To mark the 10th anniversary of the release of the film documentary An Inconvenient Truth, May 24, 2016, Participant Media introduced a celebratory campaign with the social media hashtag #AIT10, and the slogan “Share your truth.” It also made free digital copies of the film available for 24 hours through a number of digital retailers, including Amazon, Itunes, and Comcast’s Xfinity On Demand.
During a fawning interview with former Vice President Al Gore aired on Monday’s NBC Today, correspondent Anne Thompson teed up the global warming activist to bash Republicans: “Do you see a Trump presidency undoing all the progress that the U.S. has made in the last ten years in the fight against climate change?” Thompson fretted: “This is a man who’s called climate change a ‘hoax’ and other words that we cannot use on network TV....So where's the hope?"
2016 was supposedly the “point of no return” for taking action on global warming, according to former Vice President Al Gore. His tipping point received widespread scorn on the right, resulting in an “Armageddon” clock posted on Rush Limbaugh’s site -- that turns zero Jan. 27.
But don’t expect the liberal news media to remind anyone of Gore’s hyperbolic claim 10 years later.
After all, the media spent those years embracing Gore’s climate agenda, promoting it and him repeatedly. At the same time, they ignored critics, errors, failed predictions and his hypocrisy. Just as they will likely ignore that Gore’s time is up.
During a fluffy human interest story on Wednesday's NBC Today about a man in Holland who built a full-size replica of the biblical Noah's Ark, correspondent Janet Shamlian turned serious for a moment, wondering: "But how realistic is this Dutchman's dream of doom? Because of global warming, the concept of a flood happening here is not unheard of." [Audio available here]
View Video Below
The man that has made millions spreading the global warming myth claimed Friday that there's a conspiracy to mislead the public about the dangers of climate change.
The Aspen Times reported Monday that Nobel Laureate Al Gore said conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page were involved:
The internet is abuzz with praise for the new documentary that points out the many faults of public education, Waiting for Superman. With positive reviews from both the Huffington Post on the Left as well as the New York Post on the Right, it makes one wonder, how could this be? It appears that this film has single-handedly done what President Obama could not do to save his own life: bring the Left and Right together on a single issue.
It is refreshing that the film's director, Davis Guggenheim (who directed An Inconvenient Truth), is able to put politics aside to see the destructive nature of teachers unions. Guggenheim put his own kids through private school but realizes that not everyone can afford such a luxury. Here, he sets out to tackle the real problems that have long plagued public school systems: teachers unions. Though, he is careful to say that he isn't bashing unions in general.
Guggenheim sees that not everything has to be a political football, which is why we should applaud him for taking a bipartisan approach. However, some feel that the response to the film shows the true, negative colors of conservatives. Liberal Patrick Goldstein comments in the Los Angeles Times:
Another country is looking into whether or not Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should carry a warning before it is shown in public schools.
In October 2007, a British judge ruled that there were so many material falsehood's in the film that they had to be disclosed to students before it was aired.
Now, a petition is being distributed in New Zealand for similar provisions to be implemented.
As New Zealand's National Business Review reported Wednesday:
The Independence Party in Great Britain wants to ban Nobel Laureate Al Gore's fact-challenged schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in schools.
The British Telegraph reported Thursday:
Following a number of scandals around the science of climate change, UKIP are promising to launch a Royal Commission led by a High Court judge to investigate whether global warming is man-made.
Wait. It gets better:
Naming his ten best movies of what he misidentified as “the first decade of the 21st century,” Boston Herald film reviewer James Verniere on Tuesday asserted that “in terms of filmmaking that opens the world’s eyes to a worldwide problem, Al Gore trumps Michael Moore in my view.”
From the New York Times to the Colbert Report, liberal media commentators have had a field day bashing Glenn Beck for his purported conflict of interest in encouraging his viewers to invest in gold without disclosing that he has endorsed gold distributors.
Yet few of these pundits have even mentioned Al Gore's monumental conflict of interest--which could have far greater consequences for Americans than Beck's gold promotions--in touting global warming hysteria while establishing his own green technology empire.
NewsBusters has consistently argued that Gore plays up the dangers of global warming to line his own pockets. His investments in green energy firms could pay enormous dividends if the United States adopts the draconian cuts to carbon emissions he has advocated--and Congress included in the environmental tax known as cap and trade passed by the House last summer.
As the ClimateGate scandal continues to grow and impact global warming alarmists around the world, two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have called upon Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Oscar to be rescinded.
For those that have blocked the painful memory out of their minds, Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" won for best documentary in 2007.
In reality, it was the film's director Davis Guggenheim along with producers Lawrence Bender and Laurie David that won the statuettes, but as the idea was all Gore's, the honor was largely his.
Now, as a result of ClimateGate, the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm reports a small movement to take these Oscars back:
Paul Krugman attacked the authors of the soon-to-be-released book SuperFreakonomics today for their audacious attempts to question the left's conventional wisdom on global climate change. He then touted the danger of attacking conservatives, and contended that liberal-bashing has always been the safer political and professional move.
I have a theory here, although it may not be the whole story: it’s about careerism. Annoying conservatives is dangerous [his emphasis]: they take names, hold grudges, and all too often find ways to take people who annoy them down... [Conservatives] snub anyone who breaks the unwritten rule and mocks those who must not be offended.
Annoying liberals, on the other hand, feels transgressive but has historically been safe. The rules may be changing (as [SuperFreakonomics authors Stephen] Dubner and [Steven] Levitt are in the process of finding out), but it’s been that way for a long time.