What a jumbled pile of nothing. If you feel that global warming is not factual, please enlighten me with an explanation.
Not really...It applied to this statement: "I admit there are sections of the movie that were gratuitously pro-Gore/anti-Bush (and I wish they had been excised)"... in a half kidding-half serious stance...
Fine. Feel free to illuminate why one should be surprised to hear anti-bush sentiments in a global warming documentary. That's hardly partisan...
IMO, It focuses where it doesn't need to focus...anti-bush sentiments hurt the legitimacy of the documentary for me because the basis goes away from an issue on non-partsianship to one based on pure party affiliation...We already know all politicians are liars, so instigation of partianship to the documentary doesn't receive the reach it should if it did away with such...
BTW,Roxran, there are a lot of SCIENTIFIC points in the movie. If you watched it, were there any that you either agree with or disagree with? The movie was at least 98% focused on this science and not anti-Bush sentiment as you allege. Do you deny this. I think that it is you who mistaknely see anti-Bush sentiments as the focus. Was Gore supposed to completely ignore the possible political problems blocking soloution to global warming and climate change.? I thought the fact that we have solved the problem with the ozone hole through international cooperation was encouraging. Also the the way in which they measured the glacier cores to show the temperature and co 2 levels for the past 650,000 years was very persuasive.
I disagree. It is definitely relevant in a documentary about global warming to mention that Bush has done little to help stop global warming, choosing instead to aid big business at the expense of the environment. That's not partisan, that's fact.
It was another poster who brought up this point about the documentary concerning anti-Bush perception...I actually haven't seen the documentary partly because I don't care much for Gore and his political tactics... Why did they have to have a politician head this documentary? Would you watch a documentary led by Bush without reservation? Probably not...I have my reservations about a documentary led by Gore as it is...
I'm still flabbergasted that you think that even matters. If you are serious about global warming - it's hard not to rail on Bush. That has nothing to do with partisan sentiments - it's just the way it is.
He certainly is not the greenest President I realize that, but it is debatable on the aspect of what is done to specifically stop global warming...There are specific and measurable accomplishments which overshadow environmental goals from the height of Gore's political leadership as follows (highlighted): The point is Gore's position as a lead on the documentary changes many American's perspective on the motive of the message and the cause loses...bottom line. Of course, if you want another feel good documentary that caters to the leftwing agenda then Gore is the right guy for being the messenger... Key Bush Environmental Accomplishments The Bush Administration's Environmental Philosophy The focus is on results - making our air, water, and land cleaner. We need to employ the best science and data to inform our decision-making. Our policies should encourage innovation and the development of new, cleaner technologies. We should continue to build on America's ethic of stewardship and personal responsibility through education and volunteer opportunities, and in our daily lives. Opportunities for environmental improvements are not limited to Federal Government actions - States, tribes, local communities, and individuals must be included. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument On June 15, 2006, President Bush signed a proclamation that will create the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. This national monument will enable nearly 140,000 square miles of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to receive our Nation's highest form of marine environmental protection. It honors our commitment to be good stewards of America's natural resources, shows what cooperative conservation can accomplish, and creates a new opportunity for ocean education and research for decades to come. The national monument will: Preserve access for Native Hawaiian cultural activities; Provide for carefully regulated educational and scientific activities; Enhance visitation in a special area around Midway Island; Prohibit unauthorized access to the monument; Phase out commercial fishing over a five-year period; and Ban other types of resource extraction and dumping of waste. This Marine National Monument is the largest single area dedicated to conservation in the history of our country and the largest protected Marine area in the world. It is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National Park, larger than 46 of our 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our National Marine Sanctuaries combined. The new monument fulfills a legacy of conservation first begun by President Theodore Roosevelt. In 2004, the Administration released an Ocean Action Plan to promote an ethic of responsible use and stewardship of our oceans and coastal resources. By establishing this new national monument, we are implementing an important part of our plan. Building on Our Great Environmental Progress Over the last 30 years, our Nation has made great progress in providing for a better environment and improving public health. In that time, our economy grew 164 percent, population grew 39 percent, and our energy consumption increased 42 percent, yet air pollution from the six major pollutants decreased by 48 percent. In 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approximately 251 million people (or 94 percent of the total population) were served by community water systems that met all health-based standards. This number is up from 79 percent in 1993.The President is committed to delivering even greater progress. Cleaning and Redeveloping Hazardous Waste Sites Brownfields Program Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of brownfields to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.
When you have Gore as the messenger it reaks of political ulterior motive...Good cause, bad messenger...If you don't want to reach those on the right and center which see the transparency that is fine, but change the credibility of the messenger to reach me...
In this case Gore did write the book the movie is based on. I guess they could have gotten Casey Kasem to do the voice-over. I guess my point is that it seems you are the one being overly partisan here, not Gore.
I didn't know the movie was based on the book Gore wrote, I thought it was information and sprinkled facts with him as speaker...As I said, I didn't see the movie,...but since he wrote the book, he is entitled and should be the speaker, yet I do suspect and he is warranted to political ulterior motive since his input formed the book, which formed the movie... My initial response on the aspect of partisianship was due to a response from a previous poster...Had this not have been noted from someone who viewed the movie, I would not have latched on to my suspicions that a political ulterior motive was certainly in effect...and my point is this message deserves a non-partisanship messenger to realize full potential,...or is that not the goal?...
What did Al Gore or the Clinton Administration to with regards to Global Warming? I know Clinton didn't sign Kyoto. IMO, the biggest "failure" (or perhaps it's better to say the biggest missed opportunity) of the Clinton administration was the lack of a push to reduce our dependancy on oil. The economy was good and it would have been in-line with the Clinton's ideals. Bush gets railed for not doing much but do you really expect him to? Clinton should have done way more than he did (or even tried to do).
How people can call this movie a political tirade is just absurd. Gore only references Bush ONE TIME, and he doesn't even say his frickin' name! The entire theme of the movie is "this is not a political issue, this is a bipartisan threat/problem that we've all had a hand in creating and we all need to help fix." Sheesh.
Clinton signed Kyoto, but it wasn't ratified in Congress with a unanimous no. Later on, Bush wiped his ass with the treaty to rid Clinton's sig. It was already dead without Senate ratification... Bush gets railed on environmentally for using his Executive powers to reduce safeguards already in place and letting the current situation stagnate. Among the list is signing energy bills that increase our dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining a same percentage on researching alternatives (not a Manhattan project), pressuring the EPA to reduce standards on clean water and clean air, and claiming "sound science" while calling upon the EPA to edit their studies and findings. The only positive spin to Bush's track record is that it's so bad that everyone will be forced to notice sooner than later.
