After feeling somewhat duped after seeing Gore's recent documentary and thinking there might be a quick fix to global warming. This provides a strong dose of truth in response. Of course any mainstream venue should be scrutinized, this helps contextualize the criminal element with in the economic system sucking us dry and killing the planet at the same time. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...elessness.shtml

So limiting his movie to global warming instead of an all encompassing global conspiracy about nearly everything makes it less credible? I'da thought the opposite.

I guess i just dont get the posters point.

just read and respond to the link, that is the point of the post.

I think Gore did good on focusing on one singluar threat and exposed many common misconceptions and propganda about global warming. If he would have talked about many things at once, then his film would have been as ineffective as Farenhet 911. Micheal Moore tried to talk about to much and gave very little detail on any one part of the problems with 9/11. If he would have focused on one aspect of the story, like Gore did with Global Warming, then maybe there would be moire public outcry about 9/11.

Now with the coming years, hopfuly more people will question global warminhg on the finer points and on on the general bullshit of it all.

I totally agree with your comments on Al Gore and his film. I do believe it has accomplished some good. You and I (a science educator) for sure already believe in the theory of global warming. Many do not. They do not even believe anything abnormal is happening. Many of these are people I know and respect. Several have seen the film and are now convinced there is a problem. Before anyone can begin to accept your contentions they first have to believe there is a problem. An it is here that the film has it's real value. Those who will really make the drastic economic changes needed are the young of this world. My 30 year old son is typical of many young I teach. They have no problem in a radical change and infact are working to make it come about. To me the most powerful aspect of the film was the footage of the changes that have already taken place. The above mentioned viewers all said that if the sound was turned off on the film they would still have been convinced. The film has helped bring those to our side. The next step is to educate these people to the need for a new economic model.

Regards, reedspeed

Al Gores first intention wuth the film, was to get peoples attention, and present the material in a way in which would interest people enough to watch. In both of these instances his movie has done excellent.

That said, clearly there is much more information that need to be presented and discussed. Blame though, right now, come secondary to solutions.

An Inconvenient truth accomplished it's objectives exceptionally well, and that was to open up and make the discussion main stream. An Inconvenient Truth marked the beginning of the end of the anti-scientific spin by the Bushites.

So I checked out the link and looked at some of the links it had to offer. I had the creepy feeling that I was in Full Straitjacket and Tinfoil Hat Land. Gold Standard? Prospering in the coming crisis? Where's the stuff about the Jews and the Bilderberg Group? What about Area 51?

I find the choice of congressional endorsements interesting -- 1 from each party.

They must be the same. [ducks]

So John,

What do you say about the $10K offer being made to the Global Warming resisters to continue their ANTI-GW position so that Big OIL can continue to suppress the truths proven by the scientific world? Those are the one's that need to be scrutinized, not the one's that brought this whole calamity to the forefront of our consciousness.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
~ George Orwell

So you propose we attack the message and the messenger?
But hasn't the opposition to this whole problem about GW (aka Big OIL) been a larger Tape Worm of the system?

Why doesn't the author address them, the larger worms/snakes? Sure the article is a few months old, but really... there is no excuse for ignorance, especially when it is pretended by people with her credentials.

Why does the author hang out with people who believe Bush was anointed by God? Does she even know what that implies? That Bush is Blessed by God to be a savior/messenger/guide to God's Children (aka Heresy)?