Skip to comments.Gore's Film an Oscar Favorite but Violates Academy Standards, Critics Say ..("faked scenes")
Posted on 02/22/2007 10:00:39 AM PST by IrishMike
Al Gore's movie on climate change is likely to win an Oscar for best documentary on Sunday even though it arguably violates the Academy's own criteria and should be disqualified, critics say.
But, they argue, the way in which the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has handled the issue in the past shows a clear political bias.
Documentaries that distort reality and shade the truth are insulated from criticism so long as they advance left-wing causes like global warming and gun control, said independent filmmaker Dan Gifford, a former Oscar nominee and Emmy Award winner.
According to the "rule 12" standard for documentary films established by the Academy, while it is permissible to employ storytelling devices such as re-enactments, stock footage, stills and animations, the emphasis must be on fact and not fiction.
The critics argue that in the case of "An Inconvenient Truth," the criteria are not met.
One point of contention in Gore's movie is animated footage of a polar bear struggling to find stable sea ice. Gore has argued that human-induced global warming is directly impacting polar bears' habitat and sea ice in particular. Consequently, he suggests, polar bears are forced to swim longer distances and sometimes drown in the process.
"A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances - up to sixty miles - to find the ice," Gore says in the movie.
John Berlau, author of a new book on the environmental movement entitled "Eco-Freaks," claims the polar bear scene alone should disqualify Gore's film from consideration for best documentary, because it departs from reality.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
As I heard recently, some years back polar bears were thought to be endangered, there were less than 10,000.
Today there are over 25,000.
Maybe they are drowning because there are too many ?
Since I always receive the reply "tell that to the polar bears" when I state my views on global warming (or the lack thereof) - I was intrigued by your comment - had to google it - here's a good article you can reference:
From your linked article ......(and thanks)
Some, however, see the general rise in polar bear population and scoff at the possibility of regulation. The law doesnt say to look at any possible future threat. It says look at the data if its not endangered then its not endangered, said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow from the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit organization that promotes private alternatives to government regulation, who has written about the polar bear issue.
What counts, he said, is the number of polar bears that exist right now, not some possible decrease in the future. He noted the overall polar bear population has rebounded from about 10,000 to 20,000 and asserted that warm temperatures in the 1930s were similar to current conditions, yet polar bears survived then.
As for the reports of cannibalism, he said, We cant say we know it is a new phenomenon because researchers do not have good data from earlier decades.
What's scary about this pair ?????
They're drinking buddies.