Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An 'Inconvenient' statement (ROGER EBERT STILL WHINING ABOUT WEIRD AL)
Chicago Sun-Times - The "Bright" One ^ | June 11, 2006 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 06/11/2006 8:19:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

Dear Readers,

I've received so many messages about my review of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that, frankly, I don't see how the Answer Man can process them. I could print a dozen or a hundred, but that would lead us into an endless loop.

Many are supportive. More are opposed to the movie and just about everything in it, and are written by people who have not seen the movie and will not see it for a variety of reasons, including the theory that it is "liberal propaganda." What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue. It is either happening or is not, and we can either take action to try to slow it, or we cannot. That is why a great many conservatives have agreed with Gore on this.

When I am told "this is another one you're trying to blame on Bush and Halliburton," all I can say is, somebody is listening to way too much talk radio on which they are told global warming is being blamed on Bush and Halliburton. Actually, Gore blames neither and mentions neither. "It got worse on his watch as vice president." Yes, it did. "He flies around on a jet to warn against it." Yes, one of thousands of jet flights every day.

One person says that when Gore finds a "100 percent agreement" among scientists about global warming, that proves he is wrong, because 100 percent of scientists do not agree on anything. Then they quote scientists who disagree with Gore. What he said was, a random sampling of 935 recent articles published in peer-review scientific journals shows agreement with the basic findings reported in his film.

Many people inform me that they just read a story saying that the South Pole was tropical many eons ago. So it was, as reported in "March of the Penguins." I don't know what they want me to do with this factoid. Applaud our actions to bring that condition around again as quickly as possible?

I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it. All I can say is, the Gore documentary made a deep impression on me. I urge you to see it. You will not be seeing a "campaign film," or "sour grapes," or "Gore still being bitter." George W. Bush has repeated for six years that global warming "requires more study." If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention? Yes, I'm "being political." But saying the issue "needs more study" is a political statement when energy groups are among your major supporters and your family is in the oil business.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/40909004


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: algore; convenientmyth; globalwarming; liberalbs; manbearpig; rogerebert; weirdal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Socratic
What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue.

The dust cover of Ann Coulter's latest book sums it up. (Back cover, outside.)

Liberals ask that we believe in global warming as an article of FAITH, not of reason. Reasoned argument is beside beside the point and counterproductive. If the demorat-selected collection of liberal pontificators and quasi-religious zealots says something is TRUE, then the public should just accept it. So they think.

21 posted on 06/11/2006 8:58:08 AM PDT by Tax Government (Defeat the evil miscreant donkeys and their rhino lackeys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
What Ebert is really saying is that his email server is crashing and it's screwing up his prissy "Answer Man" feature. I suggest we go to his site and add a comment.
22 posted on 06/11/2006 9:01:06 AM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

"I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it."

Er, that's the POINT.

Ebert is no scientist.
Gore is no scientist.

For non-scientist Ebert to review a film by non-scientist Gore and his non-scientist Hollywood buddies tells us something about filmography but nothing about science.

I am sure it's a worthless film, because Gore has said irresponsible and false things that we've heard about without having to pay $7 to find out what it is.


23 posted on 06/11/2006 9:04:55 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Perhaps unawares, Roger zeros in on the basic reason that people of good will have such contempt for the "Newsmedia":

To a representative government such as ours, which is cherished by the American people, an informed electorate is vital.

The people have every reason to expect scrupulous truth from the "Free Press", for this reason alone, though there are others.

When the "Free Press" and its "journalists" deteriorate into a propaganda machine, as ours has, providing the people not truth but propaganda, disinformation, distortions, mendacity, sensationalism, et al., the people cannot depend upon it for information.

If Global Warming should prove to be a fact and the dire predictions of those such as Al Gore come to pass, the blame for the American public's not believing them in advance shall belong to those in the "Free Press" who fed the public propaganda, destroyed the public trust in them, and made it impossible for the American people to rely upon them to speak the truth.

In other words, if Roger wants to serve the public good, he should join the voices demanding scrupulous truth and not propaganda from the newsmedia so that we will know what to believe and what not to believe.

24 posted on 06/11/2006 9:06:13 AM PDT by Savage Beast (9/11 was never repeated--thanks to President George Bush and his supurb leadership.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Ebert is no more of an authority on climatic conditions that Al "I drank too much tea and had to rush to the restroom" Gore.

Old reliable Al found a horse to ride and lets hope the global warming he predicts burns him and his buddy Slick BJ Clinton.


25 posted on 06/11/2006 9:08:09 AM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

"What a country! Ebert proves a point... you can make it being fat, ugly... AND stupid."

Yup.
That's America for ya.
Just look at Michael Moore.


26 posted on 06/11/2006 9:09:03 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

"Many are supportive. More are opposed to the movie and just about everything in it, and are written by people who have not seen the movie"

Best to cut these people off at the knees which means at the root of their bias.

BigLip Roger, throws out the qualifier that those that are opposed to the movie have not seen it, but TroutFace makes no such modification for those that are "supportive".


27 posted on 06/11/2006 9:16:15 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention?

No they do not because Gore has a political agenda and is not a scientist, and is very biased on this issue and reached a conclusion about global warming long before making this movie.

GLOBAL WARMING MAY OR MAY NOT BE OCCURING, MAY BE GOOD OR BAD FOR HUMANITY, MAY BE HAPPENING BECAUSE OF HUMANS, BUT AL GORE IS NOT THE PERSON TO MAKE THE DEFINITIVE STUDY.

28 posted on 06/11/2006 9:36:38 AM PDT by staytrue (Moonbat conservatives-those who would rather have the democrats win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

"No they do not because Gore has a political agenda and is not a scientist".

Of course, many scientists also have an agenda: continuance of their research grant gravy-train.


29 posted on 06/11/2006 9:39:10 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
When I saw "Weird Al" in the title, I expected the lyrics to be more along the lines of"

Gonna buy me a condo,

Gonna buy me a Cuisinart...

30 posted on 06/11/2006 9:43:08 AM PDT by Bernard (God helps those who helps themselves - The US Government takes in the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Ebert: "It is either happening or is not, and we can either take action to try to slow it, or we cannot"

Ummm - kay.

31 posted on 06/11/2006 9:43:09 AM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
The inconvenient truth about global warming is we are still warming up from the last ice age and we couldn't do a damn thing to stop what is happening.
32 posted on 06/11/2006 9:45:22 AM PDT by John Lenin (is a moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

33 posted on 06/11/2006 10:41:17 AM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

34 posted on 06/11/2006 10:43:48 AM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

I haven't listened to Roger Ebert since he panned E.T. If it isn't "artsy" or have "a message" he doesn't like it.


35 posted on 06/11/2006 10:45:19 AM PDT by HungarianGypsy ("Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O' Donnell fat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

I care about what a liberal film critc thinks about Global Panic about as much as a political hack does. If the book is as boring and cliche as his book Mind out of Balance, no thanks.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters


36 posted on 06/11/2006 10:49:02 AM PDT by bray (Hey Zaqueeri, how ya like those IEDs???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
To a representative government such as ours, which is cherished by the American people, an informed electorate is vital.

The people have every reason to expect scrupulous truth from the "Free Press", for this reason alone, though there are others.

IMHO you have fallen for some propaganda yourself.

If you read the First Amendment it says nothing about "fairness," "accuracy," "objectivity," "balance," or "truth." It says that we-the-people have the right to express our opinions. Whether you or I think any, or most, of them are wrong or right - and whether the government thinks they are wrong or right.

That does not mean that you or I have a right to be listened to, only that we have the right to speak. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to talk or to print, a lot of what they have to say will not be worth listening to or reading - and no one person could listen to, or read, it all. The inescapable conclusion is that the people - you and I, and all the rest - are responsible to ourselves to draw our own conclusions notwithstanding the fact that we will be subject to misinformation and propaganda.

It is the worst possible system, except for all the others. Without the First Amendment, the government would tell us who to listen to. That would be no good, as any journalist would tell you. But they go to the opposite extreme and try to gull us into thinking that they are the ones to tell us who to listen to. Well, it's a free country, they can try to tell me that - but I have my own opinion in that regard, and following their opinion in that regard is not part of my agenda.

If we really followed the First Amendment, broadcasting would be impossible because the censorship which creates clear channels to broadcast in would not be permitted.


37 posted on 06/11/2006 10:50:12 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
BUT AL GORE IS NOT THE PERSON TO MAKE THE DEFINITIVE STUDY.

How can ANYONE make an honest case about this, in a MOVIE?
38 posted on 06/11/2006 10:54:06 AM PDT by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Socratic
That's why you're just a movie critic.

The only movie critic out there who's not just a movie critic, but smart as heck, is Michael Medved.

39 posted on 06/11/2006 10:58:55 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
The only movie critic out there who's not just a movie critic, but smart as heck, is Michael Medved.

Right you are! I just recently came across a radio station which carries his program. He's tops.

40 posted on 06/11/2006 11:39:14 AM PDT by Socratic ("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson