Will this movie be picking up the best documentary Oscar at next year’s Academy Awards? If it does, it will be double good news for Al Gore. One year he gets to win the prize, next year no one will be bothering him about expending too much energy on his Tennessee mansion.
If you want to have a laugh, check out some of the comments on this article.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I wonder how embarrassing this would have to get before Owl Gore has his Oscar recalled?
“… next year no one will be bothering him about expending too much energy on his Tennessee mansion.”
But maybe they will be bothering him about other trivialities?
“The Gore-Milken Connection: Global-Warming Junk Bonds?”
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/al-gore-michael-milken-global-warming.html
“Perhaps it’s just me, but the Gore-to-Coelho-to-Milken connection smells of rot. When “carbon offsets” are put into the context of a Drexel Burnham Lambert operation, I get the whiff of a high-class junk bond scam, but updated for the 21st century.”
Maybe he could get an Oscar for best Off-Shore production?
From the above link:
“In 2004, Gore created a U.K. business called Generation Investment Management (GIM). GIM was established to take investments in technologies and processes that ostensibly combat global warming. In other words, Gore has a major interest in an organization that is poised to generate windfall profits should global-warming hysteria spread. Talk about a conflict of interest!”
They’ll rescind Gore’s Oscar right after Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.
…and Arafat’s Nobel.
That long string of comments in Roger’s link is a little time-consuming to read, but is certainly worth a scan. Some great takes on the Global-Warming global-scamming.
The only thing on stage currently that might rival the Algore sanctimonious self-serving fraudery.
I have another one “….that might rival the Algore sanctimonious self-serving fraudery.”
Yuk–i’ll say. Now for something lighter (hey, what ain’t?).
Laughter is the best antidote for Weird Al, the most humorless load that ever failed at everything.
I’m waiting for the CW song “Algore Got Run Over by a Hummer.”
The most pathetic figure I have met lately is a young man who truly believes the urgent, apocalyptic message of Gore’s movie. He is currently visiting his parents from Northern California while designing a tiny bicycle-powered mobile home for himself. He tells everyone he meets that the most important thing they can do is to walk everywhere and stop using petrochemicals.
Now we learn that Al and Tipper traveled an estimated million miles in private and commercial jets during 2005 and actually increased the amount of energy used in their Tennessee mansion after the release of the big movie. But Al and Tipper are certified as living a “carbon-neutral lifestyle” because they have invested some money in their own global fund. This will theoretically result in a reduction in carbon emissions equal to the amount they have already used — over a period of several decades. Never mind that Al’s hollywood friends have just made a big announcement that we only have 10 YEARS to save the planet.
Why isn’t some of Gore’s carbon offset money going to his most fervent, real-time carbon reducing disciples, rather than to a fund which is reportedly tax-exempt and doesn’t even have to report its investments, much less verify how carbon credits are calculated? Could any Republican get away with something like this?
You know, while we are on the subject of sanctimonious self-serving fraudery, I seem to recall current presidential candidate Hilary Clinton pushing for Water Reed Health Care nation wide
Knowing what she knows now, will the senator changed her mind again?
She’s the Highway Patrolman on the Bandwagon Expressway.
Obama should get some mileage
Carbon footprint: why do all these newspeak terms fill me with inchoate rage?
It gave Chaney a blood clot. As for me?
I see it as a leg up.
Something tells me that this movie will be as biased in one direction as Gore’s was in the other. I can imagine that people will support the one that they would personally like to be true. At least, that’s what usually seems to happen.
When do you think that people will realize “Documentary” = Entertainment not Fact.
But one of them has the prestige of the UN behind it. This is a clue as to which one is likely to have tried to have been honest.
Libby lied, he may go to jail.
Al Gore lied, he got an Oscar.
Sandy burgled top-secret docs, and didn’t even bother to take a court-ordered lie-detector test.
Dems message to Pubs: “Stay outta DC”.
Weird Al’s carbon footprint stepped on my mood ring.
KarenT asks “Why isn’t some of Gore’s carbon offset money going to his most fervent, real-time carbon reducing disciples, rather than to a fund which is reportedly tax-exempt and doesn’t even have to report its investments, much less verify how carbon credits are calculated? Could any Republican get away with something like this?”
Answer. 1) Why get involved in the facts? The facts just confuse the situation. Al Gore and his ilk largely deal in emotion (manipulated at that) and refuse to answer when challenged by the facts by calling you intellectually inferior. 2) No Republican could get away with this.
dclydew writes “When do you think that people will realize “Documentary” = Entertainment not Fact.”
I still believe that a documentary should explore both sides of an issue and let the viewers make their minds. Otherwise, it is just propoganda.
The purpose of this new film seems to be to counter the onesidedness of An Incovenient Truth by supplying some inconvenient facts. Is it really a documentary? Probably not. (As an aside, the real value of An Inconvenient Truth is that it is the first Powerpoint presentation to win an Oscar!)
However, if it get people to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and moves the discourse back to a discussion of the facts, then it may serve a useful purpose.
It’s just disappointing that so few are intellectually honest anymore.
I was taught that “learning” could lead one to change one’s views – especially if one pursued the facts and was looking foe the “truth”. Changing one’s mind was never looked at as a weakness in my home. Refusing to assess the facts was.