Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth

laurence

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,267
Location
San Diego
So we have friends in town, and they wanted to see Al Gore's movie. I was kind of blah on the idea, but I went along.

That was a great movie. GO SEE IT!

It's only 90 minutes long, and goes by fast. But it clearly lays out the case for global warming in the best way I've seen yet. First it details a tremendous amount of direct evidence, then it takes each of the anti-global warming arguments and completely destroys them (i.e. CO2 levels are within a range, the earth goes through warming and cooling trends, there is no consensus on global warming etc.). So many amazing and stark statistics and graphics, pictures, it's truly mind blowing. The best ones were reports from branches of the government not looking to prove global warming, like military records showing that in Alaska, the amount of days you could safely drive their larger trucks over the permafrost has gone down from 250 days a year to less than 75!

I'll leave out a lot of what he said for now to focus on one part. He took one myth, that there isn't a consensus on global warming and put it to rest. They sampled over 900 scientific journal studies (not opinions by somebody with a PhD in a business paper, actual studies) and found the amount that raised any doubt on global warming, or stated a doubt on humans affecting it = 0. 0!!!!! Then he showed that out of the several thousand articles on global warming over the past few years in newspapers, 53% doubted global warming. More than half! If you repeat a lie often enough, people start believing it's the truth!

Pictures of receding glaciers from all over the world, core samples showing the temperature of the earth over the last 650 thousand years, the evidence was very well presented. The shame is, those who want to throw stones at it won't go to see the movie, they'll be happy to slam it in ignorance. It certainly had an affect on me, though. I don't know what chance we have to oppose an industry that has ~$100 trillion worth of revenue to make from the oil still in the ground, but whether or not to do something should not be the question.

I'm sure I'll hear all sorts of brilliant rebuttals like, "Al Gore is a quack! Hillary is a Lesbian!" from those of you who have closed your mind to the issue. But if you are at all thinking about it, if you give it even a 1% chance of being true, go see the movie and make up your own mind. See it, make a note of every key point, and work up a rebuttal to each one if you like. Believe me, I want it to not be true, because if we keep doing what we are doing, 50 years from now our children will suffer greatly for it. And this isn't about beach front homes getting washed away, this is about whole swaths of countries either getting under water, or suffering from drought and famine. You think 100k displaced people from Katrina is bad, can you imagine several hundred million?
 
Lemme get this straight.

You paid money to see a lecture on global warming?

I think I'm gonna wait for the PBS version. Or maybe Al could stream it on his Internet.
 
Laurence said:
It's only 90 minutes long, and goes by fast.

That's why I liked the movie! ;)

Seriously though, you do see the logical fallacy in showing that there are 900 research papers that support a particular position and zero that don't, when all 900 were selected based on their conclusions. Then apparently the selection bias is turned off when selecting newspaper articles to tally up in their study.
 
Nords said:
Lemme get this straight.

You paid money to see a lecture on global warming?

I think I'm gonna wait for the PBS version. Or maybe Al could stream it on his Internet.

All the proceeds go to throwing ice cubes in the ocean!
 
Leni Reifenstahl would be so proud of Al Gore!!! The enviro -wacko's have been calling for the end of the world as we know it for 60 years! And NONE of their doom and gloom scenarios has ever come to pass. They are batting a perfect 000.
 
Thanks Laurence! -

As one who has listened to a lot of scientists on this topic, I was not planning on seeing the movie. But after your review I think I'll go.

It is a shame that most people in this country get their 'facts' from people like Rush Limbaugh. They really don't want the real truth (which can be inconvienient). But, we have seen this human tendency throughout history. Whether it be denying the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun etc. etc. - and then the persecution of those who actually do have the facts.
 
Alex said:
Leni Reifenstahl would be so proud of Al Gore!!! The enviro -wacko's have been calling for the end of the world as we know it for 60 years! And NONE of their doom and gloom scenarios has ever come to pass. They are batting a perfect 000.

Until your house is underwater, right?
 
Alex said:
Leni Reifenstahl would be so proud of Al Gore!!! The enviro -wacko's have been calling for the end of the world as we know it for 60 years! And NONE of their doom and gloom scenarios has ever come to pass. They are batting a perfect 000.

Did you get that from the Rush Limbaugh program?

- Environmentalists are responsible for your Clean air and water that was getting badly polluted about 40 years ago. They hardly are predicting the 'end of the world' - That would be the Christian Right - Remember James Watt - The secretary of interior that thought we should plunder the earth, because it would not be around very long?
 
Alex said:
Leni Reifenstahl would be so proud of Al Gore!!! The enviro -wacko's have been calling for the end of the world as we know it for 60 years! And NONE of their doom and gloom scenarios has ever come to pass. They are batting a perfect 000.

I could probably put a bag over my head and run across the highway a few times and be okay.

I wouldnt recommend doing it though, or continuing to do it.
 
Cut-Throat said:
Thanks Laurence! -

As one who has listened to a lot of scientists on this topic, I was not planning on seeing the movie. But after your review I think I'll go.

It is a shame that most people in this country get their 'facts' from people like Rush Limbaugh. They really don't want the real truth (which can be inconvienient). But, we have seen this human tendency throughout history. Whether it be denying the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun etc. etc. - and then the persecution of those who actually do have the facts.
my point exactly. A person would have to be gullible to believe the enviro-wacko's. They are wrong everytime. BTW, I don't listen to AM radio.
 
Like I said in my first post, those who's minds are closed to the issue I won't be able to reach anyway. If you are open to the issue, even if you disagree with a lot of what's said, I think you'll enjoy the movie. People on this board know I'm not the inflammatory type, and there are a lot of areas where I disagree with the left. I'm a McCain supporter, or at least, that's the only person who has recieved a political contribution from me. I'm registered Republican, but my world view doesn't fit into any one party. I don't wear hemp clothing or have any meditation crystals in my house. I go to church every Sunday. I've walked away from this movie with a profound change in my world view, however. Just see the movie.
 
I really want to see this movie. I'm not a big movie buff either.
 
Question for you Laurence - and the intent of my question isn't to insult or criticize Gore movie.

Does this movie have the same kind of "facts" as Moore's Farenheit 911? In other words, is it a one-sided story, or does the movie fairly portray (and rebut) the opposing viewpoints?

After watching Farenheit 911, I thought it was pretty persuasive if you were inclined to believe the message it presented anyway. Then I saw Farenhype 911, and it became clear what kind of one-sided crap Farenheit 911 really was. Both movies were biased, but that is ok as long as we don't pretend that something isn't biased but rather factually and fairly presented. Are we going to see "An Inconvenient Lie" coming out soon to rebut the Gore movie?
 
I hope no one goes to a Michael Moore film expecting a documentary... ::)
 
Once again I'm brought back to the prairie dog method.

Pollution bad. Excessive gas consumption bad. Reduce most of the pollution sources and the gas consumption through intelligent, reasonable cost approaches. Its a good idea. It would mitigate the sources of potential "global warming" whether that actually exists or not...which is sort of irrelevant.

Its already to the point where you cant breath the air in a lot of places around the world, and the waters so lousy in many places that you cant eat fish anymore.

Shouldnt we stop the ratholing, the "more investigation", the various attacks, the political hoo-hah and just do the right thing?

I know there are some people who just believe that we can do anything we want and old mom earth is going to adapt and fix itself. That might have been fine a billion or two people ago. We're definitely effecting the planet. And we have to live here for some time.

Michael Moore films are a bad comparison to this. Michael Moore is a fat slob with no self esteem that boosts his own self image by attacking people and tearing them down. Which is not to say that they dont deserve it or that at least half the stuff in his movies isnt totally or partly true.

I dont see the same attack strategy in the gore movie. And I dont even like Al Gore. I voted for the other dipshit.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Michael Moore films are a bad comparison to this. Michael Moore is a fat slob with no self esteem that boosts his own self image by attacking people and tearing them down. Which is not to say that they dont deserve it or that at least half the stuff in his movies isnt totally or partly true.

I dont see the same attack strategy in the gore movie. And I dont even like Al Gore. I voted for the other dip****.

I agree with respect to Michael Moore. Casting Farenheit 911 as a "documentary" was a pretty funny joke.

But I was being sincere in asking whether Gore's movie is similar in nature. Sounds like it is really a documentary and not a one-sided piece of propaganda?
 
I havent seen the movie yet, but I've seen gore being interviewed on about 3200 shows. My take is that he sincerely believes his story, he's telling what he thinks is a whole story, and his intention is to educate.

That isnt going to stop it from being a one-sided piece of propaganda though.

What I dont think he's doing is trying to string together unrelated crap and innuendo in an effort to create a false positive or false negative impression.
 
I look at the environmental problem as a long-term one requiring a long-term solution. What's better for the environment, millions of combustion engines or millions of solar/hydro/electric/wind power sources? Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would guess that the latter is better for the environment in the long-term.

Why don't people and governments give up on oil then? Probably because of momentum and because oil is still cheaper than the other sources. I would think making oil and it's alternatives equal in cost and application, the reasonable person would select the non-oil based power source.

By the way, I'm not going to see the movie at the theater. If it comes on TV and I have nothing else better to do, maybe I'll watch it.
 
You guys are a tough group!   

I'm planning a trip to Alaska later this year to hear the glaciers melt.   :p Seriously.
 
Sept. 1996 LSU at Auburn football game.  A building next to the stadium caught on fire and the flames were shooting above the stadium.  I glanced and knew it was the old gym.  Anyway, big game and ESPN had a shot of the fire and the fans in the east side of the stadium who were all watching the game.  ESPN announcer said the difference in southern football and west coast football was west coast fans would have evacuated the stadium and run out spitting on the trees.  Pretty well sums up my take on Gore. 
 
Many many issues on this subject, but I will give a few of my 'thoughts'...

Back in the '70s (that long ago)... there was a 'consensus' in the scientific community that we were about to go into the next ice age..  I have seen more than one person quoting from various scientific journals that are now telling us we are going into global warming...  do I have them.. no, will I look them up, no...

I think making less pollution is much better than making lots of pollution, no matter what we are polluting.. this includes 'greenhouse' gasses...  but, most of the pollution that we are talking about are 'local'... we have bad water in a small area, we have bad air in a small area... making changes in those areas help them a lot...  greenhouse gasses do not care where they are made, so exempting China and/ or India does not help...

We had a great opportunity a few years ago when we almost got a carbon tax... it would tax you on all the carbon you consumed, not just a gas tax...  it would make all use of carbon more expensive which would lead to more effecient machines or alternative energy sources...

We will need to get more nuclear fuels.. wind and solar cells just will not cut it with the amount of energy we need...  so the enviromentalist will have to make a choice on which is worse... and no, I am not giving up my air conditioning because some nut case thinks we can live less harmful... so nuclear it is.

I think that we should have a MAJOR tax on all vehicles that get less than 'X' MPGs.. a sliding scale... so all you HUMMER drivers should have to pay a thousand or two each year to drive one of those monsters... and the SUV can have a 500 to 1,000 tax...  no exceptions...

Just my thoughts...
 
Can some of you folks who have diverted the core message of this movie to a political topic explain this issue? How come this wasn't reported on CNN or Fox?  Oh, yes let's see, maybe because Katrina was in the headlines around the same time  ;):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9652807/
 
Back
Top Bottom