An Inconvenient Truth (Gore movie)

[Maitre D]

Anyone see this?  I saw it last nite at the Rio movie theatre in old Overland Park.  Not sure whether any of that is true or not, but it's a good movie for people interested in politics-environmentalism-development/transportation.

Roger Ebert's "review" is a bit biased eh? - I've posted:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... S/60517002

[KCK]

Gore is a moron.

[chrizow]

Gore is a moron.

that is your opinion...but the movie (apparently) reflects the current state of mainstream as well as cutting-edge science on this issue.  it sounds like it's worth seeing to me. 

[kcdcchef]

Gore is a moron.

a moron who won an election for president, well, the popular vote, which, means absolutely jackshit in our "free" country.

a moron. yeah, right. a very learned man, and a very educated one. where did you get your degree? maple woods??

[Maitre D]

that is your opinion...but the movie (apparently) reflects the current state of mainstream as well as cutting-edge science on this issue.  it sounds like it's worth seeing to me. 

If anyone noticed, it appears the Christian Right is heavily turning "green":



The Greening of Evangelicals
Christian Right Turns, Sometimes Warily, to Environmentalism

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A01

SEATTLE -- Thanks to the Rev. Leroy Hedman, the parishioners at Georgetown Gospel Chapel take their baptismal waters cold. The preacher has unplugged the electricity-guzzling heater in the immersion baptism tank behind his pulpit. He has also installed energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs throughout the church and has placed water barrels beneath its gutter pipes -- using runoff to irrigate the congregation's all-organic gardens.

Such "creation care" should be at the heart of evangelical life, Hedman says, along with condemning abortion, protecting family and loving Jesus. He uses the term "creation care" because, he says, it does not annoy conservative Christians for whom the word "environmentalism" connotes liberals, secularists and Democrats.

"It's amazing to me that evangelicals haven't gone quicker for the green," Hedman said. "But as creation care spreads, evangelicals will demand different behavior from politicians. The Republicans should not take us for granted."

There is growing evidence -- in polling and in public statements of church leaders -- that evangelicals are beginning to go for the green. Despite wariness toward mainstream environmental groups, a growing number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a responsibility mandated by God in the Bible.

"The environment is a values issue," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals. "There are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right."

In October, the association's leaders adopted an "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in safeguarding a sustainable environment.

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Signatories included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family (that one's for you, Chriz) and Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Some of the signatories are to meet in March in Washington to develop a position on global warming, which could place them at odds with the policies of the Bush administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for governmental affairs.

Also last fall, Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, weighed in for the first time on global warming. It said that "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our environment."

The magazine came out in favor of a global warming bill -- sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- that the Bush administration opposed and the Republican-controlled Senate defeated.

Polling has found a strengthening consensus among evangelicals for strict environmental rules, even if they cost jobs and higher prices, said John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. In 2000, about 45 percent of evangelicals supported strict environmental regulations, according to Green's polling. That jumped to 52 percent last year.

"It has changed slowly, but it has changed," Green said. "There is now a lot of ferment out there."

Such ferment matters because evangelicals are politically active. Nearly four out of five white evangelical Christians voted last year for President Bush, constituting more than a third of all votes cast for him, according to the Pew Research Center. The analysis found that the political clout of evangelicals has increased as their cohesiveness in backing the Republican Party has grown. Republicans outnumber Democrats within the group by more than 2 to 1.

There is little to suggest in recent elections that environmental concerns influenced the evangelical vote -- indeed, many members of Congress who receive 100 percent approval ratings from Christian advocacy groups get failing grades from environmental groups. But the latest statements and polls have caught the eye of established environmental organizations......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Feb5.html

[KCMax]

Its good to see people of faith realizing we are stewards of God's gift to us. Republicans actually used to be some of the best conservationists we had - Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first prominent environmentalists. Richard Nixon also had some great environmental policies.

I'm sure there are some environmentalists that go too far and stretch the truth to make their case. But to me it seems clear that global warming does indeed exist. We can debate whether or not the impact is sooner rather than later, but it seems clear to me that our dumping of mass quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have some very unfortunate consequences.

[midtown guy]

The wife and I plan to see the movie tonight I think at the Tivoli.  I'm far from an Al gore fan, but I think he's right on this one.  No way dumping carbon dioxide emmissions into the air, clearing out the rain forests and burning the world's fossil fuel supply at an alarming rate are not having an effect.  It's time someone took a stand on it.

[Maitre D]

Its good to see people of faith realizing we are stewards of God's gift to us. Republicans actually used to be some of the best conservationists we had - Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first prominent environmentalists. Richard Nixon also had some great environmental policies.

Nixon created the EPA, I believe.

As Christian Conservatives come on board to the environmental movement, here's hoping liberals will similarly abandon their typical support for mass immigration.  (As Gore points out in the movie, the twin causes of (1) population growth and (2) usage of fossil fuels, drives most warming).  More immigrants into the USA = more fossil fuel burning = more pollution = more global warming.

A 5-year old can figure this one out.  So, let's hope that's the next group to join a sane environmental movement.

[enough]

i saw it last week.  it's well worth seeing.  

yeah, it's a bit more about al-gore-the-man than a partisan might want to see, but gore's message is sound and compelling.  the earth's capacity to support life-as-we-know-it is being severely compromised.

if i could change one thing, it would be to present the what-you-can-do steps separately -- and with a visual image for each -- instead of intermixed with the credits.

[Sportster]

a moron who won an election for president, well, the popular vote, which, means absolutely jackshit in our "free" country.

a moron. yeah, right. a very learned man, and a very educated one. where did you get your degree? maple woods??

First off, thank God for the Electorial College in our Representative Republic.

Secondarily, Gore didn't win the "popular vote". (Oh, are you counting "chads" again?)

Thirdly, As a Conservative, I still have respect for Al Gore, the man. I disagree with him philosophically, but I respect him as a man. He ran a marathon (26.2 miles) with his wife and one of his daughters. I've done that too on more than one occasion. I know what kind of committment goes into that. That ain't no show up on Sunday morning and give it a shot kind of thing, ok? That's a minimum 8 week, mostly 13 week training committment. He finished that race with a respectable time. I respect him for that. He's got a decent sense of humor too. I don't know alot of people who will lampooon themselves on national TV like he's done. He does a hilarious imitaiton of himself!

Lastly,  Maple Woods has some mighty fine degree programs and turns out some extremely qualified professional people. Their ASL (sign language) program is top shelf, as is their BTC (Business & Technology College) If I were "KCK", I'd take your slam as a compliment. My BIL teaches HVAC and Electrical Engineering there. Without "Maple Woods" graduates like he instructs fixing the freezers and coolers you "Chef" (capitalized out of respect, k?) out of, you'd be shit up a creek. This "holier-than-thou" horse apples you spread around as "gospel" is wearing a little thin.

Respect.
Give it.
Get it.

Sportster
...capice?

[kcdcchef]

Secondarily, Gore didn't win the "popular vote". (Oh, are you counting "chads" again?)

not sure what election you watched. al gore won the popular vote in 2000 by over 400,000 votes. bush won the electoral.

[Deleted User]

.

[warwickland]

great movie, it seems to be finally having the effect on people that "left wing tree huggers" like myself couldn't get across, probably because i tend to be a bit condescending.

[kard]

Now ya'll drive out to the theater and see it, m'kay?

[warwickland]

Now ya'll drive out to the theater and see it, m'kay?

i walked.  (there i go again!)

[enough]

i walked, too -- going and coming.  and i picked up groceries on the way home.

[eternalvibe]

i think it is a great film with some funny moments.  & i would completely agree with the scientifically sound estimates on climate change and it's effects, and even more so...it's causes.  that aside, i was a little dissappointed with only one stat he used, which was the global population projection over the next 50 years.  that particular estimate was the only thing i would say is scientifically questionable.  there are more estimates than the one i hurriedly googled, but at least i'm linking a source.  http://www.anthro.fortlewis.edu/anthro190/un.htm.  i am a full on advocate of this film, but using one questionable stat for shockvalue is like a hang nail, providing a source for all sorts of ridiculous claims against the film's reasonably sound science.  the so called "weakest link" theory which will inevitably be exploited by the bottomless supply of dollars set aside to discredit such films.

ps:  did anyone show up to the free showing opening weekend at the tivoli?  i believe it was an 8 o'clock show on june 16th.  i proudly display my freely obtained poster in my cell/cube at work!