Al Gore wins Oscar for best documentary; Update: “Thrilled”
posted at 10:45 am on January 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Technically, he’s only been nominated. But … come on.
The competition’s pretty stiff this year, actually. There’s Gore, two movies about Iraq, one about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, and “Jesus Camp,” which does for evangelical Christians what “Jaws” did for sharks. Time was you could count on four Holocaust movies being nominated plus a gimme about starvation in Africa. But I guess the Academy’s moved on.
Eventually this category will be dominated by movies about Darfur, but probably not until another 500,000 or so people are dead.
Big day — and night — for global warming, though, huh?
To celebrate, I offer you this tender, unintentionally comic tribute to the Gorebot.
Update: Nominated for best song, too. No chance in that category.
Update: The Gorebot will attend the ceremony next month.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I recall, we were required to read “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich in my high school biology class which asserted that the human population was expanding beyond its resources and that there would be world wide famines and desperate wars over dwindling resources.
Now we find out all that was bunk. Like man-made global warming.
Tantor on January 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Hollywood deals in fantasies, so it’s no surprise that Gore is nominated for an Oscar.
As far as the need for emissions reductions I wonder how may limos will be used during the Oscars? No reductions there, I bet.
BTW Honora, my science class taught me that water vapor, and not CO2, is the primary catalyst for temperature regulation in the atmosphere and is a far more effective greenhouse gas. CO2 is a rather inefficient greenhouse gas and does not transfer or absorb heat very well while in the gaseous state. You can dump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as it can handle but it will not have much of an effect on global temperatures if there is little water vapor present. It is the water vapor that traps the heat, not the CO2.
Think of Mars and the fact that it’s atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2. Ever hear of a runaway greenhouse effect there? No, of course not as there is very little water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars. So much for CO2 and global warming.
RedinBlueCounty on January 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I am so sorry, humbly apologize. It was my evilness boiling to the surface. All I want, like the other conservatives, is to destroy the earth, polute the waters, kill little animals, so my children can walk through the desolation and horror. I should have aborted them, to save them from this misery. You have created such a
deliminadelimadiliminaproblem.right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Now on to you bradky. This is your quote that you support, are you running away from your post? You see a self-regulating market means a free market. Let me explain—if it is self-regulating there is no government interference, hence the name free market. So where is the derogatory name, or mis-use?
I am stating that the definition is wrong, you think it is right. So try to talk to your liberal friends into a self-regulating market, or how many are free-marketeers.
Let me see
A**hole
a noun meaning a misinformed liberal.
That fits you Bradky!
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 6:34 PM
lol, just so long as you admit it. Seriously though, setting aside the ridiculousness of global warming in general, doesn’t anyone who supports Gore and this ridiculous movie feel like total a-holes upon realizing that this authority figure with so much credibility, couldn’t even make the hurricane spin the proper way! I suspect most don’t even know… but watching this movie by a supposed expert, they now think they’re experts. It’s more annoying than anything else.
I’m still waiting for a lib to address my point about how we can’t even trust the weather man, why then should we buy that someone knows what will happen over decades? (again, this question among others, but you’ve all hidden so I’m trying to give them to you one at a time)
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 6:38 PM
It’s a pretty ingenious design actually. Plants feed on co2 and create oxygen for us….. Cool eh? Yuo should check out the co2 cycle some time.
I did find the failure of the co2 hypothesis rather interesting as well. The hypothesis where co2 levels rise and you consistently see a rise in temp. Bummer that one.
Better luck next time.
DWB on January 23, 2007 at 7:37 PM
That’s exactly and all that it is. If you’re a huge corporation, you want a set of “restrictions” in place that smaller firms can’t manage. Of course, you make sure that you include “non-compliance” fees, that are about 15% of the cost of compliance. You pay to play dirty, and ignore the rules, while anyone smaller cannot pay.
And tagging onto the end of RedInBlueCounty’s science, the more CO2 you put in the atmosphere the happier the trees are, which lowers and balances atmospheric temperature means.
Between 1988 and 1992, three major volcanoes erupted (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, Mt. Spurr), and according to the scientists more pollutants were injected to the atmosphere by Mt. St. Helens alone than would be accomplished by every car in California running non-stop for 15 years. The total environmental impact created by those eruptions after the initial ash clouds dispersed? You don’t remember, do you?
Human impacts on the global climate are infinitesimal. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be wise in avoiding pollution where we can. But neither should the enviro-nazi’s be handed control over all business through unnecessary legislation.
Who else is old enough to remember how badly Tipper Gore was ridiculed in the early 80’s for wanting a ratings system for music? That’s how Al’s climate “science” should be received.
Freelancer on January 23, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Sorry, I said between 1988 and 1992. St. Helens blew in 1980. We all knew that…
Freelancer on January 23, 2007 at 7:41 PM
When Harry Truman was in the WH…
-the continents didn’t move
-the Nemesis Death Star was coming
-The Universe was in a static state
-breaking the sound barrier could not be survived by a living man
-Mars had canals
You would be hard pressed in 1947 to find a reputable scientist who DIDN’T believe these things. They were FACTS.
And Al Gore still believes the scientists.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Every time that I see Al Gore, I think that God was looking out for the country in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush as President.
Phil Byler on January 23, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Where have all the libs retired to? Are they at Kos waiting for Dick “Our troops are Nazis” Durbin’s liveblogging?
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 9:01 PM
dammit,,, can’t he hurry up and expire already,,, maybe catch some type of global warming disease and vanish..
retired on January 23, 2007 at 9:28 PM
There you go again calling people name when you don’t have the mental faculties to analyze and process the written word and can only resort to name calling.
The definition is what it is – except for the part about tolerance it fits just about everything that the majority of hotair posters proscribe to. A minority of the posters advocate this intolerance and break the definition. So when you say bad things about liberals you are talking about yourself.
Don’t like it? Write your own dictionary, get it published and have it linked to on the internet. Nice free market goal for you.
Oh sorry I didn’t use illustrations to explain this so I apologize for it being over your head.
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 10:38 PM
WAIT!…ok ok….my mistake….Nemesis theory was first published in Nature in 1987…I mis-led the reading public because I am a Republican.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 10:39 PM
He’ll have company in Mike Al-moore’s Bowling for Columbine – another gross fiction.
Just to think we almost had this guy for President for 9/11. –shudder—
CrazyFool on January 23, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Dare we suggest Algore and other Hollywood stars WALK to the ceremony? *rolls eyes*
Maybe we should drink each time a “star” pulls up in a gas-guzzling limousine…?
SouthernGent on January 23, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Nope…We need to throw ears of corn at them Gent!
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 11:29 PM
I can’t afford that much beer :(
Gwillie on January 24, 2007 at 2:32 AM
You call names, I retort, and you whine about it. Sitting behind a computer makes you a brave man.
Show me a liberal who believes in self-regulating markets. The dict. in that def. is not defining an economic policy.
I will ask you one more time: Do you have an example of a self-regulting liberal?
right2bright on January 24, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Klaus Hasselman, Center for Mathemathical and Computational Modelling, U of Warsaw
James Hansen, NASA Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Susan Soloman, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Bush appointee)
Andrew Weaver, Chair, Earth Sciences, U of Victoria
Now I have a challenge for you. Google global warming and take a look at the published papers in the accredited journals. What is the ratio of papers published for peer review that support global warming to those that refute it?
honora on January 24, 2007 at 10:31 AM
DWB on January 23, 2007 at 7:37 PM
And you should check out the many, many published studies that report a steady increase in the atmospheric CO2. Fossil fuel burning increases, deforestration yields an increase in CO2. Plants are unarguably CO2 sinks, but their uptake doesn’t vary based on supply available.
honora on January 24, 2007 at 10:46 AM
You are to stupid to realize that you began the name calling, I don’t have to sit and let some goofball call me names and then have them whine because I retort. If you don’t like name calling, don’t start the fight. Oh yeah, I forgot, you are at a computer where you are safe from any real response.
I am going to ask you again, do you think that liberals are for a for a self-regulating economy? Is that a legitimate definition? And if so, point to a liberal that believes that now.
Let me give you an example: Conservatives are more liberal than Liberals when giving to non-profit organizations. Does that make conservatives a liberal?
See how foolish your argument is? You use words in context, that is what defines their meaning.
Your welcome for the free english lesson.
right2bright on January 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2