An Inconvenient Truth - tonight @9:35, downtown - free thanks to this site.
Thanks to Nathan for the link. Dan is in too, I believe.
Anyone else?
Categories
-
More Feeds
External Links
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
14 Comments
Take “An” and “Truth” out of the title how I feel about this film: Inconvenient. I would rather not spend my time watching a film that represents one side of a multi-faceted issue.
I would much rather hear a debate between two people who disagree on the degree of impact humans are having on the increase in global temperatures and the potential effects of the temperature changes, than watch a jumbo sized powerpoint presentation of a bunch of graphs I can find on the internet, mixed with some dramatizations designed to play on emotions rather than reason.
I think I’ll opt for the Wikipedia article. Enjoy the film.
Hmm… with as much as you know about the movie, it would sound like you’ve already seen it. Either that or listened to someone who told you their “one side” or view of it, or just made up your own view based on what you think it will be like.
As for the actual science presented in the film, I’ve read lots of stuff that agrees that it’s pretty solid, even from those who disagree about how much of the problem we are responsible for or can solve.
As far as I’m concerned, I think it’s pretty clear that God gave us a responsibility to take care of the earth, and we should do that. We may disagree about who caused the problems we’re currently facing, but it’s pretty hard to deny that they exist, and I’d rather spend time and energy trying to solve the problems rather than arguing about the politics of who is responsible for them.
I know that there are people out there who will refuse to even consider anything Al Gore has to say because of his political career, but I think that’s really unfortunate when it comes to a film like this which is about an important issue and is largely regarded as scientifically accurate. Feel free to check out the Wikipedia article you mentioned (and many of the various reviews linked to in it), as far as that goes.
Mostly I just made up my own view based on what I think it will be like. I did read a couple reviews from the movies section of Yahoo!, which were generally positive.
I’m not saying the science presented in the film isn’t solid, just that it’s a waste of my time to go see it in a film, when I can find it elsewhere much quicker, or have already heard it.
I agree with you that we have a responsibility to take care of the earth, and that we should take measures to reduce any potential effect we may be having on the rising temperatures.
I think you are assuming my position on this issue when I haven’t even stated it. I didn’t mention Al Gore’s name in my comment, or anything about my actual view on the issue, just that I’d rather hear or see something that looks at the issue from all sides, and that listening or seeing anything that doesn’t do that is not beneficial and is therefore a waste of my time.
Just to clarify, cause I don’t think my comment was very clear, the Wikipedia article I was refering to is on global warming and not the film.
Ah, I see. I assumed you were saying that you didn’t want to see the film because you thought it was going to be one sided. Depending on what you mean by one sided, I can say that unless you’re talking about the wackos that don’t even believe in the scientific fact of global warming, then I don’t think the film was one sided at all. It had very little emphasis on political contentions, and much more on the science involved.
The comments about people who will not see it just because it’s Al Gore (and the people in general who “doubt” whether global warming is actually a problem) weren’t necessarily directed at you; that was just more of a general comment. Sorry for seeming to inadvertently lumping you in to one of those categories.
Yeah, I should have caught the thing about the wikipedia article being the one on global warming itself. Speaking of that by the way, the actual global warming entry does confirm that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that global warming is a real problem and that recent human activity is a significant part of the cause. There is some debate about what should be done to attempt to counter it, but it does get me kind of riled up sometimes to see the flat-earth-like arguments from people that say it’s actually no big deal.
As for the movie itself, I did think it was quite good. My only criticism would be that it could stand to use a bit (or a lot) less Al Gore, but I guess since it is his movie that’s understandable. As I alluded to in my previous comment, I suspect there are some people who won’t see it because they don’t like him, but then on the other hand a lot of people (maybe more) probably wouldn’t have heard of it if he hadn’t been behind it, so I guess it may be a toss up as far as that’s concerned.
There were a couple minor scientific flaws (which I’m sure the critics will jump all over) which were related in the retelling of conversations with “friends” of his, etc. but these were a small part of an otherwise good, informative (if a little boring) movie.
i’d be interested in more details on those scientific flaws in the film. either in your own words or in the form of a link.
The main one that comes to mind is the part where he was visiting the ice drilling guys and they were evaluating the shafts of ice that they dug up which they can use to measure the composition of the air at the time the ice was formed at various levels (which is all fine).
His friend said that he could see (with his naked eye) a direct correlation to the year that the clean air bill (or “clear skies”, or something else misleading like that which actually loosened restrictions on pollution) passed in the US. I do believe that the legislation was a step in the wrong direction, but I doubt that you could actually see the visible difference in the manner he was describing.
I think there may have been a couple other situations like that where someone’s comments will be debunked and the critics will use that to try to discredit the whole film, which I think stays pretty true to backing up the basic points with enough solid science to make these side comments excusable.
Update: here’s one scientific review of the movie that I found [linked from the movie's Wikipedia article - thanks Nick
] which actually talks about the point I mentioned above as well as a few others.
Oh, and my other thing was I wish he would have talked about (or at least mentioned) nuclear power as an alternative option for our energy needs. Of course, that probably would have pissed off the “greenies” and other big supporters of the film pretty bad.
he didn’t mention any solutions. he just said, “here’s a huge problem! welp, i’m off to drive to the ranch i grew up on in an 78 bronco you can actually hear belching smoke on screen.
He did briefly at the end, although it wasn’t a big focus of the film. I believe it was mostly suggestions of what someone can do at the individual level, though (which is good), and not much political or governmental type stuff like nuclear power.
i also thought it was interesting that several times he mentions that he’d tried the political process for getting things changed. then at the end he says, “here’s what you can do: vote!”
voting was the only thing he specifically mentioned himself. the rest was just text.
I’d have to go back and watch it again to get the details, but I’m pretty sure that he does spend a couple minutes of time talking about how people could reduce their total carbon emissions, etc.
It wasn’t a big part of the movie, but I think that was OK, since the main goal was raising awareness, not necessarily telling people what to do to fix it.
He wants us to vote in order to get our current representitives out of office since they’re just a bunch of crackers who don’t care more then what they get paid under the table for.
yeah, gore is totally anti-cracker.