Suppose They Showed A Movie...

...and nobody came. This past Saturday marked the second (and hopefully last) government sponsored showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" at the Westwood Hills nature Center in the city of St. Louis Park.

While I was not able to attend the event, Jerry from St. Paul--who has put together his own slide show presenting an alternative viewpoint on climate change--was and he reports that there are reasons for optimism:

I attended the showing last Saturday and participated in the discussion afterwards. There wasn't time for the slide show, but I think I made my points and one person asked for a copy of the slide show. The program coordinator said they will show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the Fall. They will advertise it in their bulletin first. There were only about 18 people there so this would be slow work changing minds.

#1 I'm pleased to hear that the City still plans on showing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the Fall. Although it would have been nice to have it presented closer to the showings of "An Inconvenient Truth," the fact that the City is willing to provide an alternative viewpoint is encouraging. However, it will be a while before the leaves start changing colors and we'll need to keep a close eye on this so that it doesn't conveniently happen to fall off the event calendar.

#2 A whopping eighteen people showed up to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" on the same weekend as Earth Day? Not exactly an overwhelming turnout. Maybe people have had enough hectoring for a while.

(Cross-posted at Fraters Libertas)

Anyone Want to Hear the Other Side? No? Good.

As you know, the Nature Center of the City of St. Louis Park has used taxpayer funds to promote and present former VP Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth.

After protests from Chad and others, the city council made assurances that an opposing viewpoint would be offered. What does that mean? Well, having a person stand up and give rebuttal on the day of the film "because it would make it too long and it wasn't advertised in the brochure." Instead, they will ask the attendees if they would also like to see The Great Global Warming Swindle. If they get a positive response, they will schedule the second film for another time in April.

This is an interesting strategy. Schedule and promote a one-sided presentation, and then ask those who choose to attend the same whether they want some balance. Is this a fair cross section of the residents of St. Louis Park?

I don't support making the attendees into a captive audience, but this seems like a setup to demonstrate that no one was interested in an opposing view. Concerned citizens need to demand equal treatment -- promotion, brochures, etc. -- for the "rebuttal" film, whatever and whenever that happens to be.

The Dispute Formerly Known As...

OK. Chad has an update (scroll down) on the controversy over showing former VP Al Gore's film on the taxpayer dime.

We need your help. Chad calls it "Saturday in the Park." I approve of the Chicago reference. I have a number of nicknames for it, including:

Scuffle in the Suburbs
Thriller near Aquila
Gore vs. 44
Gore Will Take a Dive Near County Road 5

I thought of a new one: "Basement Tapes" (because Chad is the guy in his basement and they are showing the movies on tape)

Please help us name this dispute.

Scuffle in the Suburbs *Update*

Here is an update to the controversy St. Louis Park over the showing of former VP Al Gore's global warming movie.

1. After I sent a news release with the text of our convention resolution, SLP City Councilman Paul Omodt complained that I had not corrected the record to say that SLP had, in fact, agreed to show an opposing view. I responded that there had been no clear commitment on the part of the city, as far as I had seen/read. I specifically asked for a date, time, and title of the showing of the film with an opposing viewpoint. Moreover, I stated that it was necessary to hold politicians to their promises. Councilman Omodt responded as follows:

Peter,

I know the Nature Center staff is working on the logistics on this. I will make sure you get the info once the dates/times/place is set.

Best regards,

Paul

We appreciate the response from Mr. Omodt and will continue to follow up on this.

2. Brian Lambert has devoted a lot of virtual ink (here, here, and here) to this controversy. Is it just a bit a) factually inaccurate, and b) ironic for a new blogger like Brian Lambert to dismiss Chad as a "wingnut" who writes out of his "basement"? Such condescension might have been plausible when Lambert was the media critic for a local daily newspaper or when he was a talk radio host, but not now. The guy in the basement is the one with the radio show and the one who gets more than 1000 hits per day on his weblog. I point this out not as a show of SD44 solidarity or as schadenfreude. It just struck me as odd that Lambert would "go there."

Also, it is interesting to see how many spelling and grammatical errors crop up when a former newspaper columnist no longer has the help of an editor. It is one thing to write in the breezy and informal style of blogging. It is quite another to consistently write error-filled blog posts.