SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA AMERICAN AFFAIRS
AN EDITORIAL COMMENT
Goring the Truth
SCOTTSDALE, Oct 20, 2007 - Well, it's official now. A British judge ruled last week that Al Gore gored the scientific truth in his much-ballyhooed "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary that got him the status of a Hollywood celeb (click here for a BBC TV report on this). The film even won two Academy Awards this year, as well as raving accolades at the Cannes and Sundance film festivals.
More importantly, "An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office, and millions more in DVD and book sales. And Gore profited from his global warming hype personally. He charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film, according to Steven Milloy of Fox News (see below). Finally, Gore recently won the Nobel Prize for what turns out to be at least partially a hoax.
"Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change," writes Milloy in "Junk Science: Hey Gore, We Want a Refund" (Fox News, Oct 19).
Furthermore, "it should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility," writes the Fox News commentator. Milloy marshals out several other factual errors in the movie that the judge did not rule out.
The case against Gore was brought in the British courts by an education official who objected to British children being shown this film without a proper disclaimer about its lack of scientific merit.
Both BBC and Fox News reports allege that Gore knew that he was using scientific falsehoods in his documentary but did it anyway "because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism."
Nor was this the first time someone has raised objections to Gore's goring of the scientific truth while claiming to be spreading it.
CNN's Glenn Beck even compared Gore to Hitler. dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary back in June, stating, "[W]hen you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening" in An Inconvenient Truth.
And back on July 4, we received the following letter from a British Truth in Media reader with a link to a French version of a scientific rebuttal of Gore's "facts:"
A classic case of the end justifying the means (deception)? Kind of like that famous trial lawyer who finished his summation to the jury with the following remark: "And those, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, were the conclusions upon which I based my facts."
At least the attorney told the truth in the end. Not so in Gore's case. Still the Veep may have meant well. Certainly cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions is a good thing for mankind and for this planet. But lying and misleading the public about it will only make matters worse in the long run. So I suggest that the "esteemed" Academy should either ask Gore to return his two Oscars or reclassify his 98-minute movie from documentary to fiction. In which case we doubt that it would even rate a nomination, let alone an Oscar. Unless, of course, the Academy were to create a new category - year's best hoax.
From Hollywood to Main Street, given what we now know about Al Gore and his award-winning film and the rock star status that it had earned the former Vice President, what does that tell us about America's seemingly endless gullibility?
I tell you what it tells us... it's getting worse! (check out my columns "Dumbing Down of America: Dansing 'Round a Golden Calf," Washington Times, Aug 1997 and "Toward a Nation of Morons," Washington Times, Jan 2006). And it may get worse still...
With the advent of virtual lives on the Internet, such as in Second Life, for example, future generations may be hard pressed to distinguish between fiction and fact. Already one adolescent murderer (Evan Ramsey of Alaska), who was infatuated with electronic games, claimed on Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN, Oct 10) that he was surprised his real life victims didn't get back up after he had shot them.
"I based a lot of my knowledge solely on video games," Ramsey said in a prison interview. He is serving a sentence of 198 years at the Florence prison in Arizona. "I didn't understand how life worked at the time. I didn't know that, when you shoot somebody, they don't just get back up."
Ten years ago, 16-year-old Ramsey entered his high school in Bethel, Alaska. He pulled out a .12-gauge shotgun and murdered a student and the principal. And he allegedly thought it was all a video game.
O tempora, o mores... That a 16-year old cannot distinguish between fiction and reality is a tragedy. Having a former vice president hailed as a hero and showered with awards for deliberately pawning fiction as reality as a travesty.
Bob Djurdjevic, Editor
Also see... Terror in the Sky, Hillary: A DEMONcratic Candidate?; "Toward a Nation of Morons" (Washington Times); Sellout of America - II (Foreign holders of U.S. securities increase their stakes to record levels); Liberation! (by death and destruction); New York Blues Ring Hollow; Election 2004: Patriotic Dissent; Origins and History of the Electoral College; Sellout of America...
Also, check out other Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "Chinese Dragon Wagging Macedonian Tail," "An Ugly Double Standard in Kosovo Conflict?", "NATO's Bullyboys", "Kosovo: Why Are We Involved?", and "Ginning Up Another Crisis" etc.