Noted Climate Experts Shoot Holes In Gore Movie

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm?postversion=2007012213

Damn tree-huggers.

 

I do find it interesting that the lastest greatest fuel solution is in conflict with the latest greatest enviromental problem - global warming.

It has the birk crowd in a real tizzy.

The researchers in the latest study question ethanol’s environmental benefits, noting that despite the 12 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, ethanol has “greater environmental and human health impacts because of increased release of five air pollutants and nitrate, nitrite and pesticides.”

 

No, it doesn't.
Please continue.

 

This is a trick, isn't it, to see who will inadvertently admit to wearing Birks.

 

I think all those CEOs do.

 

Another unshod treehugger ventures to measure Boom's carbon footprint.

 

Well at least you have not disagreed with my conjecture that IT is horrible movie. Borderline unwatchable. It's one of those bad documentries that they would show you in 6th grade science class.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald write in the New York Times: "A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

"In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001."

 

Oh, I'm sorry.
I disagree with you.
So do several million people around the world, most professional film critics, the overwhelming number of credible climatologists, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Glad to clear it up for you.

 

Boom, not to pile on, but could it be that you found it unwatchable because it's a topic in which you have no interest? Maybe if it had been something a little closer to home...

 

The only reason it saw the light of day was because it had Al Gore's name attached to it. Its awful.

 

Again, several people who know more about a) movies, and b) the topic, seem to disagree.
Although your sudden conclusion that Al Gore is, like, George Clooney in his ability to get projects greenlighted and to open big nationwide is pretty damn hilarious, Boom.