Gore film director makes conservative movie?

The director behind Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth has made a movie about education reform from an actual REFORM perspective. Trailer below.

To see more on this, check out the 60 Minutes video below:

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 02:11 | Posted in Measure 37 | 14 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • David Appell

    Why is this surprising? There is nothing “liberal” about a concern for anthropogenic global warming — it is a matter of fact, ie of basic atmospheric chemistry. GHGs warm a planet. You don’t need to be a conservative to disagree with that — you just need to be stupid.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Quite true. But then again I’m not sure anyone has ever disagreed with this. The question is the amount of contribution humans have made. On that there is quite a bit of dispute.

      • valley p

        “The question is the amount of contribution humans have made. On that there is quite a bit of dispute. ”

        The “dispute” is people like you and Jim K arguing against science. There is very little dispute within science. We know how much of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to human burning of fossil fuel and deforestation. The answer is 100%. There is no other scientific explanation. And we know how much that extra CO2 means with respect to increased temperature. That is physics.

        The points in dispute are how fast things will heat up, what the side effects will be, how fast glaciers will melt and sea levels rise, how acidic the oceans will get. We can run the experiment on ourselves or we can grow up and deal with the problem. Those are or choices.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >The answer is 100%. There is no other scientific explanation.

          And I wouldn’t look to science to ever provide them as it is a logic problem, not a scientific one at that point.

          If you define “extra CO2” as that produced by man, then obviously 100% of extra CO2 would be due to man.

          Interestingly, by attempting this nonsense of “extra CO2” you entirely defeat your AGW argument – that since their is no other explanation (not true btw) then it must be due to “extra CO2”.

          Obviously if there was no other scientific explanation for global warming than “extra CO2” then that would mean absent “extra CO2” there would not be such warming.

          Since we have had warming in the past absent “extra CO2”, such as pre industrialization, then clearly there are other explanations for it.

          Thus your statement is clearly a lie – there are other explanations for warming other than “extra CO2” since such warming has happened in its absence.

          Basically you have fallen for a classic lapse in logic.

          We can only say B is causal of A, if we know all possible causation’s of A.

          If we do not know all possible causation’s of A, then we can never use process of elimination and rest blame on B.

          B must be causal of A is only true if we completely understand all causes of A and have eliminated them. If we do not know all causes of A, or if we have not sufficiently eliminated all known causes if we do, then obviously we cannot through process of elimination eliminate all causes but one and ascribe responsibility to the sole cause left.

          I think in your case you dont really argue your point logically on this subject. When you get caught in logical mishaps like this you act as if someone is arguing with science.

          • David Appell

            I wrote that “GHGs warm a planet,” which is certainly true. I did not write that GHGs are the only influence on climate. Everyone knows otherwise.

            There are many factors that influence climate, and have influenced it in the past. However, right now some of the strongest anomalous influences are anthropogenic GHGs (~ +2 W/m2) and anthropogenic aerosols (~ -1 W/m2).

            We will never precisely know all the forcings upon climate. But we already know them well enough, within uncertainties, to be very concerned about the future of the planet,.

          • valley p

            “I think in your case you dont really argue your point logically on this subject.”

            I argue that since science has concluded with 95% certainty that the earth is currently warming due to greenhouse gas increase caused by humans, then that is the most logical explanation.

            This isn’t a philosophical debate. Its about physical reality.

    • jim karlock

      Give us a break david. I thought Geeorge Sorous pulled your funding for blogging- why are you still pestering you with your cave man logic that we can’t figure out anything else, so it must be man’s CO2!


      • David Appell

        Scientists have painstakingly added up all the known forcings on climate, and, when anthropogenic factors are included, found a net positive (viz warming) result.

        If you know of other factors they have missed, now is the time to speak up. Otherwise your argument is absolutely vapid.

      • David Appell

        JK: Your unfounded accusations that I am funded by anyone are completely without proof and merit, and are in fact quite cowardly.

        I hardly need funding to take on the likes of you.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)