"An Inconvinent Truth"...
- Thread starter reefman13
- Start date
- Status
lessthanlights
New member
I think the film is excellent because it brings attention to important environmental concerns- however the blatant political propaganda was unnecessary and irrelevant. Unfortunately, it evolved from a environmental soap box into a political soap box. Also, it seemed the "facts" purposely ignored other facts. It's defiantly worth watching and the principle, taking care of the earth, is sound but much of the content is suspect.
Here is one inconvinent FACT for you-
The Kyoto Protocol was drafted in December 1997 and signed by 160 some countries between March 1998 and March 1999. The US did not and has not signed it.
Who was president during that time? Bill Clinton. And who was his vice president? That's right Al Gore!
They must have forgotten to add that tid bit of information.
Here is one inconvinent FACT for you-
The Kyoto Protocol was drafted in December 1997 and signed by 160 some countries between March 1998 and March 1999. The US did not and has not signed it.
Who was president during that time? Bill Clinton. And who was his vice president? That's right Al Gore!
They must have forgotten to add that tid bit of information.
Last edited:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Here's another inconvenient FACT:
Before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the Senate passed a resolution stating that the US should not sign any treaty regarding emission control that doesn't include developing countries. The Kyoto Treaty doesn't include China, India, etc, so the US couldn't ratify it. Gore DID sign it however, but submitting it to be ratified was pointless because of the previous resolution, and the fact that the House and Senate had Republican majorities the entire time. But, I agree, we have to get China and India on board. I haven't a clue how that is going to happen though.
lessthanlights
New member
ok fair enough- like i said there was alot of very selective information that was left out or over emphasized. it is still worth watching and the premise is still good. i just didn't appreciate the political BS.
edit: My point was to illustrate that the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol while Gore was VP. That fact makes Al Gore look bad in light of his film. However, because he did indeed indorse it but was unable to pass it through Congress provides much more information. It seems the movie does exactly the same- only sharing certain information thus giving an incomplete picture.
edit: My point was to illustrate that the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol while Gore was VP. That fact makes Al Gore look bad in light of his film. However, because he did indeed indorse it but was unable to pass it through Congress provides much more information. It seems the movie does exactly the same- only sharing certain information thus giving an incomplete picture.
Last edited:
It is obvious that this topic can not be discussed without it going down a political road. Because people just can't agree to disagree on political issues, discussions of such are forbidden at Reef Central.
For that reason, this thread is closed.
For that reason, this thread is closed.
- Status
