Global Bloviation
Drudge posted to Roger Ebert's review of St. Albert Of The Environment's summer blockbuster, An Inconvenient Truth. This appears to be less of a film than a litmus test, and Roger and most other reviewers have drunken freely of the koolaid.
I'm no scientist (hell, most of my clients don't think I'm a lawyer either), but there IS a debate and different points of view on global warming. On one side there is The Man Who Would Be President and the alarmist view that we really should just off ourselves quickly before we commit suicide by environment. Some debate whether the phenomenon is brought about by man made activities or whether there are patterns ofwarming and cooling that operate independently.
One thing is clear. . . this is a propaganda piece, plain and simple. I remember being shown one in grade school on child molesters and it scared the bejesus out of us. This one is no different.
What I find offensive in Ebert's review is that he shamelessly takes the position of Gore and lectures to us. He is less of a critic and more of a cheerleader. He accepts Gore's hypothesis hook line and sinker as fact:
If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet. After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.
THAT IS ONE THEORY, ROG. YOU STATE IT AS FACT!
Roger doesn't just recommend we see this movie, but he makes like Frank Cross in Scrooged and takes the position that we have to not just want to see this movie, we need to be scared not to see this movie:
You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.
WELL, ROG, I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MICHAEL MOORE FILMS. . . I HAVE NO INTENTION ON ENRICHING THIS BLOWHARD INVENTER OF THE INTERNET
Rog is at least honest with us:
Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.
THAT'S VERY OPEN MINDED OF YOU ROG!
How then to explain all of this and put it in context? Ah Hah! Rog tells us:
"I am a liberal".
I'm no scientist (hell, most of my clients don't think I'm a lawyer either), but there IS a debate and different points of view on global warming. On one side there is The Man Who Would Be President and the alarmist view that we really should just off ourselves quickly before we commit suicide by environment. Some debate whether the phenomenon is brought about by man made activities or whether there are patterns ofwarming and cooling that operate independently.
One thing is clear. . . this is a propaganda piece, plain and simple. I remember being shown one in grade school on child molesters and it scared the bejesus out of us. This one is no different.
What I find offensive in Ebert's review is that he shamelessly takes the position of Gore and lectures to us. He is less of a critic and more of a cheerleader. He accepts Gore's hypothesis hook line and sinker as fact:
If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet. After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.
THAT IS ONE THEORY, ROG. YOU STATE IT AS FACT!
Roger doesn't just recommend we see this movie, but he makes like Frank Cross in Scrooged and takes the position that we have to not just want to see this movie, we need to be scared not to see this movie:
You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.
WELL, ROG, I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MICHAEL MOORE FILMS. . . I HAVE NO INTENTION ON ENRICHING THIS BLOWHARD INVENTER OF THE INTERNET
Rog is at least honest with us:
Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.
THAT'S VERY OPEN MINDED OF YOU ROG!
How then to explain all of this and put it in context? Ah Hah! Rog tells us:
"I am a liberal".
posted by stewdog | 5:46 AM | Permalink
|
1 comments
1 Comments:
Hmmm. We should believe scientific facts because a movie reviewer and former politician say it is so.
And what of the recent discovery of a Florida-like climate in the Arctic circle many years before men, much less SUVs, roamed the earth? Perhaps the dinosaurs were burning fossil fuel?
Post a Comment
<< Home