An Inconvenient Truth - Banned

[fahrenheit]

This is an outrage! How dare Federal Way schoold district ban a film with such truth and purpose?
Ok, so they didnt ban it, but their making the teachers show opposing views of Global Warming with the movie! I mean what the hell? Doesnt like a bajillion people already know that Global Warming exists? I mean come one, why would they show opposing views to widely known facts that every single person believes with the exception of homosexual communists.

because I dont know the meaning of biased

[cellardoor6]

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote: This is an outrage! How dare Federal Way schoold district ban a film with such truth and purpose?

Because the theories expressed in it are not proven facts, and the entire video was presented in a politically-charged manner. I watched it twice, notice all of the clear references to the policies of Republicans and how it meticulously bashes them?

Maybe if it was an actual documentary, and not a politically-motivated charade, then maybe people would take more kindly to it.

Ok, so they didnt ban it, but their making the teachers show opposing views of Global Warming with the movie! I mean what the hell? Doesnt like a bajillion people already know that Global Warming exists?

God damn it I am sick of people like you.

Barely anybody declares that Global Warming doesn't EXIST.

The issue is whether or not humans are the cause of it, which has NOT been proven! I personally believe that global warming IS happening, but I don't believe that if we cut emissions, that we can slow it or stop it. We can't stop nature, and global warming is a natural process.

The earth has gone through similar periods of global warming, and subsequent global cooling, many times in the history of the planet. This happened LONG before humans emitted greenhouse gases, and long before humans even existed at all!!

Therefore it is reasonable for people to be skeptical of a bogus documentary that was funded by, produced by, written by, narrated by, and endorsed by politically motivated people who have already made up their mind about the issue for political reasons.

I mean come one, why would they show opposing views to widely known facts that every single person believes with the exception of homosexual communists.

They AREN'T widely known facts, they are widely believed ideas.

Global warming IS happening. Everyone in their right mind knows it. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that humans are to blame. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that if we cut emissions, that global warming will slow down or stop.

Because historically, the Earth has gone through periods of dramatic warming MANY TIMES. So it is ridiculous to say that now, regardless of the history of our planet, that humans are to blame.

Especially when you consider that the plans to combat global warming don't go to the root of the issue. For instance, China and India, are completely EXEMPT from cutting emissions. They don't have to because they are developing nations. This means that the US will have to cut emisisons, and therefore damage our economy, all while China and India have free reign on the oil that we don't use, which will fuel their growth.

China and India will soon produce alot more pollution than the US. But all the morons, the American liberals, the stupid Europeans and others who are crying bloody murder at US for not cutting completely ignore this fact.

It seems that the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings are intentionally trying to damage the US economy, all while giving free favor to the likes of China.

Therefore,The Inconvenient Truth, which should have been called The Convenient Nonsense, is really just a piece of propaganda, with an ulterior motive.

[LadyGrace]

Um... I think it's actually pretty cool. For once the school district isn't showing "one side." They're showing their students that there are opposing views out there and they can pick what they think is correct. If only they could do that with everything they teach, since most of it is propaganda anyway.

[fahrenheit]

At 2/16/07 02:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: God damn it I am sick of people like you.

Take a class in sarcasm, or learn to take a hint.
For one, look at my last line that is quoted.
Second, look how crudely that post is written, especially when you look at my post history about global warming.
Get it? Ok good.

But no, I didnt just post this to make fun of pro-Incon truth people, there was an article written in my school paper where someone said (and I quote) "I dont see why they need to show the opposing facts, most of the Inconvenient Truth movie is fact anyways".

I found that passage so funny, if I didnt know these views were serious I would have thought it was a joke.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/16/07 03:25 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 2/16/07 02:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: God damn it I am sick of people like you.

Take a class in sarcasm, or learn to take a hint.

You suck at being sarcastic, because I doubt ANYONE would consider what you said to be the words of someone who was being sarcastic.

Notice how the other person who posted didn't catch it either?

For one, look at my last line that is quoted.

It didn't really make any sense anyhow.

Second, look how crudely that post is written, especially when you look at my post history about global warming.

I'm sorry, I don't give a fuck about your post history. I didn't take time to study your speech pattern before I came to the decision to post what I did.

Get it? Ok good.

I get that you suck at being sarcastic.

[64]

At 2/16/07 03:14 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Um... I think it's actually pretty cool. For once the school district isn't showing "one side."

I agree. That would be like only being allowed to show ads for a Yes vote on Proposition X instead of both Yes and No.

[Boltrig]

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

Doesnt like a bajillion people already know that Global Warming exists? ...

bajillion is 10 to the power of what exactly.

I mean come one...

Its come on.

why would they show opposing views to widely known facts that every single person believes with the exception of homosexual communists.

Oh look, resorting to insults in the first post.

Hmm. Way to sabotage your own argument

[xboxbob11]

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote: This is an outrage! How dare Federal Way schoold district ban a film with such truth and

It is pretty outrageous they would do this to a documentary that educates students about global warming and the threat that it poses. It's as if teachers don't care about whether our world will end or not.

because I dont know the meaning of biased

That means favoring one side and hating against the other. Or at least, that's how I see it.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote: This is an outrage! How dare Federal Way schoold district ban a film with such truth and purpose?
Ok, so they didnt ban it, but their making the teachers show opposing views of Global Warming with the movie! I mean what the hell? Doesnt like a bajillion people already know that Global Warming exists? I mean come one, why would they show opposing views to widely known facts that every single person believes with the exception of homosexual communists.

Yeah, Damn Liberals with their, wait... they haven't anything to do with the story above, apart from one of them creating the movie in the first place, there aren't any massive liberal oppositions to this. So I guess turning this into a right-vs-left issue isn't really valid.

[emmytee]

So basically, we\re supposed to take cellardoors word over over the environmental scientists. And maybe there are one or two exxon employed whores with degrees that still argue its co-incidence. But it is proven fact, just like evolution but still some americans are too fucking stupid to see it.

[Draconias]

At 2/16/07 02:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Global warming IS happening. Everyone in their right mind knows it. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that humans are to blame. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that if we cut emissions, that global warming will slow down or stop.

That's not technically true. According to the warming trends of the past 400,000 years, we should actually be in a slow cooling spell leading to an ice age right now. However, sometime about 10,000 years before the "rise" of civilization, this trend reversed. The planet has actually been warming since then, counter to the expected cooling trend. There is an article discussing this issue in the most recent Discover magazine.

However, this does reinforce the idea that emissions are not the root of the problem. In fact, what has probably had a greater impact is mass deforestation. This actually suggests a counter-balance for warming, the planting of many more forests, rather than the doomed emissions-cutting plan (you can reduce human impact, but never eliminate it). Forests would not only help the problem, but drastically reduce erosion, are self-sustaining, are pleasing to the populace (hikes, etc.), are a natural resource, and improve air quality.

Put simply, the politicians in this issue are completely off-course for how to solve the problem and they bill it in completely the wrong way. Alternatives exist, they just ignore them for the routes most likely to cripple America.

[JoS]

At 2/16/07 08:40 AM, emmytee wrote: So basically, we\re supposed to take cellardoors word over over the environmental scientists. And maybe there are one or two exxon employed whores with degrees that still argue its co-incidence. But it is proven fact, just like evolution but still some americans are too fucking stupid to see it.

None of these people are employed by Exxon.

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University

William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences:

Those are just a few of of the scientists working at Universities or in goverment organizations that do nto believe humans are the cause of global warming. Look at the different qualifications, we have an Environmental scientist, physists, meterolgoists. Hell one of them is the former president of the NAS.

[emmytee]

You lost me on 'physists'.

[Memorize]

At 2/16/07 08:40 AM, emmytee wrote: So basically, we\re supposed to take cellardoors word over over the environmental scientists. And maybe there are one or two exxon employed whores with degrees that still argue its co-incidence. But it is proven fact, just like evolution but still some americans are too fucking stupid to see it.

So basically, we're suppose to take the word of a few eniornmental scientist's word over Climatologists who are th ones who study climate and climate patterns?

So basically we're suppose to take the word of Al Gore, a man who flunked out of 3 schools, and is not a scientist, over Climatologists who say that people aren't the cause of global warming?

moron. Entertaining, but moron.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/16/07 09:03 PM, emmytee wrote: You lost me on 'physists'.

Of course, and that is why morons like you never actually understand the actual issue. Yet, you're the first person to say "Americanz R stupid 4 not beliving in global warming".

You never even realize that everyone BELIEVES in global warming. But not everyone buys into the unproven, misguided, politically-motivated PROPAGANDA compaign of blaming humans (and blaming the US) for global warming.

Never mind the fact that those 'environmental scientists' you speak of don't even claim that they can prove humans are the cause of global warming. Nor do they deny that similar periods of global warming took place before humans even existed.

It's funny, because while all these politicians and mindless indoctrinated fools like yourself scream bloody murder about global warming, the scientists who are supposedly the source of the information are almost completely silent.

The whole global warming hysteria is a result of taking a tiny little isolated bit of fact and blowing it out of proportion, while disregarding and excluding the rest of the facts, all in order to create a dramatic emotional response from vulnerable-minded people like you who don't take the time to actually see what the facts are. Therefore the people pulling the strings behind the global warming campaign have recruited millions of brainwashed fulls to rally behind them in their political goals which are the actual underlying motive.

Because after all, it's much easier for people like you to just take it for face value, because in the end it gives you another ridiculous source of anti-American ammunition to accompany the hundreds of other misguided jabs in your arsenal. And in the process, you just because another mindless drone joining the rabble.

[Dr-Worm]

I think that even if there may be another side to the argument, schools really SHOULD only teach the "global warming existant and bad, stop it", because it's better safe than sorry. Children can't be expected to make the decision for themselves. Not stopping global warming requires less effort, so they'd pick that.

[AdamRice]

Is it bad if I get 8mpg?

[SirLebowski]

It's rather silly that public schools are asked to show multiple sides of something when it is controversial. Like offering "intelligent design" wherever the Theory of Evolution is taught, regardless of how it really has nothing to do with the subject of science.

Then again, Global Warming is better left for Government right now, as it seems to be more a political platform than a science-based event.

[Memorize]

At 2/17/07 02:04 AM, SirLebowski wrote: It's rather silly that public schools are asked to show multiple sides of something when it is controversial. Like offering "intelligent design" wherever the Theory of Evolution is taught, regardless of how it really has nothing to do with the subject of science.

Like forcing kids to take Biology regardless of their beliefs?
Like trying to push the teaching of Islam from a historical point? (ACLU!)
Like Forcing 7 year olds to watch a movie on gay marrige without parental notification?
Like introducing "Why the US is addicted to War" with nothing opposing it?

Yeah...

[SirLebowski]

At 2/17/07 02:07 AM, Memorize wrote:

Like forcing kids to take Biology regardless of their beliefs?

Yes. Biology is more than just "God is a lie" it's MOSTLY looking at bacteria and Taxonamy. It's more boring than it is sacreligious.

Like trying to push the teaching of Islam from a historical point? (ACLU!)

I thought we were discussing the community forcing dissenting viewpoints on subjects regardless of their relation with the actual class that it is being taught it. Even though you have grossly run away from the topic, I apologize for the ACLU, and yes, Americans are aware that they suck.

Like Forcing 7 year olds to watch a movie on gay marrige without parental notification?

Where is this happening? I don't think any 2nd grade class would have anything like that. That would be more for government class, in middle school or high school.

Like introducing "Why the US is addicted to War" with nothing opposing it?

Well that's government class, and if that's the case the entire class should be about interpretation. It's a little different than science class.

[Memorize]

At 2/17/07 02:14 AM, SirLebowski wrote:

Yes. Biology is more than just "God is a lie" it's MOSTLY looking at bacteria and Taxonamy. It's more boring than it is sacreligious.

Then what's the point?

Where is this happening? I don't think any 2nd grade class would have anything like that. That would be more for government class, in middle school or high school.

Saw it on FOX News. O'Reilly did it, but their site is so damn hard to navigate.

Well that's government class, and if that's the case the entire class should be about interpretation. It's a little different than science class.

Oh, so you're saying it's perfectly ok to throw stuff into a class with no objections or anything to be used against it?

[SirLebowski]

At 2/17/07 02:23 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/17/07 02:14 AM, SirLebowski wrote:

Yes. Biology is more than just "God is a lie" it's MOSTLY looking at bacteria and Taxonamy. It's more boring than it is sacreligious.

Then what's the point?

Are you asking me what the point of biology is if it isn't sacreligious?

Where is this happening? I don't think any 2nd grade class would have anything like that. That would be more for government class, in middle school or high school.

Saw it on FOX News. O'Reilly did it, but their site is so damn hard to navigate.

FOX news is so not bias, there is no way they could blow the story out of proportion.

Well that's government class, and if that's the case the entire class should be about interpretation. It's a little different than science class.

Oh, so you're saying it's perfectly ok to throw stuff into a class with no objections or anything to be used against it?

That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I just stated that government class is all about objections and interpretation. Current Events in public schools are never taught with definitive answers. Unlike science class. And this topic was originally about SCIENCE class and asking them to place dissenting opinions where they did not belong.

But somehow you seem to have taken it and shaped into nothing even resembling the original debate. Good job.

[reviewer-general]

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote: This is an outrage! How dare Federal Way schoold district ban a film with such truth and purpose?

I find it outrageous that the school is taking action because some radical parent doesn't want views that oppose their beliefs shown in school. I fail to see why in the link has to mention that the parent ia an avid creationist, because that has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. This parent needs to calm the fuck down, though, and if they really have a problem with the documentary tell their kid(s) that it isn't fact and they're allowed to make their own decisions about things of that nature, or have their kid taken out of class for that movie, as you can do for sex ed. Also, what class was this shown in? I guess if it's in a Science class then it makes sense, although I don't see why a creationist parent would make such a big fuss over the movie and not the class it's being shown in. None of this makes any sense.

[Memorize]

At 2/17/07 02:45 AM, SirLebowski wrote:

Are you asking me what the point of biology is if it isn't sacreligious?

Biology = the sole point of achieving a higher gpa.

FOX news is so not bias, there is no way they could blow the story out of proportion.

And if I were to have linked you to CNN? NBC? All of them a bias you dumbfuck. But of course, you're just going to try and escape the issue because you're too much of a pansy to suck it up and accept it.

Unlike science class. And this topic was originally about SCIENCE class and asking them to place dissenting opinions where they did not belong.

Science does absolutely nothing for most people in the real world. That's why it should be optional. I had to take it, but to me it was really only there for me to get an easy grade in. If people want to be scientists, let them take it, but don't drag me into this pathetic excuse for a class.

But somehow you seem to have taken it and shaped into nothing even resembling the original debate.

And you've just demonstrated that it doesn't matter if facts stare at you right in the face, you'll just blow it off as "bias", which ever news organization is. Good job.

[emmytee]

In 2001, the US National Research Council, 2001 said that : "[Most of the]The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities"

In 2005 the Joint science academies' said that "scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action" (Ie to cut emissions)

In 2006 the Federal Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION concluded "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system "

In 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Commitee on Climate Change) ie the best scientists on this area agreed that humans are a significant contributing factor on climate change.

The Geological society of London

The American Geophysical Union

issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

But yeah, Most scientists agree with you guys, we have nothing to so with global warming....

There are plenty others, but get this: The ONLY major scientific study of global warming that agreed Humans were no factor in climate change was..... American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Still, I'm sure these people are all orons like me who don't understand the issues. Prick.

[AbsurdRandomness]

They showed it at my school, so I shouldn't complain.

[Imperator]

At 2/19/07 07:44 PM, AbsurdRandomness wrote: They showed it at my school, so I shouldn't complain.

How was it?

[fahrenheit]

At 2/16/07 03:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You suck at being sarcastic, because I doubt ANYONE would consider what you said to be the words of someone who was being sarcastic.

Are you joking? I said plainly that something reasonable is stupid.
How can that be taken seriously?

Notice how the other person who posted didn't catch it either?

That other person agreed with the article, you actually tried to argue with me.

It didn't really make any sense anyhow.

Whats it like, taking everything literally?

I get that you suck at being sarcastic.

I wonder how many idiot traps you fall for.

[Dre-Man]

Your source failed to specify what the film was about or what theories it expressed as factual information. If the film was offensive to Christians then it should have been banned. But if it merely expressed Al Gore's view on the topic of Global Warming, it should not have.

Do tell what the film was about, though.

[Imperator]

Your source failed to specify what the film was about or what theories it expressed as factual information. If the film was offensive to Christians then it should have been banned. But if it merely expressed Al Gore's view on the topic of Global Warming, it should not have.

School: Place to express one's opinions on things. Al Gore's view on Global Warming falls in that category.

I take (with most things) the middle ground on GW. I think it's true, it's happening, but I don't see the catastrophic consequences of it.

If everyone gets a chance over the summer, spring break, etc: Try reading "Meals to Come" by Warren Belasco. It's a very good book on the history of food shortage predictions. It pretty much shows that since the 1700's, all our predictions on food shortages have been wrong. Usually referenced are major world food organizations, the US Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

Soylent Green (predicted for 2022) won't be happening, despite predictions in the 60's that we'd have 1.3 billion in America, and only enough food to feed 75% of that.

Consequently, in the 40's, people predicted in the 60's that there would be 1 billion in the US, with a major food crisis.

People in the 1800's predicte the 40's similarly, etc etc, back through history.

Thus, I think something will give. The world will find a way to "cool" itself, the effects won't be as catastrophic as predicted, or the world will balance out in a way that will still enable human life without any major changes. In other words, if Siberia heats up, somewhere else the world will freeze, and it will balance. If Canada and the US heat up, South Africa (or something) will freeze over.

In short:
Although I believe Global Warming is happening, the dystopian narratives surrounding it bore me, and I don't believe them.