Oh, this is rich.
On April 15, 1994, Dick Cheney was asked about the United States’ actions during the Gulf War three years earlier — specifically, whether we should have pressed on into Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein then, as some people had wanted or expected.
Here’s what Cheney said (transcript after the clip):
Vice President Dick “Richard” Cheney’s visit to Brigham Young University’s commencement ceremony on Thursday passed smoothly and without incident, though there had been much controversy beforehand. The cantankerous, go-F-yourself-encouraging veep, known in some circles as Bush’s “attack dog,” came across as likable and pleasant in his address to graduates and their guests. He didn’t say anything controversial or political (I don’t think anyone expected him to; it wouldn’t be the right forum for that), and he even earned a couple of laughs.
You can hear his entire speech here. Note the places where he got the biggest applause: when he extended President Bush’s well wishes to the graduates, and when he mentioned BYU’s consistent ranking as No. 1 in the category of “stone-cold sober” colleges.
He cracked a few jokes at his own expense. He said that in his own college career, he nearly earned a doctorate, lacking only the dissertation. “I’ll get started as soon as I come up with a topic,” he said.
Continue reading…
I don’t watch much TV news, having learned years ago that most of it is unintentionally superficial and unintentionally funny. (I prefer to watch things that are superficial and funny on purpose.) I do catch clips online now and then, however, when something is brought to my attention that’s worth noting.
Keith Olbermann’s 10-minute commentary on his MSNBC program “Countdown” earlier this week, which you can watch here, fits that description. I enjoyed Olbermann’s sense of humor when he was an L.A. sportscaster in the 1980s, and I’ve recently been entertained by his constant harassment of Bill O’Reilly on “Countdown.”
But I never would have expected the level of gravitas and incisive commentary that he displays here. He reminds me of Edward R. Murrow (whose commentaries were dramatized in “Good Night and Good Luck”) in that it’s not enough to read the transcript of his remarks. You have to watch his face and hear his delivery to get the full effect of the scathing things he’s saying.
(By the way, you can watch the Bill Clinton interview from two days earlier, which Olbermann’s piece is partly a response to, here.)
Having watched the Olbermann clip without much introduction and having been stirred by it, I poked around the Interwebs to see how the conservative blogs were responding. I don’t read many political blogs of any denomination, so I had to do some Googling to find conservative ones.
The few I found that mentioned it at all were depressingly predictable: They harp on Olbermann’s manner and delivery and don’t even try to rebut the things he actually SAID.
I guess the reasoning is that if you’re writing a conservative blog for conservative readers, you don’t need to explain why Olbermann is so wrong. Your readers already KNOW why. So I wish someone would explain it to me, a more-liberal-than-conservative person who doesn’t read the political blogs every day and doesn’t know why Olbermann’s commentary is so off-base. He seemed to me to be making excellent points and to be making them exceptionally well. He’s actually SAYING something, which is more than any of the bloggers (that I could find) did in response to him.
P.S. I know liberal bloggers do the same thing: A conservative says something, they automatically mock and ridicule him without regard for what he actually said. It’s the major reason I don’t read political blogs, because both sides are equally jackassish about it. The Olbermann thing is what happens to be on my mind at the moment, that’s all.
Diligent, long-suffering readers of this blog will recall that one of the strengths of Al Gore’s global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is a study he cites that supposedly demonstrates how the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about global warming, and that the debate should therefore be over.
The study was by Nancy Oreskes. According to Gore, she randomly chose 928 global warming-related articles published in science journals between 1993 and 2003 and found that ALL of them supported the majority view — i.e., Gore’s position, that global warming is real, bad and preventable.
I said in a previous blog entry that I have no choice but accept that study as legitimate. I don’t have access to all the science journals, nor the resources to duplicate the study. I said someone who did have the resources was probably already working on either refuting or supporting it.
And I was right! And it turns out Oreskes’ study — and thus Gore’s support of it in his film — was deeply flawed.
A reader named Keryn (I offer no comment on that spelling) pointed me toward an article by Iain Murray published in the National Review. Now, the National Review would sooner open an abortion clinic in its conference room than say anything positive about Al Gore, and much of what Murray says boils down to nothing more than “my scientists are better than Gore’s scientists.” But he does offer a key insight, found in item #24:
On the supposed “scientific consensusâ€?: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, did not examine a “large random sampleâ€? of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.â€? Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’â€?
The way it went down was, Oreskes’ study was published Science Magazine on Dec. 3, 2004. In it, Oreskes said she had done an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) database search for the keywords “climate change” and had come up with 928 abstracts published between 1993-2003, and that not one of them rejected the consensus position.
When Dr. Benny Peiser did the same search, however, he came up with some 12,000 papers, not 928. Confronted with this information, Oreskes confirmed she’d screwed up: She hadn’t searched for the keywords “climate change,” as her article said, but for “global climate change.” That search brings up only 1,247 documents. (Where she got the number 928, who knows.)
Seeing that Oreskes’ study was flawed from the get-go, Peiser did his own. He used the same keywords — “global climate change” — for 1993-2003 and came up with 1,247 documents, as just mentioned. Only 1,117 of those had abstracts (you know, the paragraph that summarizes the whole paper). He analyzed those 1,117 abstracts and found that only 13 explicitly endorse the consensus view; 322 implicitly accept it but focus on other aspects; 44 focus on natural factors of global climate change; and 34 reject or doubt the Al Gore view altogether. (Oh, and 470 of the 1,117 articles include the keywords “global,” “climate” and “change” but don’t actually have anything to do with the matter at hand.)
Science Magazine ran a brief correction a few weeks later, but refused to published Peiser’s more detailed study on the grounds that the information he was presenting was already widely disseminated on the Internet. (In other words: “Yeah, we screwed up when we ran Oreskes’ article. Quit rubbing it in.”)
Peiser recounts the whole thing, including his exchanges with Science Magazine, here. It’s good reading.
Several readers also brought to my attention an article from the Wall Street Journal that argues with some more of Gore’s points. This article also mentions the Oreskes/Peiser studies.
The inaccuracy of the Oreskes study hurts part of Gore’s case: the part where he says scientists all more or less agree with him. In truth, while there is a majority opinion (MOST scientists seem to be onboard with it), it’s far from being an overwhelming consensus. I suspect average non-scientist citizens will decide what to believe the same way they usually do: They’ll agree with Gore if they’re Democrats and disagree with him if they’re Republicans. Ta-da!
Final side note/tangent: Many conservative pundits, including my occasional employer Glenn Beck, insist on declaring Gore’s film a box-office failure and mocking him for it. They say this because they wish it to be so, not because the facts support it.
(Glenn Beck has compared the film to Hitler’s propaganda. I suppose it’s his job to stir up controversy by making extreme statements, thus ensuring more attention for himself. Hitler, I mean. Oh, and I guess Glenn, too.) (But I kid.)
The film has grossed $13.6 million to date, making it the fifth most successful documentary of all time. It will be in fourth place by the time it’s finished. (It needs just another $1.5 million to overtake “Madonna: Truth or Dare,” but probably won’t muster the $7 million it needs to kick “Bowling for Columbine” out of the No. 3 spot.)
Yes, $13.6 million is nothing compared to the top grossers of the day. But no reasonable person would compare a documentary to a wide-release Hollywood blockbuster. By any sane system of measurement, $13.6 million for a documentary is fantastic. You can argue with the movie’s facts, agenda or presentation, but on the matter of its box office, there IS a consensus and the debate IS over.
Like many film critics, I’ve received a lot of e-mails in response to my positive review of Al Gore’s global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and to my subsequent blog entries on the same topic. Not since “Brokeback Mountain” have so many people been so sure they disagreed with a film they haven’t seen.
Normally I don’t debate a movie with people who haven’t seen it — I mean, really, duh — but since the topic of “An Inconvenient Truth” extends into the real world, and since the movie purports to be an analysis of real-world circumstances, it seemed reasonable to make an exception.
But as I’ve responded to the people who have taken time to write to me — all of them intelligent and (except one, maybe) polite so far — I’ve noticed that I’m repeating myself a lot. So I thought I’d reprint some of the letters here, and then summarize my responses to the issues they bring up. I still welcome e-mails from readers, of course, but perhaps this will make some correspondence unnecessary. Consider it a FAQ RE: Al Gore and global warming.
From a longtime reader named Joe:
You mentioned that Gore says that there is no real dissent on warming. A couple of days before your post I wrote about it on a blog, specifically about dissent on Global Warming. I know, the name of the blog is Right Wing Pundit, but I didn’t misquote the sources to prove a point.
I know, I know- maybe I am just a right winger that doesn’t want to face facts, but there are respected people that disagree with some of the science of global warming. The fact that it HAS become a partisan issue doesn’t mean that the partisan people that disagree are wrong.
My conclusion is that man’s effect on warming is just a theory, and will always be one. It is not scientific fact because it hasn’t passed the test.
From another longtime reader, Rob:
I was a little disappointed in the lack of sophistication evident in your review of “An Inconvenient Truth” and other comments of yours on the topic of global warming.
First, the idea that the Earth is warming due to human activity is indeed a theory and not one that is universally supported in the scientific community. Yes, average temperatures have gone up in recent years in many parts of the world, but we don’t know yet what’s causing that phonomenon. Could just be a normal part of the Earth’s temperature cycle, which has varied greatly over the centuries. Certainly, what’s known as “global warming” is one hypothesis that is widely, if not universally, accepted. Perhaps the fact that it IS the dominant theory in the scientific community explains why so few dissenting articles have been published in journals controlled by the scientific community. Anyone who views science as the realm of pure knowledge, and not as a hotbed for partisan politics, is naive indeed.
(Let me suggest here a very good read: Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear,” which, although a novel, explores the global warming controversy with the depth of scientific and journalistic research that has become Crichton’s trademark.)
Secondly, you express bewilderment that Republicans and other conservatives could take issue with what is clearly, in your mind, scientific fact. “Aren’t we all living on the same planet,” you ask? Forgive me for saying so, because I normally respect your intelligence–you’ve given me a lot of great movie tips over the years–but that’s nothing more than bumper-sticker wisdom, a trite platitude masquerading as a reasoned argument.
Conservatives are concerned about the global warming movement because many, both inside and outside the scientific community, are attempting to use this popular theory as a weapon in the war on capitalism. As many leading economists have concluded, adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would do great damage to our economy, perhaps irreversably. Could that, and not “saving the Earth,” be the real goal of the self-proclaimed “environmentists”? Before you answer, look carefully at their politics. You will find that many of them are socialists, if not out-and-out Marxists. The “green movement” is little more than a new cover for an old agenda: redistribution of wealth.
All conservatives are saying is, let’s not destroy the world’s economy based on panicked responses to an unproven theory. Instead, let’s begin taking sensible steps to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, such as personal conservation, greater use of mass transit, and using our power as consumers to create the demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. Meanwhile, we can continue debating the science, and eventually, the truth will emerge.
Until then, remember that nothing has the power to liberate people and lift them from poverty like free markets.
From a reader named Shang:
I just read your review of “An Inconvenient Truth” and had some thoughts about global warming that I thought you might be interested in hearing. Let me state first that I am no skeptic of global warming: the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. I even believe human activity has contributed to it. I am interested in seeing Mr. Gore’s movie, because I believe there is great value in humans being better caretakers of this planet. The only thing I take issue with is the smug certainty that Gore and those scientists who agree completely with him express when it comes to the extent of the problem, its impacts and our ability to solve it. While I do not doubt that it is mainly Big Oil that is behind the push to downplay global warming, I question the assertion that Gore and your review so elegantly made regarding the scientific consensus about global warming.
Yes, the statistic you listed from the documentary about all 900-odd journals supporting wholly the theory is very convincing. I am impressed by that and want to know more about it, but coming from a market research background, it seems to me almost too good to be true. I wonder what the methodology is behind this assessment. Then I read articles such as this one that are candid and where the journalist is quite aware of the criticism of the skeptics’ view and easily admits the fishy Big Oil scientist connections when they are pointed out, yet explains logically how Gore cannot point out the biases that surround his research. Could it be that Gore has his “side” just as Big Oil has its “side?” Is one “side” right or might they both be wrong together?
I cannot ignore that Gore’s evidence is extremely compelling, and most authorities seem to see things his way, but we must realize that going with his assumptions on faith and developing solutions accordingly, while they very well could lead to a viable answer, could also have significant costs and devastating, cascading socioeconomic impacts. Not going with his solutions may also have catastrophic outcomes, which is what he wants everyone to believe, and admittedly out of nothing but sincerity and no ulterior motive. But to ignore reputable sources, which I believe he might be doing, in order to push for extreme measures could be seen as irresponsible.
From a DVD Talk reader who probably had not read anything of mine before and who is named Dave:
It’s too bad you don’t check you facts. There are plenty of scientists who dispute Gore’s publicity stunt:
[Dave neglected to mention this, but what he is about to cite comes from an article in the online publication Canada Free Press. I do not know how reliable this publication is generally, but I do know that one of their writers once plagiarized material from The Onion for a news story, apparently not realizing The Onion is a FAKE news outlet and that the material she stole from them was made-up. Anyway, back to Dave's letter/CFP quotation.]
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”
But Karlén clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect,” Karlén concludes.
Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”
[End uncredited CFP quotation.]
Obviously, he went to the Michael Moore school of movie making. Inuendo, half truths and misleading statements are no substitute for the facts. [Nor is copying and pasting a Web article a substitute for an actual letter!]
From Dave again, when I wrote back to him and asked why I should believe the scientists he quotes over the ones Gore uses, and also indicated that I, as a non-scientist, have no choice but to go along with what the majority of scientists believe, which in this case is that global warming is real, bad, and preventable:
I appreciate that you are in the entertainment business and science may not be “your thing”. Still, as a journalist you have a certain responsibility to your readers. Mr. Gore is trying to make money and increase his political coin by releasing a controversial movie. I wasn’t encouraging you to believe one view or another. It’s just that I take umbrage at people who throw away their critical thinking skills and accept facts blindly. It’s clear you did by various statements in your review. As an example:
”They did a random sampling of 928 global-warming-related articles from all the regular peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of those 928 (which comprise 10 percent of the total published), how many suggested that global warming was not a reality, or that it was part of a natural Earth cycle, or that there was nothing we could do about it? A grand total of zero.” [That paragraph is a quote from my review of Gore's movie.]
Did you attempt to verify this statement? What is their definition of “random”? Of those 9,000 articles, perhaps 8,000 refute their claims and they took a “random” sampling of the ones who agreed with their premise.
Any endeavor that has the possibility of garnering the creator fame or monetary gain should be closely scrutinized, both for the facts of the subject matter and the motivation. For example, perhaps he wants to increase his visibility for a possible run at the White House? Imagine what “his” scientists would stand to gain if that would happen.
I encourage you to listen to BOTH sides and make an informed decision, rather than believing what you are told. Question everything.
* * * * * *
So there’s a sampling of what I’ve gotten so far, and I should add a thanks my longtime brother Chris for sending me the Canada Free Press link, which is how I was able to spot where Dave had gotten his info from.
Now here is my response to all of this, more or less divided by topic of concern.
IS THERE AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL WARMING?
Gore says there is. In “An Inconvenient Truth,” he says that in a random sampling of more than 900 articles on the subject published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, NONE of them took the contrary position. Meanwhile, he points out, in newspaper articles about it, the contrary position gets mentioned more than 50 percent of the time — a contrary position that, he says, very, very few scientists actually hold. The media exaggerate how much disagreement there is, in other words.
So says Gore. Dave asked, “Did you attempt to verify this statement?” Well, no. I don’t know what Dave thinks I ought to have done. Gore doesn’t say who conducted this random sampling, or which specific scientific journals they used. Short of obtaining every scientific journal published in the last decade and doing a random sampling of 900 articles myself, there’s not much I can do to corroborate Gore’s claim.
There are people with such resources, and I don’t doubt they will pore over the scientific journals to see if they can refute or confirm Gore’s statistics. But I am not one of those people.
But even if Gore is right, and peer-reviewed scientific journals almost never publish articles suggesting global warming is a) not real, b) not bad, or c) not preventable anyway, that doesn’t necessarily mean the issue is settled.
In his blog entry linked above, Joe quotes the Denver Post in saying, “There are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.”
In other words, perhaps the reason scientific journals don’t publish articles debunking global warming is that scientists who take that position are afraid to speak up. Perhaps the reason “the scientific community” generally agrees on it is that those who disagree aren’t admitted into the “scientific community.” It is something to think about.
SO IF THERE’S NO OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS, IS THERE AT LEAST A MAJORITY OPINION?
Yes. I think even those who claim global warming is a crock admit that their viewpoint is the minority one among scientists. It may be a growing minority, and a vocal one, but it remains a minority.
And see, that’s the whole point for me. When a movie says something that I recognize as blatantly illogical or untrue, I’m quick to point it out in my review. But I’m not a scientist. What Gore says in “An Inconvenient Truth” makes sense to me. He explains himself very clearly, and the science he uses seems sound, at least to my layman’s mind.
I’m sure there are people hard at work as we speak, debunking whatever elements of Gore’s film need to be debunked. And if specific errors in fact or methodology come forth, I’ll be glad to know the truth on the matter.
But in the meantime, Gore’s opinion — that global warming is real, bad, and preventable — is the one shared by a majority of scientists. Again, maybe not so many as to be a hands-down, end-of-discussion consensus, but enough to where I, as a regular joe, can comfortably accept that majority opinion as a reliable one and act accordingly.
Dave wants me to listen to the opposing scientists, and OK, I’ve read what they say. But why take their word over that of Gore’s scientists? Logically, if there are qualified individuals coming up with different conclusions, my best course of action is to go with the prevailing, majority opinion.
ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A PARTISAN ISSUE
Rob took me to task when he said: “You express bewilderment that Republicans and other conservatives could take issue with what is clearly, in your mind, scientific fact. ‘Aren’t we all living on the same planet,’ you ask? … But that’s nothing more than bumper-sticker wisdom, a trite platitude masquerading as a reasoned argument.”
Fortunately, I didn’t actually say that. What I said, in my blog entry about the film, was: “How did the environment become a partisan-politics issue? Though it may seem otherwise, Republicans and Democrats actually live on the same planet (Earth), and the condition of that planet affects both groups.”
All I was saying was that protecting the Earth — whether that means fighting global warming, or proving global warming doesn’t exist, or whatever — should be something ALL political parties are interested in. Yet for some reason, it’s vastly partisan.
Rob said the conservative position is “let’s not destroy the world’s economy based on panicked responses to an unproven theory. Instead, let’s begin taking sensible steps to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, such as personal conservation, greater use of mass transit, and using our power as consumers to create the demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.”
The problem as I see it is, since environmentalism is so partisan now, all the conservatives can do is SAY that. If a conservative even thinks of doing the things Rob mentions, he is branded a hippie liberal tree-hugger Marxist. So instead, the conservative party line is to TALK about those things, but not to actually do much about them. In fact, some people take stubborn pride in doing non-environment-friendly things just because they don’t like environmentalists (i.e., liberals), sort of like the anti-vegetarian “for every animal you don’t eat, I’m going to eat three” joke.
IS THERE ANY HARM IN FOLLOWING GORE’S ADVICE, EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING TURNS OUT TO BE FALSE?
What Gore and his ilk suggest is reducing oil and energy consumption, which means driving less, using hybrid cars, developing alternative fuel sources, etc. All of this will help stop global warming — but even if global warming proves false, well, aren’t those good suggestions anyway?
I mean, don’t we all agree that less dependency on oil — especially foreign-owned oil — is a GOOD thing? Wouldn’t we all like lower emissions on cars and thus cleaner air to breathe? And in addition to slowing global warming, doesn’t reducing your electricity usage save you money?
Let’s say a doctor tells you you’ve got cancer, and the only way to cure it is to eat right and exercise daily. Then it turns out you didn’t have cancer after all. Are you mad? Or are you glad you got in the habit of eating right and exercising daily?
Rob brings up what what many on his side of the issue have brought up, which is that Gore’s ideas, if followed to their conclusion, could destroy the national and world economies. Gore addresses this point in his film, but only briefly (that’s one of the movie’s flaws, I think), and not in much detail. I get the impression he talks about it more in his live presentation, and that only a few moments of it was included in the film.
I know, if this is possible, even less about economics than I do about science. But I’m smart enough to see that certain things cause other things. Using less electricity and oil will hurt the electricity and oil industries, which will hurt the many people who are employed by those industries, which will hurt the overall economy.
However, let’s not forget that the economy changes frequently as technology, trends and lifestyle choices evolve. Companies that once made millions producing film are suffering because everyone uses digital cameras now. The people who once produced typewriters have had to focus on niche markets or change their wares. I imagine at one point there were a lot of horse breeders and buggy manufacturers who were sad indeed to see the automobile become so popular.
If an alternative fuel source were found, something cheaper, cleaner and more renewable than gasoline, I think most of us would be delighted about it and would give very little thought as to how it will impact the poor oil companies. They might go bankrupt, and their employees might have to find new jobs in other fields, but life would, in fact, go on. It wouldn’t DESTROY the economy; it would merely change it.
Of course, if the prevailing notions about the severity and preventability of global warming are true, then all of this is irrelevant. We would have to do whatever is necessary, whether it hurts the economy or not. But we’ve survived other economic changes and crises and would probably survive this one, too.
ARE GORE AND HIS COHORTS EXAGGERATING OR LYING ABOUT THIS?
This has always seemed to me the weakest argument. What do Gore or the global warming scientists stand to gain by lying? What’s in it for them?
Now, denying global warming, there’s where the money is. The oil companies and car manufacturers certainly have a vested interest in global warming not being accepted by the general public. But where’s the money in environmentalism? I suppose if Gore owned a company that makes hybrid cars, maybe you’d have something there.
Rob suggested the opposite, actually: that many of the global warming fanatics DON’T want to make money, and in fact don’t want ANYONE to be rich. “Could (destroying the economy), and not ’saving the Earth,’ be the real goal of the self-proclaimed ‘environmentists’?” Rob writes. “Look carefully at their politics. You will find that many of them are socialists, if not out-and-out Marxists. The ‘green movement’ is little more than a new cover for an old agenda: redistribution of wealth.” He calls it part of the “war on capitalism.”
I’m going to go ahead and dismiss this as what we in the business call crazy talk. I guess maybe there are environmentalist nuts who truly DO have destruction of the economy as their ultimate goal, with little or no sincere concern for actually saving the Earth. But come on, the movement as a whole?
Gore certainly isn’t a socialist or a Marxist, unless you’re one of those right-wingers who think ALL liberals are closet socialists (in which case I respond: shut up, you closet fascist). And I have no reason to doubt that the other people who claim to be concerned for the environment actually are. They may recognize an impact on the economy as a potential byproduct of reformed environmental policies, but it would be an awfully elaborate plan to have THAT as their ultimate goal, with the “save the Earth” thing just the means to that end. I mean, there are probably more direct ways of destroying capitalism, if that’s your intention.
Dave wrote, “Mr. Gore is trying to make money and increase his political coin by releasing a controversial movie.” I guess the way that would work is, he makes everyone think global warming is a serious threat, then takes the lead in defeating global warming. It would be like a knave riding into a village, announcing there are (fictitious or harmless) dragons out in the forest, then getting elected mayor on the strength of his “Stamp Out Dragons” policies.
But watching Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” — and let me point out again that as far as I can tell, none of the people whose e-mails I’ve quoted here have actually seen it — I see a sincere, passionate man. I don’t see how you can come out of the film not believing that Gore truly believes everything he says. If he’s faking it, his talent for acting (or BS-ing) is epic.
Does that mean he’s unaware of how it might help him politically, should he choose to become a politician again? Of course not. I’m sure he knows the effect this might have on his career. I just don’t think that’s WHY he’s doing it. Now, I can only base that on my gut instinct as I watch him in his film. But one thing I AM good at, if not science or economics, is watching movies.
We’ve had a lot of letters recently that belong in Eric’s Sack of Mail — correspondence that is NOT angry, irrational or stupid — so we’re going to present some of them today and some of them in another installment. And here we go!
A reader named Garrett responds to my review of “The Da Vinci Code,” where I made fun of a particular detail in the plot:
I didn’t particularly like the Da Vinci Code film, but I don’t think twitting the filmmakers for using a bank account’s “safe passage clause” as a plot point is very fair. Maybe if the bank account was really, really old, back to the times where safe conduct agreements and edicts were more common. Still not very reasonable, I suppose. What is more likely is that the bank manager (in light of his true motives) was making that up in order to get them under his control.
We can, I suppose, fault the two main characters for their naive acceptance of such a ridiculous contrivance.
Was there a time when a “safe passage clause” was common in bank accounts? Like in the Wild West or something? I’ll have to look into that.
But yeah, I think you’re right that the real problem with the movie’s use of it is how the Hanks and Tautou characters accept it like it’s perfectly normal. (Also normal: Declaring “I’ve got to get to a library, FAST!!” in a loud, urgent voice.)
Speaking of big movies where characters say and do ridiculous things, a DVD Talk reader named Brad wrote in response to my review of “X-Men: The Last Stand” (which was listed after two other reviews, by the way; you’ll need to know that). I mentioned some other trilogies where the third entry was the lowest in quality, prompting Brad to say:
I respect your opinion, HOWEVER…
Back to the future III? Jurassic Park III? Godfather III? Okay, I’ll give you that last one.
But BF3 was at least as good as the first one, and better that the second by a mile.
JP3 is, in my humble opinion, much better than the first one. And don’t get me started on Lost World!!
*takes deep breath* I’m alright…I’m okay…
Anyway, all trilogizing aside, no hard feelings, and keep up the good work.
BTW, d’ja notice that of the three [reviews] of this movie, YOURS IS THE THIRD? Coincidence. I think not. What goes around…
Just kidding. 8 > )
“Back to the Future III” and “Jurassic Park III” as good as the originals?! Surely you smoke crack, sir.
And if my review was the weakest of the three, just think how bad the FOURTH one will be!
Ah, good-natured jesting! It is my favorite.
My “X3″ review also mentioned the absurd line, “I’m the Juggernaut, b****!” Consequently, a reader whose name I didn’t get wrote in with this information:
I was checking out your review (great review!) and I noticed that you mentioned Juggernaut’s line “I’m the Juggernaut, B****!” as “an effort to produce the Worst Line of 2006.” I’m sure you’ve had plenty of people inform you of this since you posted that, but in case they didn’t, that line comes from a parody that’s spreading like wildfire over Myspace and YouTube. Some guys dubbed their voices over an episode of [the animated TV series] X-men.
I was aware of that, and it actually makes the line worse, in my opinion. Not only is it a bad line by itself, but it was included for a stupid reason (i.e., as a shout-out to fanboys).
Nonetheless, I had not seen the animated dub in question, and the reader was good enough to provide a link. Here is where the little mini-phenomenon can be seen. (WARNING: It contains non-stop R-rated language. Don’t click it if you don’t want to hear it.) And here is the creators’ MySpace page. One of their blog entries chronicles their elation at discovering their line was being featured in the movie, which is kind of adorable. (By the way: I have a friend who honestly believes — and has strong evidence in support of it — that the line in “Pulp Fiction” about “it’s always time for pie” came from her. I’ll have to tell you the story sometime.)
Finally, I wrote a blog entry criticizing Fox News for snottily implying Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was a failure for grossing “only” $350,000 over its opening weekend when it was only playing in four theaters at which nearly every screening was sold-out. Brandon writes in with this additional insight:
You lambasted Fox News (and rightfully so) for claiming “An Inconvenient Truth” was not a sucess for grossing about $350,000 over the weekend while playing at only four theaters nationwide.
While I’d agree the movie cannot be considered a failure, I’m hesitant to view it as a blockbuster success as you seem to right now. Your argument that every single showing of the movie was sold out at every theater over the weekend reminds me of NASCAR fans. NASCAR fans are quick to point out that the main race for NASCAR sells out to a tune of over 200,000 seats every week. Other sports, they claim, hardly have any teams that sell out on a consistent basis. Here’s why I feel they are wrong:
There were only 200,000 seats available! It’s only available one day of the week! If you took every NFL team and was somehow able to put them into an arena and have them play each other in one game every week, that would sell hundreds of thosands of seats years in advance. Same goes for the NBA or MLB, in my opinion.
Mr. Gore’s movie was available to a limited number of people in limited areas, much like NASCAR. My guess is that those who really really wanted to see it went out of their way to catch it the opening weekend. These people are not few in number, but can hardly rival the numbers of people who have seen and still want to see “X-men”.
I’m willing to bet that if you’d opened “House of 1000 Corpses” to only 4 theaters over one weekend, it would have earned $350,000, too.
You cannot compare the release of “X-men” to the release of “An Inconvenient Truth” in either a positive or negative way, in my view.
Those are good points. “An Inconvenient Truth” is not a blockbuster, and likely never will be. Documentaries that gross huge amounts of money are extremely rare. And you’re right that if the film HAD played in 3,000 theaters, the per-theater average would have been miniscule.
My point was simply that, contrary to Fox’s snotty implication, less than half a million dollars is NOT a disappointment under the circumstances. By all accepted measures within the film industry, $350,000 in four theaters is stupendous, regardless of what “kind” of film it is or what audience it appeals to. A per-theater average of $90,000 over four days is good, period. No one in the film industry would dispute that.
But when Fox News says, “X3 made $120 million! Ooooh, and poor Al Gore’s movie only made half a million,” they’re being disingenuous. The average viewer is going to take the implication — Gore’s movie is a flop — at face value because Fox didn’t MENTION that it was only playing in four theaters and that its take was actually quite good. They took the outcome they wanted — Gore fails — and found a way to phrase the facts to fit that.
“An Inconvenient Truth” has dropped in per-theater average as it has expanded to more theaters, of course. That’s partly because with each passing week more and more people who want to see it have already done so, and also because the potential audience for documentaries in general is so small. It’s grossed $3 million so far. If it makes it to even $12 million, it will be among the top five highest-grossing docs of all time.
That’s it for Eric’s Sack of Mail this time. Keep those sensible and intelligent cards and letters coming!
Here’s a bit of blatant stupidity from Fox News, courtesy of Media Matters. Last Monday, Fox’s Terry Keenan said this:
“And ‘X Men: The Last Stand,’ the dominant force at the box office. The film expected to earn more than $120 million over the Memorial Day weekend as ‘The Da Vinci Code’ fell to fourth place. Al Gore’s global warming documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’? Well, it earned less than half a million dollars during its quote, ‘limited release.’”
That last part is said rather smugly, as you can see from watching the video clip available here.
Now, first of all, “The Da Vinci Code” fell to second place, not fourth. But more importantly, regarding “An Inconvenient Truth,” the truth that proved inconvenient in this case is that it was only playing in FOUR THEATERS when it grossed its $367,311. That’s an average of $91,827 per theater, which is in the top 25 highest per-theater averages in history. (It played on a total of nine screens in those theaters, by the way: three locations had it on two screens, and one had it on three.)
A per-theater average of $91,827 is HUGE for a four-day weekend, and it’s three times higher than “X3’s” average. It means every screening was sold-out or close to sold-out. In other words, the only way the film could have earned more than it did is if it had played on more screens, or if the four theaters it played in had installed more seats. Sorry to disappoint you, Fox News, but that makes it a success.
(By the way, I haven’t seen it yet. When I do, I’ll post a review. Stop asking me. Love, Eric.)
Someone calling himself “BOB” sent this terse e-mail:
Liberalism is pretty much the same as AIDS.
I had no idea which article of mine, if any, he was responding to, but I was intrigued by his statement. So I sent this reply:
Do you mean liberalism is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids? Do you mean liberalism is often considered a homosexual disease, though in the U.S. it is increasing at an alarming rate among heterosexual black women? Do you mean liberalism is rampant in Africa? I’m sorry, you’ll have to explain what you mean before I can possibly begin to take you seriously.
He replied, his e-mail address this time betraying his real name (Tom A.):
Well all homosexuals are liberals and their dangerous lifestyle puts them at great risk for AIDS! Pretty much if you are sick in the head to some degree and you can’t see things for how they really are you are a liberal.
Ah! Now we had something we could work with. I replied:
Ah. Obviously I have said something that leads you to believe I am a liberal. Your comparison is still not apt, though.
First of all, not ALL homosexuals are liberals, though it’s probably true that most are.
Second of all, as long as we’re talking about “not seeing things for how they really are,” I’m sure you know it’s a gross exaggeration to say that a gay person’s “dangerous lifestyle” puts them at great risk for AIDS. ANY person who has unprotected sex with a lot of partners puts himself or herself at great risk for AIDS. Not all gays lead dangerous lifestyles, though. For that matter, lesbians are at practically zero risk for AIDS, regardless of how many other women they fool around with.
Third, I’m still not making the connection between liberalism and AIDS. Are you saying that all gays are liberals and all gays also have AIDS? Surely not, for that’s ludicrous.
Are you saying that liberalism, like AIDS, spreads quickly when people do not understand the facts? That makes a little more sense, at least from a rhetorical standpoint. But then there’s you, apparently a conservative, suggesting that all gays are liberals and that all gays are also at risk for AIDS — thus making you guilty of the same thing you accuse liberals of (i.e., not seeing things for how they really are).
I suspect liberals feel the same way about conservatives: If they knew more facts, they’d become liberals. It goes both ways, see? Everyone thinks the other side is wrong.
I’m curious, though, what I said that made you think I was a liberal. Or was there nothing, and you just wanted to point out the liberalism/AIDS thing to me?
He came back with this:
Oh I was just poking around on the web and somehow came across and article you wrote on the Michael Moore deal at a Utah College. [He is probably referring to my review of "This Divided State," a documentary about the incident.] Honestly I do not disagree with you that much, and from your writting you seem to be well educated and fair. Obviously I believe liberalism to be disgusting and wrong. I know my e-mail about all homosexuals are liberals is inncorrect but just bairly. I do agree with Michael Savage and his medical views of liberals. Anyways Sir I wish you a good day and thank you for your reply.
P.S. Are you a liberal?
For those fortunate enough to be unaware of Michael Savage, he is an uber-right-wing radio personality who believes (or at least pretends to believe) that liberalism is a mental defect. He gained notoriety in 2003 when MSNBC fired him for telling a gay prank caller that he “should only get AIDS and die.” (What if the guy DID get AIDS and die? Could his family sue Michael Savage for wishing it on him? I’d love to see “Law & Order” tackle that one.)
I saw a film at Sundance called “Protocols of Zion,” about modern-day anti-Semitism, which has seen an upsurge since 9/11. (Amazingly, some lunatics blame the Jews for the terrorist attacks.) The headline I wrote for the review at HollywoodB****slap.com was: “Alas, the idiots who actually believe this crap probably won’t see the film.” Someone named Ken Mathews (vkenod@hotmail.com) sent me this disturbing e-mail:
I read your review of the film Protocols of Zion and I can’t wait to see it for myself. I don’t blame the Jews for 9/11; it is hard to believe any of the conspiracies that you read from the internet and elsewhere. Being the anti-semite that I am I look forward to seeing yet another point of view on who is or who is not to blame for 9/11. I know very little facts about 9/11, I have read everything from remote controlled aircraft, bush family conspiracies, and just about every other article of bulls*** available on the internet. I haven’t read much about the Jewish conspiracy concerning 9/11. I don’t think I have to go into what has changed me into being an anti-semite, as I don’t believe that you care. I just wanted to compliment you on a good review, and to let you know you’re sorely wrong in making this statement “Alas, the idiots who actually believe this crap probably won’t see the film”, You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Ken Mathews
What alarmed me about this e-mail was that he identified himself as an anti-Semite so casually, the way you might mention that you’re from Montana or that your dad is a cardiologist. And where you expect hatemongers to be vitriolic and ranting, he’s very calm.
I replied to him as follows:
Well, if you are one of the idiots who believes anti-Semitic crap, and you do see the movie, then perhaps it will convince you that believing anti-Semitic crap makes you an idiot. I still hold out hope.
Best wishes,
Eric D. Snider
He replied simply:
I watch films for entertainment, and I thought that you said you have very little knowledge of anti-semitism.
I believe the last part means, “How do you get off telling me I’m an idiot for being an anti-Semite when you claim not to know much about anti-Semitism? How do you know it’s not a perfectly valid belief system?”
I replied:
I know only the basics: That anyone who is an anti-something where the “something” is a race of people (anti-black, anti-Arab, anti-Semite, etc.), is an idiot. Regardless of what books or pamphlets you may have read on the subject, there is no reason to hate another class of people, period.
His reply:
I disagree.
Good review though, good luck on your future endeavors
Is anyone else creeped out by this? Someone so calm and seemingly rational, yet possessed of an irrational hatred of Jews? In other words, someone who’s wrong, yet who steadfastly refuses to believe that he is?
Our Idiot of the Week is Clyde Ormond, of West Jordan, Utah, who wrote the following letter to the editor published in the May 5 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune:
“Last year I came into the office and was bid ‘Happy Cinco de Mayo.’ I did not understand what this holiday was. [Yes you did.] I asked if this was the celebration of one of the battles that we fought in to make this country what it is today [No you didn't.] and I was told that Cinco de Mayo, the 5th of May, commemorates the victory of the Mexicans over the French army at the Battle of Puebla in 1862.
“I said, ‘Cool.’ If we keep celebrating Mexican holidays, Mexico will become the next state in the union. [No it won't.] I think that is a great idea. [No you don't.] It would solve all these illegal immigration issues [No it wouldn't.] and would be a great benefit since they have an unending supply of natural resources that we can utilize.[No they don't.]
“So from now on, Happy Cinco de Mayo.”
And congratulations, Clyde Ormond of West Jordan, Utah! You are our Idiot of the Week!