Is Al Gore's Climate Project a Propaganda Army for His Political Agenda?

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Army
In summary: Trying to get reelected. Trying to make a difference. Trying to change the world. Anyway, that's how I see it. Attractive.Dedicated invidivuals donating their time and doing what they can to help. Yep, sounds terribly dangerous to me. I hear the Boy Scouts might attack next.Dedicated invidivuals donating their time and doing what they can to help. Yep, sounds terribly dangerous to me. I hear the Boy Scouts might attack next.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-24-gore-trainees_N.htm

Al Gore trains a global army

The stocky man with the soft Southern accent rivets the hotel ballroom crowd with his plea: "We are in a time of peril, so please allow me to explain a topic that has overwhelming importance in my life."
Meet, no, not Al Gore, but Gary Dunham, 71, a grandfather from Texas who was the first of 1,000 Americans Gore trained to deliver his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth slide show to schools, Rotary clubs and nursing homes around the nation.

Two weeks ago, the last 150 of this hand-picked crew arrived here — paying their own way for everything but food — to go through a two-day seminar staring Gore but effectively led by Dunham and a few other graduates of the former vice president's global-warming boot camp.

To date, The Climate Project has drawn everyone from Wal-Mart workers to Cameron Diaz. And though the 1,000 mark has been reached, "we keep hearing whispers that (Gore) might do more," project director Jenny Clad says. "I wouldn't call this final."

Similar activities have been observed around 1790 prior to the French revolution, around 1916 prior to the Russian revolution, around 1933, prior to the German "revolution" well sort of.

Remember,
the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it,

H.L. Mencken
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The movie scares you, then it points to a way out of catastrophe, because, of course, it's all your fault. The way out seems to consist of small things that anybody (relatively rich person in the world) could do, and it makes you feel so good to feel like you're doing something good. It's not even for helping or doing something right; it's for making you, feel good with a narrative of saving the world.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Attractive.
 
  • #3
Dedicated invidivuals donating their time and doing what they can to help. Yep, sounds terribly dangerous to me. I hear the Boy Scouts might attack next.
 
  • #4
Ivan Seeking said:
Dedicated invidivuals donating their time and doing what they can to help. Yep, sounds terribly dangerous to me. I hear the Boy Scouts might attack next.

Well I was thinking more of the brainwashed are being ordered to spread that infection. The new dark ages are a reality.
 
  • #5
lol spread the word more like it - al gore is not the one silencing the science community do your homework
 
  • #6
You really think a move to energy sources more environmentally friendly will lead to a new dark ages? I'm not sure that's true.

EDIT: Totally misread (Its late at night). I assume you mean the perceived lack of informed choice and everyone on the environmental band wagon.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Oh geeze, Gore (Goes Overboard Real Easy), I loved that. :biggrin:

Telling people to stop wasting resources is good. Skewing reality to gain popularity is not good.
 
  • #8
Evo said:
Oh geeze, Gore (Goes Overboard Real Easy), I loved that. :biggrin:

Telling people to stop wasting resources is good. Skewing reality to gain popularity is not good.

He should start with his 15,000 sq ft house. The man is a fraud and a hypocrite.

And don't start with that crap about 'carbon offsets'. Just like Arnold buying 'carbon rights' to trees already planted, its a scam. You cannot offset carbon dioxide emissions from oil burning in any real way that doesn't involve putting the carbon (sans the oxygen its been combined with in the combustion process) back in the ground where it was before we drilled for oil.
 
  • #9
Andre said:
Similar activities have been observed around 1790 prior to the French revolution, around 1916 prior to the Russian revolution, around 1933, prior to the German "revolution" well sort of.

reading your posts, I have the slight feeling that you aren't too fond of Al Gore... I may be wrong.

ok, there's a slight difference between trying to rid the world of pollution, and trying to rid the world of Jews...

franznietzsche said:
He should start with his 15,000 sq ft house. The man is a fraud and a hypocrite.

That may be, but shoot the messenger, not the message. too many people use this as an excuse to not care about the environment.

And if Al Gore is influential enough to move millions of people to stop polluting and change international policies, I don't care if he spends his spare time dipping penguins in oil and beating baby seals with them.

Also, remember he does not lead the same life as the average person, he probably has many more guests and events and that sort of deal over at his house than the average person.
 
  • #10
moe darklight said:
That may be, but shoot the messenger, not the message. too many people use this as an excuse to not care about the environment.

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm saying he doesn't care at all. He's a politician. He's just sucking genitalia to get support. Nothing more.

And if Al Gore is influential enough to move millions of people to stop polluting and change international policies, I don't care if he spends his spare time dipping penguins in oil and beating baby seals with them.

Well, then you're as bad a person as most.

Also, remember he does not lead the same life as the average person, he probably has many more guests and events and that sort of deal over at his house than the average person.

Right, so leading an extravagant lifestyle is an excuse why? Isn't that the very thing that activists harp on the average american for? Oh, so its ok for Al Gore to do it so long as he's trying to win some political leverage for personal gain, but its just wrong for a corporate executive to do the same.

The man is scum through and through, and people falling for this are utter tools.
 
  • #11
franznietzsche said:
You cannot offset carbon dioxide emissions from oil burning in any real way that doesn't involve putting the carbon (sans the oxygen its been combined with in the combustion process) back in the ground where it was before we drilled for oil.

I don't know if I completely agree. If you look at the total carbon cycle, and the way it's skewed by all our uses - not only fossil fuel burning but also forestry, agriculture etc - there are lots of carbon sinks that have costs attached to them, and also some areas of research that will cost money. Granted, planting trees only consitutes a carbon sink if the total biomass is permanently increased, but it's not impossible to do that.
In agriculture, soil can be an effective carbon sink if no-till growing methods are used. So money paid to cover the cost of adapting to the new practice is a genuine carbon offset.

The real answer might be in-ground sequestration but that's going to take time and money. Would you object to carbon credits if the money went to CO2-sequestered cement plants?
 
  • #12
franznietzsche said:
Right, so leading an extravagant lifestyle is an excuse why? Isn't that the very thing that activists harp on the average american for? Oh, so its ok for Al Gore to do it so long as he's trying to win some political leverage for personal gain, but its just wrong for a corporate executive to do the same.

The man is scum through and through, and people falling for this are utter tools.

to be a person of political influence, you sort of have to lead a certain life-style such us hosting parties ands events... it's just the way it goes.

lol I was obviously joking about the baby seal part, but what I mean is you have to weigh the pros and cons of what he's doing. I'm sure his positive influence is much more important then the minimal effect of his gas bill.
 
  • #13
BillJx said:
I don't know if I completely agree. If you look at the total carbon cycle, and the way it's skewed by all our uses - not only fossil fuel burning but also forestry, agriculture etc - there are lots of carbon sinks that have costs attached to them, and also some areas of research that will cost money. Granted, planting trees only consitutes a carbon sink if the total biomass is permanently increased, but it's not impossible to do that.
In agriculture, soil can be an effective carbon sink if no-till growing methods are used. So money paid to cover the cost of adapting to the new practice is a genuine carbon offset.

The real answer might be in-ground sequestration but that's going to take time and money. Would you object to carbon credits if the money went to CO2-sequestered cement plants?

I object to the very principle that buying carbon credits let's you off the hook for your own excesses in addition to objecting to its implementation. I have no objection to spending money on updating national energy infrastructure to lower emissions. I agree with the founder of the sierra club on this one, its like buying indulgences to get your way into heaven.
 
  • #14
moe darklight said:
to be a person of political influence, you sort of have to lead a certain life-style such us hosting parties ands events... it's just the way it goes.

So in other words, to achieve personal gain one must lead a certain-lifestyle that involves preaching a do as I say, not as I do, because I'm better and more important than you philosohpy.
 
  • #16
yes, to have political influence of that magnitude, one must lead a certain life-style. networking is very important.
 
  • #17
Gore remiinds me of Cameron the leader of the conservative party in the UK.

To show his green credentials he started to cycle to the House of Commons each day.

Unfortunately for him journalists soon found out that the limo following him each morning was his chauffeur carrying his shoes and briefcase.

All politicians are frauds.
 
  • #18
The next step in the process of the new dark ages is censoring.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...limate_film_070425/20070425?hub=Entertainment


U.K. scientists want changes to climate documentary
Updated Wed. Apr. 25 2007 3:53 PM ET

Associated Press

LONDON -- A group of British climate scientists is demanding changes to a skeptical documentary about global warming, saying there are grave errors in the program billed as a response to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on British television in March and is coming out soon on DVD. It argues that man-made emissions have a marginal impact on the world's climate and warming can better be explained by changing patterns of solar activity.

An open letter sent Tuesday by 38 scientists, including the former heads of Britain's academy of sciences and Britain's weather office, called on producer Wag TV to remove what it called "major misrepresentations" from the film before the DVD release -- a demand its director said was tantamount to censorship...cont'd.

Expect the big book burning event, for books like https://www.amazon.com/dp/0066214130/?tag=pfamazon01-20 of Micheal Crighton somewhat later this year
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Then again, this report would have a higher priority to be burned first of course:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12327

And then whatever you think you can do, won't do anything in the first place, as there is no threat to defend against.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
slugcountry to Andre said:
lol spread the word more like it do your homework
...

Well, we know who did their homework and who didn't. :smile:

All politicians are frauds.
There's really no hope. Even Barrack (Hussein :biggrin:) Obama running for President in the US looked honest and real at first.

Right, so leading an extravagant lifestyle is an excuse why? Isn't that the very thing that activists harp on the average american for? Oh, so its ok for Al Gore to do it so long as he's trying to win some political leverage for personal gain, but its just wrong for a corporate executive to do the same.

The man is scum through and through, and people falling for this are utter tools.
What ever happened to Gore Vidal? He was always writing about how bad the US is. I heard he moved to Italy. Maybe I like him better than all the people that complain so much about how America is. I kinda think "Yeah? If so why don't you either try and fix it or get out and leave me alone?"
 
Last edited:
  • #21
slugcountry said:
lol spread the word more like it - al gore is not the one silencing the science community do your homework

Indeed, I did not catch that Mk, thanks

Talking about homework, that's what you do first before speaking up, now let's see:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124770
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127482
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149342
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49049
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105248
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108165
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163931
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

and plenty more where this is coming from. Just do a simple query.
 
  • #22
Art said:
Gore remiinds me of Cameron the leader of the conservative party in the UK.

To show his green credentials he started to cycle to the House of Commons each day.

Unfortunately for him journalists soon found out that the limo following him each morning was his chauffeur carrying his shoes and briefcase.

All politicians are frauds.

Yup. Complete and utter frauds.

As for carbon offsets

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
 
  • #23
Borrowed from another thread about presidents popularity:

BobG said:
Lowest was Harry Truman at 23%
Second lowest was Nixon at the time of his resignation: 24%
Carter was 28%
Bush I was 29%

Highest poll ratings by a President?

Bush II at 90% (right after 9/11)
Bush I at 89% (during Gulf War I)
Truman at 87% (right after FDR's death during final stages of WWII)
FDR at 84% (after Pearl Harbor)

Could be worse. In an Israeli poll, 3% would pick Olmert as Prime Minister ... with 3% margin of error.

See how having a decent enemy can make a difference of some 50-60% in trust of the population for the same president? Any idea, how important it is to succeed in making CO2 the worst enemy of mankind? So, what would be the intention of that Inconvenient truth propaganda army? And if that works, any idea, how big the chances are that the inconvenient truth boss is not running for the White House?
 
Last edited:

What is a propaganda army?

A propaganda army refers to a group of individuals who are organized and trained to spread biased or misleading information in order to influence public opinion and promote a specific agenda or ideology.

How can I identify propaganda army tactics?

Propaganda army tactics often involve using emotionally charged language, appealing to fear or patriotism, and using repetition to reinforce a message. They may also use false or incomplete information, and attack opposing viewpoints without providing evidence or reasoning.

Why should I beware of propaganda army?

Being aware of propaganda army tactics is important because it can help you recognize and analyze information critically, rather than blindly accepting it. It also allows you to make informed decisions and avoid being manipulated by biased or false information.

How do I protect myself from falling victim to propaganda army?

To protect yourself from being influenced by propaganda army, it is important to fact-check information from multiple sources, critically evaluate the evidence presented, and consider the motives of the source. It is also helpful to stay informed about current events and issues.

What can I do to combat propaganda army?

One way to combat propaganda army is to be an informed and critical consumer of information. Additionally, you can confront and challenge misleading information, and support reputable sources of information. It is also important to actively listen to and respect diverse perspectives.

Similar threads

News Why is the role of China and India in climate change negotiations crucial?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top