{"id":5601,"date":"2017-08-25T12:57:45","date_gmt":"2017-08-25T19:57:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=5601"},"modified":"2017-10-25T15:36:56","modified_gmt":"2017-10-25T22:36:56","slug":"inconvenient-opportunity-gone-missing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=5601","title":{"rendered":"Inconvenient Opportunity Gone Missing"},"content":{"rendered":"

I attended Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power<\/a>” movie last week (only one other person was in the audience; it’s already gone<\/a> from that theater), for the express purpose of seeing how he chose to expand on an apparently hugely damaging accusation made within his 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth<\/a>” movie; specifically that skeptic climate scientists were comparable to shills employed by the tobacco industry to spread lies, as implied from a pair of leaked memos from both industries<\/a>. How did Gore do on that in his sequel?<\/p>\n

He didn’t.<\/p>\n

What we first saw was a predictable alteration, not any really new updates, of imagery from his last movie about supposedly man-caused global warming: Greenland glaciers melting in runaway dramatic fashion, Miami sea level rise, “rain bombs,” fires, droughts, and other such events. Heaven forbid if anyone in the audience questioned how Greenland ice melt bypassed the city of Halifax<\/a> and went straight on to Miami, and if Miami’s spotty flooded areas might instead be due to long-drained swamp areas subsiding. Same thing applies to his “rain bomb” event over Tucson, Arizona<\/a> being something nobody<\/em><\/strong> actually calls rain bombs while also obviously being a time lapse video in which rain would not splash in real time liked a dropped water balloon. But Gore is Gore on that sort of ‘science.’<\/a><\/p>\n

The balance of the movie went on to other matters, with its mid-length becoming really bogged down in an effort to ultimately conclude that Gore had facilitated a side agreement which led the Paris Climate Accord to its successful conclusion. Never mind reality telling us the whole thing is a non-binding agreement and not any sort of enforceable treaty. The movie wrapped up on a note about the necessity for us to do \u2026\u2026 something. Contact politicians, write letters, or something to that effect, which wasn’t particularly memorable for me.<\/p>\n

Throughout the movie were Gore’s occasional references to ‘industry denial efforts,’ but nothing<\/em><\/strong> building upon the line so famous in his last movie that it ended up widely dispersed and casually dropped years later<\/em><\/strong> to places like this 2011 letter-to-the-editor<\/a>, and this Gore-trained Australian pastor’s “Climate Project Jakarta Summit<\/a>” 2011 write-up.<\/p>\n

Being as devastating as that accusation is when tied to that leaked “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact<\/span>” phrase, surely Gore’s sequel movie wouldn’t miss an opportunity to capitalize on it \u2026. or at least clear up the way Gore himself went off-track about the phrase after original movie when he \u2026<\/p>\n