costs.
It's the notion that, much the same as the argument religion has, it's better to believe and be wrong, than to not believe and be wrong. Meaning, if we are right about Global Warming and do nothing about it, we may create an irreversible disaster. Whereas, if we did something about it and were wrong, we have still benefited from all the technology brought by it.
Think of it this way. It is possible that an Extinction size Meteor will strike the Earth someday. It may happen tomorrow, or happen so far in the future that even our great great great grandchildren won't care. But, would it be better to have the technology to stop it and never use it? Or, to never have it and need it?
2007-10-11 14:30:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
If I had to guess I would say it was the humidity... but there I go pointing out the obvious again.
2007-10-11 13:58:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by pip 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Menopause
2007-10-11 13:53:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Easily explained.
He asked for "moderately hot" at the Thai restaurant and they gave him "very spicy."
2007-10-11 14:03:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Eratosthenes 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
From his bloated gas pains that are the cause of global warming
2007-10-11 13:53:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I vote the fat pigs. Be thankful your weren't close when they fart.
2007-10-11 14:42:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They just had a quickie, I guess.
2007-10-11 14:01:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by BrushPicks 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
no just blame Bush
2007-10-11 13:54:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by a person of interest 5
·
0⤊
3⤋