Gore Movie Contains ‘One of the Single Stupidest Statements Ever Put on Film’

NewsBusters ^ | August 16, 2007 | Noel Sheppard |

[george76]

Though Austin Chronicle writer Robert Bryce is likely not a household name, his column published in Thursday's Energy Tribune is a must-read for all anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

In "Al Gore's Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense," Bryce not only skewered the Global Warmingist in Chief's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth," but he also deliciously mocked all the sycophant devotees of the former vice president that have failed to recognize the obvious as they tour the country professing imminent planetary doom at the hands of a naturally occurring gas that happens to be a necessity to all forms of life.

With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it.

Honestly, have you ever heard any statement that better describes this whole debate?

Fortunately, Bryce wasn't even warmed up yet:

Here's my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that's harsh criticism. But it's the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore's movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie - including, particularly, Gore himself - paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, "Hey, what about breathing? Don't we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?"

The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero" the film's producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore's neck that says "I'm an idiot."

Does that mean all of the folks that are buying Gore's snake oil must also be wearing such a sign around their necks?

Regardless of the answer, the reader is encouraged to review the entire piece for more chuckles.

[SoCal Pubbie]

The statement was not that a person could become carbon neutral, but that one can “reduce your carbon emissions to zero.” The only way to do that is to stop breathing, eliminating waste, and decomposing.

[Mercat]

Leave Gaia to herself, her critters and people like Al Gore and Ted Turner.

[longtermmemmory]

STOP CARBON EMISIONS

END THE CIRCLE OF LIFE!

The circle of life with its never ending cycle of atoms is causing global warming.

END THE CYCLE! Ban the Circle of Life!

(until then the circle of life offsets and taxation credits will be imposed)

[/s]

[george76]

Al Gore can recycle his own emissions.

[Trailerpark Badass]

When the state orders your termination, in order to limit the harm done to Gaia by your selfish existence, your carbon emissions will, indeed, be reduced to zero.

Various organisms will continue to produce carbon emissions from your corpse, but because they are not human organisms (specifically, Christian human organisms), that is acceptable.

[cmwy]

just as humans burn carbon for energy(= carbon neutrality)i believe coal is carbon eg coalfired electric is carbon neutral. what science backs that up?

[Getready]

not true, you will decompose and other animals will eat you,
and they will thrive and produce more C02...

[RepublitarianRoger]

Does body decomposition have any negative effects on Mother Earth?

No.

Unchecked decomposition could, of course, lead to disease. But that's still not a "negative effect on Mother Earth," it's just a problem for humans. The Earth would still chug along just fine.

In my opinion, our current process of embalming and burial only has a negative effect in the context of significantly reducing the amount of available land. Humans will continue to be born and die indefinitely, and if we continue to want to also store them in the ground indefinitely when they die, eventually we are going to run out of land.

Yes, cemeteries are interesting to walk around in and look at the plaques, and I suppose that some people need to know that the body of a loved one is "resting peacefully" there, and is there to visit (I'm not one of those people, since I believe that since the person is no longer there, the dead body therefore has no meaning to me.) But cemeteries sure take up a good amount of land that could be used more effectively for other purposes -- or just left be, for that matter.

Again, though, that's not really a problem for Mother Earth itself. It's just a problem for humans -- an ever-decreasing amount of land to work with. But Mother Earth itself won't care. She is quite capable of eventually dealing with all of those bodies and caskets, over the eons.

I believe cremation has the least impact. That is, unless you think that all of that incineration is going to contribute to global warming, which is nonsense in my view. Here's a quote from a funeral home website:

"A typical high-volume crematory emits less than half as many particulates than a 'fast food' restaurant, and a residential fireplace emits almost six times more particulates. In comparing carbon monoxide emissions, a residential fireplace can emit 58 times more carbon monoxide per hour and a diesel truck 366 times more carbon monoxide per hour than a typical crematory. When considering that the average crematory in North America operates less than three hours per day, the impact of crematories on air quality verses vehicles, restaurants and fireplaces becomes much less significant by comparison."

"Well-operated crematories are environmentally sound. Most are equipped with large after-chambers for the reburning and scanning of the exhaust prior to discharge into the atmosphere. Continuous monitoring equipment located in the stack also monitors operating temperatures and stack emissions and will shut down the cremation process if there is any deviation in the pre-set conditions."

To me, cremation seems the most practical and responsible way. But I know that there are people that want a "proper burial." To each his own.

[G8 Diplomat]

[palmer]

We burn carbon compounds and oxygen to produce atmospheric CO2. We also excrete large amounts of solid carbon, slough off solid carbon in skin cells and hair. Any “carbon neutrality” would be irrelevant since the key process is turning C in solids into CO2 in the atmosphere. The coal fire plant does the same thing, but much more efficiently.

[Mike Darancette]

You go first Al.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense”

I might take exception to that one - think of the blessings to the planet when Al Gore’s carbon emissions actually do become ZERO! Makes sense to me...

[Wil H]

He meant that we have to all offset our breathing by buying “carbon credits”,......from his corporation that sells them

[The Great RJ]

Sadly, I know two college professors both with PhDs in science (one in chemistry and one in biology) who embrace without question everything Gore says in this propaganda film. Another proof that global warming has become a religion with Al Gore as its prophet.

[Philistone]

Not entirely accurate. Your dead body will give up quite a bit of greenhouse gas as you decompose.

[FreePaul]

...the film's producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore's neck that says "I'm an idiot."

Who needs a sign?

[cogitator]

Carbon neutrality is quite impossible in any case, since we create carbon when we activate muscles, keep warm, etc.

Human beings are not primary producers (not even greenies).

[george76]

Global Warming is a political movement. The study of climate and its changes is science. Forming a theory or coming to a conclusion on insufficient data is folly.

[Publius6961]

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it.

Although that truism is demonstrably correct, it is incomplete and misleading:

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism ignorance to feel bad about it.

There are acolytes in all camps.
Just saying.

[Publius6961]

that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie - including, particularly, Gore himself -

I am having second thoughts about the entire article, since the author so blatantly contradicts himself here.

Unless that was sarcasm too subtle for this modest civilian.