Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Film Phil Valentine's An Inconsistent Truth No. 1 Movie in America by Per-Screen Average
Posted by Jim Ridley on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Congratulations to Nashville talk-radio host Phil Valentine, whose new doc An Inconsistent Truth — a riposte to An Inconvenient Truth that takes a few pages from the Michael Moore playbook in setting up Al Gore as an elusive foil — actually topped the nation's per-screen box office chart last weekend.
In its first week of release, on one screen at the Regal Hollywood 27, the documentary grossed a whopping $20,733 — more than twice as much as the next closest film, the Bollywood action drama Agneepath. That's also more than three times as much as the weekend's No. 1 movie in total box office, the Liam Neeson thriller The Grey, made on average at each of its 3,185 screens.
In a comment earlier on a separate Country Life post, my friend and co-worker Christy described the scene this weekend at the Hollywood 27:
I was half expecting to walk into a sleepy theatre with a few curious liberals and a handful of cranky conservatives. Instead the room was filled with the most vivacious and interactive movie-watching crowd I’ve experienced. Throughout the 90 minute film there was plenty of laughter and more than a handful of condescending comments thrown toward various clips of Al Gore’s responses and declarations about Global Warming pulled from both his testimony before the Senate and his film. ... Between the combination of amens, laughter and synchronized nods, it reminded me of sitting in a charismatic church service.
Above: a deleted scene for Valentine completists. Below: a glimpse of Valentine in his first film role. Watch for Poison's Bret Michaels and "a special appearance by Charlie Sheen."
Comments (49)
Showing 1-49 of 49
like
dislike
There is not an intellectually honest bone in Phil Valentine's body.
In other words, 'bubbadog' is calling him a liar. Why don't you call him a holocaust denier too?! ... Unfortunately it isn't unusual for some people to attack a man's (or woman's) integrity when their *theories* don't stand up to scrutiny. Carl Sagan once said: "When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science." I suggest that is great example to follow.
Phil Valentine's schtick: when you can't attack the facts, attack the character. Valentine makes way too much money whoring for the Right to get the facts on global climate change right.
Uninformed Phil represents no organization other than the most uninformed
listeners! It's amazing to me that there are any other stations that carry this
self-serving program in this state or anyother!
"Unfortunately it isn't unusual for some people to attack a man's (or woman's) integrity when their *theories* don't stand up to scrutiny."
Phil Valentine destroyed his own integrity a long time ago. It has nothing to do with theories about climate change.
Here's a good link. Even covers both sides but, well, Algor does seem pretty well off not that his family did not first get rich off of all the Occidental Oil A Hammer gave his daddy.
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/05/05…
Unless Gast has converted from being a climate change denier, his using websites that provide data that climate change is happening is bizarre. Why post things that disprove what you're arguing? Phil Valentine would NEVER do that. Gast, you've got a lot to learn. From the link of the website Gast provided:
"December 2011 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite record is -3.5% per decade."
And
"Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability."
Peter, Phil Valentine routinely calls Al Gore a liar. What's interesting, as with John's post that has nothing to do with actual climate change, is that Al Gore continues to be made the issue. This tells me that Al Gore hatred is what is really driving this. And no issue makes the conservative base look as bad as this. Folks, about 95% of the scientific community believes climate change is real and is caused by human activity. Gast is even linking to scientific websites that show the data. It is undeniable and it makes all of you guys who ignore the science because of politics look really, really bad.
CA, how would you feel about jailing climate change deniers? They do that in Europe to Holocaust deniers. In fact some Austrian just got out after a one year sentence. I gather from your posts you are no scientist but seem to considere the global warming issue settled business when many do not.
John, what does that have to do with climate change? Of course I don't believe in jailing climate change deniers. Good grief. And yes, I do consider it settled business. Just because a lot of you guys deny it doesn't make the science less so. I'm not a scientist but I can read the reports and the data, which are pretty clear.
By the way, there are many, since you brought it up, who don't consider the truth about the holocaust (or the moon landing, the death of Elvis, so-called alien remains in Roswell, NM, the American birth of President Obama, etc) to be "settled business." It doesn't make them any less so.
Chris Allen said - "Folks, about 95% of the scientific community believes climate change is real and is caused by human activity. "
Can you tell me more? Which 95%? How do you derive this number? What is the background of these scientists?
Science is NEVER settled. Only the misinformed would believe this.
gast thinks the earth is flat. He read that somewhere twenty years ago and he's gonna stick with that. Flat.
Chris,
If the case for global warming were so unquestioned, why is it now 'global climate change?'
I note this recent article from the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art…
"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."
And, it should be remembered, the University of East Anglia is the institution involved in the mess over emails about discrediting inconvenient research. The article also discusses a decline in sunspot activity which factors into the debate.
As for the other events you mentioned:
Jules Verne landed on the moon, Elvis is alive and serving in the Tennessee Legislature and Barak Obama arrived in America at Roswell.
Yes Concerned, you are right, science is never settled. However, there is far, far, far more evidence suggesting climate change is a real problem than not. I wish that were not the case. And from my experience, people are deniers because they see climate change as a political issue, and they can't be on the same side as smug ole Al Gore.
And Phil Valentine is cashing in this willful ignorance.
Mark, The Daily Mail? Come on man, that is a UK conservative tabloid. The "article" doesn't even cite anything. In fact, I can't find anywhere, other than right-wing blogs, that say this. They even use the same phrase you quoted in ALL of them. It's not even on the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit website (who supposedly announced this), unless I'm missing something- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The graph they show on their main page shows obvious warming every year.
Go to any real scientific website, such as the one that Gast cited above, and they post data showing a real problem, especially in the arctic region. The science is pretty overwhelming. And if warming ended in 1997, why is it that meteorologists keep insisting that several of the warmest years on record have been in the last decade. This "debate" is getting tiresome.
By the way, it was always climate change. "Global warming" was a tag-line by the media. Climate change encompasses far more than just the term "global warming."
Mark, the more I look at this, the more I think you stumbled across fake news, a hoax. Again, from their website: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
If they released what the Daily Mail says they did, they kept it super undercover.
Any of you who can't tell this clip is a fake set-up, well...I don't know what to say about you. Jay Leno does this sort of thing much better.
If you go to the site I linked in the first comment, look at the pretty pictures and then compare them to the weasel words explaining them, "Pay no attention to the ice, it's not there," from an organization headed by an Obama greeniac. The "blue marble" view is particularly revealing. Also know that one hundred fifty years ago sailing records were set further north than where the ice retreated last summer.
"If you go to the site I linked in the first comment, look at the pretty pictures and then compare them to the weasel words explaining them, "Pay no attention to the ice, it's not there," from an organization headed by an Obama greeniac."
That's your argument? Good lord, pictures do not show ice depth. A pond covered in ice last year that was strong enough to skate on might still look completely covered by ice this winter, only when you try to skate on it, you fall through. And that has happened several times this winter by the way, resulting in tragic accidents. I think I'll go by the words of the people posting the pictures and the data, "weasel words" or not.
Chris, I read the response by the MET Office and it does not provide an explanation of why the paper was published if it so in error. Given the email controversy involving East Anglia and the evidence of efforts to cover up or deny research that is unfavourable {this is, after all an English survey and paper} to the global climate change industry, this cannot be simply discarded. The issue needs unbiased research.
Pip pip, old chap.
Tea time.
Put some long black hair and a robe on him, and he actually looks like Severus Snape.
>> To 'bubbadog', Chris Allen, etc. ... I wasn't aware of Phil Valentine's history because I live in New Zealand! Thanks for the information. ... By the way, if I could I would remove the second sentence in my original post. It wasn't necessary. ... Cheers.
Mark, it appears this "story" was made up. If not, it would have been mentioned somewhere on their website and picked up by more than the right-wing blogosphere. This isn't the first instance of stories getting made up out of thin air and then finding their way to the conservative blogosphere and email forwards. As to the email controversy, I would agree that this would look bad if East Anglia was the sole dispenser of climate change data. They are one of many, so it doesn't look as sinister to me as it does to you. And I think it has been investigated ad nauseum and the fudging doesn't appear to have really changed anything substantially. It looks more like a college fudging their SAT numbers slightly in order to make the US News list of colleges, nothing more.
Chris,
Here is the link to the statement by the Met Office.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01…
Here is the opening line.
"Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
"If the case for global warming were so unquestioned, why is it now 'global climate change?'"
Pretty simple: Because it's a more accurate description of the problem.
The effects of a _net_ overall "warming" of the earth doesn't lead to "warming" trends in all areas -- some get colder or experience intense periods of colder weather than the usual season. Others are warmer than usual. Depends largely on the prevailing weather patterns in any given area and what sort of moisture is fueling them. A small warmup in the net temperature of the Earth's climate has the effect of releasing large volumes of moisture into the air, which in turn "rev up" existing weather patterns -- make them more intense (increases in the number of hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, floods, etc. -- like putting the spurs to an El Nino pattern).
Overall, I think it's an attempt to reach out to those people who think just because an ice storm happened in their area this season and was cold as hell, global warming _must_ be false because it has the word "warm" in it.
Mark, that is a far cry from what the Daily Mail published. They appear to have taken one line about decreased solar activity and turned that into a global cooling scenario. The data from the East Anglia website, as well as the link Gast posted (the nsidc), NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all show clear warming over the last decade.
Chris,
1) I wanted to make it clear that the article was not a fake. Unlike the Smoothybobos posting here, you are always objective and reasonable and I work to respond in similar fashion.
2) East Anglia is part of the global climate change industry. Why you think that their research is any less shaped by self-interest than research funded by the petroleum industry?
I am skeptical of all partisanship in science.
@Chris Allen: Your comment about ice thickness not being measured is wrong. That's what "ice concentration" is and it's there at the site for all to see, even if some, like you, don't understand it or wish to deny it.
We're having a warm winter. On the other hand the people of Ukraine are freezing their butts off.
@Peter Yates: Proponents of global warming issue press releases about every hail stone that falls. That is why there seems to be a preponderance of evidence for it. Those who disagree do not issue press releases unless they actually catch somebody advancing misstatements or lies. And when a lie or misstatement is exposed the liberal press ignores it as much as possible. Professors have been fired from our universities for disavowing global warming. (UVa, guys) And there is a cadre of researchers at our universities whose monies depend upon global warming so we're going to have global warming, damn the contrary evidence and history.
Whatever happened to being a good steward of the earth and its eco-systems, just because it's the right thing to do?
The ice comes and the ice goes. I can't remember how many suburbans were driving around when the last ice age decided to go away. Writing this reminds me of a sentence in one of my weather books from school, "all weather on EARTH is created by the uneven heating and cooling of the earths surface by the sun", you know, that great big ball of fire in the sky. I wonder how Albore and his followers came to the conclusion that today's climate is the absolute most perfect way the world should be. But I do love the convenience of their argument, global warming causes it to rain, causes it not to rain, causes it to be hot, causes it to be cold, causes it to snow, and not snow. Well, it does just about everything.
Gast, you're funny. "And there is a cadre of researchers at our universities whose monies depend upon global warming..." And the small minority of "skeptics" are generally on the payroll of companies like Exxon Mobile and got tons of face-time on Fox News. Phil Valentine is exhibit A on a guy with no expertise in climate science making a killing on being a skeptic. I actually turned him on one day several years ago and he was making the stupid "It's freezing outside, what happened to global warming?" argument.
Mark, the article might not have been a total fake, but it was spinned so hard it might as well have been. The people at the MET and East Anglia never released data showing cooling over the last decade. The data they released showed the exact opposite. And singling out those guys for fudging data in emails would be legitimate if they were the only ones showing warming, but they are not. Just about everyone is showing this. I guess we can still go down the conspiracy theory avenue that Gast is peddling but why not just accept that there is probably (although I agree it's not 100%) a real problem and we should come together and try to fix it. It shouldn't be just a liberal issue and it will be a great day when it isn't anymore.
so deniers... you're telling me that 98% of the world's scientists are colluding to perpetrate a lie regarding anthropogenic climate change in order to... destroy capitalism?? kill jobs? seriously?
at this point that's pretty much on par with suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. congratulations, denier, you have the intellectual credibility of a truther.
Oh my, whatever you do don't be like that SmoothyBobo creature. He's so venomous and intractable. We laud reason and objectivity like Stacey Campfield, Mae Beavers, Richard Floyd, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Paragons of virtue all.
The Bobo's rhetoric is so inflammatory and saucy I need someone to fan me while I sip chinaberry tea and smooth the ruffles out of my hoop skirt. Can someone bring me a tissue? I fear I feel faint.
wvfii,
You did not see or hear me making that argument. Be careful or people will start confusing you with the scarcely sentient posters like Smoothy. Are some of the scientists who support the more extreme views on what is necessary to combat global climate change more motivated by ideology than research? Absolutely. Scientists are humans. Scientific truth certainly didn't prevent some scientists in Germany from using unethical methods or pursuing insane goals. Soviet scientists tried to show that science proved Marxist theories. And in both cases, it wasn't always fear but often opportunity that led them to betray science.
My point is not to deny that the activities of man are having an impact on the environment, only that the more dismissive the establishment is of research that goes against their assumptions, the more likely it is that the skeptics have a point.
Chris,
I agree with much of you view. But again I come back to the issue of why in this instance you and others are so willing to accept that there is no self-interest shaping the positions of the climate change believers while seemingly assuming that those on the opposing side are distorting their evidence to support their conclusions. We are all affected by Original Sin and imperfect.
Mark - for the record i wasn't directing my post at you; just intransigent, politically-motivated deniers in general .
Good God People......step away and stop arguing global warming, global cooling. etc. Apparently the masses cannot agree on the big scale picture. Let us just take small issues at a time and not get overwhelmed by the big picture. Lets start with , oh , I don't know,
how about FRACKING. Or, pick your own subject. ........seems like nashville would be talking about the real issue of their favorite destination spot.....the gulf of mexico....oh, but oil is not washing up on the beach because COREXIT has sent it to the bottom of the ocean and killed everything so you don't have to see it. oh, it is killing people too. but, you'd watch and laugh at a movie that fits your social skill set.
i find that people are either not very intelligent and they are trying to act like it by regurgitating republican conservative rhetoric or they are the ones in the receiving lines of getting paid for herding the sheeple. and , there are a few good people perhaps trapped from childhood propaganda and trying to find their way, and i hope they do find it.
the american experiment has come to its boiling point........
wvfii,
No problem. For the record, I am not an "intransigent, politically-motivated denier." But that is a lovely phrase. Kudos.
Shhhhh---I think I just heard Al Gore's big private polluting jet take off (after he left all the lights on in his mansion) to fly him somewhere so he can be paid to lecture us on how to conserve more and drive electric cars because the sky is falling.
I really enjoyed the movie. I thought Phil was more than fair with Gore, not attacking him directly, but rather letting Gore's own words show how specious they are. Gore does seem to be the main focus of the film, not because of some imagined vendetta, but rather because Gore has put himself at the forefront of the issue. Valentine makes no effort to be the "expert" of the opposing view, but rather lets real climate experts do the talking for him, many of these experts were contributors to the very report that Al Gore lauds with such importance. You can't discount the knowledge of these scientists without discrediting the very material that is central to Gore's claim, not to mention his Oscar and his Nobel prize. Valentine makes multiple attempts to include Gore in the film, seeking meetings and such. Gore himself has been offered multiple opportunities to openly debate many of the facts he put forth in his movie, but he has always refused, that seems suspicious to me. If he is so confident that "there is a consensus" and that the science is clear, what would have have to lose by openly debating its veracity, validity, and importance? Wouldn't a debate win only serve to strengthen his argument?
Valentine makes it very clear that the only others he has difficulty dealing with are the "dirt people", which he defines it better terms that I can recall verbatim. Suffice it to say that he's not anti-eco, anti-recycling, anti anything of the sort, his difficulty, which I share, is with those who take it all to a fanatical level and berate/attack those who do anything less. Valentine himself makes his own bio-diesel fuel, which runs his car, saying to me that Valentine "walks the walk" better than Gore does, who flies all over in a private jet to attend conferences where he'll tell us we should conserve energy. That strikes me as hypocritical.
Further, the movie shows that Gore likely has ulterior motives in pushing his "green agenda". He and his colleagues stand to make trillions from "green legislation". Meanwhile, this same legislation will cost the US millions of jobs and billions of dollars, jobs that will likely go to countries like China, whose massive manufacturing sector is unimpeded by much of the environmental regulation we have here. I'm not advocating that we emulate China, but the point is that the purpose of the legislation will be undone by the actions of another country, so we've spent billions of dollars and sacrificed millions of jobs in vain.
I encourage you to see the film for yourself before casting judgement. If you want to disagree with me, Phil, whomever, fine, but at least have all the facts (at least as far as the movie goes, the science facts are still being discovered). Flinging insults does nothing to facilitate communication and only serves to damage the message of your argument, no matter which side of the issue you are on. If you've seen Gore's film (which, in UK schools, is now required to be preceded by a disclaimer noting many of the factual mistakes therein), go see Valentine's movie as well. Then you can match the facts up for yourself and make up your own mind about how you, personally, are going to proceed. For me, I still recycle as best I can, I try to group errands together to save fuel, and I have several light fixtures that have CFL's (mostly because of their inconvenient placement, I don't like having to replace them frequently). I still oppose legislation that derails the free-market system in favor of "picking winners and losers" and allows the government to mandate things that I should be allowed to decide for myself.
Bottom line, Gore had his say, it's only fair we hear the other side. If you don't want to see the film, fine, feel free to openly debate the facts as you know them against those who have. However, I ask that you not berate, deride, or rate the movie poorly if you've not seen it. That essentially makes you a liar and is a pretty petty thing to do.
Oh look, The Empty Bag - Herbert Mark Rogers still has my name on his lips. You think about me too much Herbert, (blushing.) You really should try to restrain yourself, it feels terribly inappropriate. You obviously need to be dominated. I should have guessed you were a masochist.
Too bad for you I'm sentient enough to pop your big balloon. Tell us more about my secret motives. Have I constructed your concentration camp yet? You lead a very rich and detailed fantasy life.
Here's a social experiment: What kind of discussions will arise after viewing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ. I will not post my opinions because obviously no concensus is to be had, not to mention there are too many variables; our conditioning prevents us from seeing reality without looking through our own lens [denying objectivity and fairness to any issue]. However I will say this video is an interesting look at the issue from a different perspective, likely a perspective you have not considered. Rather than saying we [humanity] have an impact on global climate shifts (the typical argument from one side or the other), it asks us to look at the issue more objectively. Whether we do or do not have an impact, what's the best way to prepare for EITHER of the two possible outcomes aka risk management. Consequently, this should stir an interesting debate :) Have fun
Please post any published (peer reviewed Academic Journals only) climate change study that proves man made CO2 has altered the climate cycle of the planet-that has not been debunked in the past 10 years. oh, that's right there aren't any. To deny that Tennessee was once a sea bed, that the continents grow and recede every day, that the exact orbit of the earth changes every day, that the sun acts differently every minute and believe that MAGICALLY the climate cycle froze in time prior to the industrial revolution is tantamount to believing the world is flat. Name one scientist who has proof-no beliefs-We scientists only care about fact. Those of us science geeks who understand this will focus on solving the real problems of air and water pollution. To quote my Environmental Science professor "The world doesn't need any more tree huggers who flunked high school chemistry"
This is a wonderful exploration of the nature of our political positions and our broken discourse. It is brilliant. For all the blow hards on either side (that's me too) - this makes sense.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-hai…
Bravo! its bout time someone exposed some facts..now, let's get down to de-funding this thing before we all melt down or freeze up!...what is it this time?...tsunami!!!
I find it hard to believe that anyone bought in to global warming, now global change. Climates change. They always have. The cost that this hoax perpertrated on the American people is a travesty. Most of the rest of the world knew it was a hoax, but not the out of touch liberal types in the USA.
Is it any wonder that there would be people such as Al Gore and other that are arrogant enough to believe that we are in control of what the earth does temperature an or otherwise. Got news for you people..... the earth has been here for millions of years and there have been "ice ages of all levels" and there have been "droughts of epic proportion" all of which happened before the factory, the car, and any pollutant producing industry was even thought of. Look the only thing I am pissed about is why didn't I think of this lie first.... Hmmmm then maybe I would live in a massive expensive home in Belle Meade, Tennessee that I pass by in my piece of crap car everyday. Oh and by the way I could go see my family in Ohio on my private Jet that one flight that Al Gore takes across the country creates more Green House Gases than my care in its life time........ Have a great day suckers!!!! LIKE THIS!!!!!
Even many of the "Scientists" that have "Proven" that Man Made Climate Change existed admitted to manipulating the data to make it look that way. Then you have Governments that are trying to exploit Man Made Global warming as a means to Tax companies, individuals or whomever and whatever to raise revenue. The truth is, the data is so corrupt, and the people doing the research in many cases are corrupt, we all know that governments are corrupt. Phil Valentine is exposing these lies and the Left does not like it. The Movie was Funded completely by him, and he had no agenda other than to get the truth out there.
