An inconvenient truth
![[Print This Post]](http://www.rantlust.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif "[Print This Post]")
Watched the new Al Gore movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ last night. After a long, long time, I was in a theater for a sold-out show. My tendency to watch movies that are either off the beaten track or have long since ceased to make headlines means I’m usually surrounded by empty seats, just the way I like it. It was unusual to have so many people around, but once the movie started, none of that mattered. This movie was born out of a slideshow that Gore has been showing around the world for a few years now, which portrays some well documented relationships between carbon-dioxide emissions and global warming. None of this is new stuff, but slickly packaged with footage of various examples of warming across the world, the effect is chilling. In particular, some of the photographs showing the effects of atmospheric warming on the polar ice caps will make you sit up. Make the man president already!
And to think we go W in his place for 8 years…….I often wonder what would have happened if the elections went in his favor……would we have been in a war with Iraq for instance?
Did Al Gore mention how he was alive and walked the face of the earth during last global warming? Haven’t seen it but both the new book and crockumentary sounds to me nothing more than a call to Donkey masturbation. The man just refuses to die
Maybe you could share your opinion after watching the movie as well?
If harpoonflyby (or anyone else) goes to see the movie, we will give him a free gift (see
aspoke.com/blog/2006/06/05/an-inconvenient-truth-is-a-film-that-matters-so-much/ for details of the offer.)
Best,
Antoin.
Thanks for the link, Antoin. I took a quick look at Lessig’s blog, since I admire his work, and this statement stood out:
Couldn’t have put it better.
Personally my curiosity was satisfied after listening to him on NPR with Terry Gross, where it was revealed about the precise timing and marketing of himself and the projects. It’s enough for me to know I don’t need to see a movie. It is ok btw to reject an argument on the basis of time and interest required to understand it. Simply existing does not afford me the resources or inclination to understand.
understand..the source of his information that is
The source of his information is what we have been reading in most of the major science articles. Just scientific evidence and info to back it.
If you do not want to understand that, it is fine.
Sure, not everyone can take the time to understand everything. But the least we can do is refrain from passing judgment on the things we don’t have the time or inclination to understand.
I guess the post was targetted at the people who do have the “resources” ($10 and an open mind) and the inclination to understand. Or at least to try.
Huh? Isn’t this against what rantlust is all about? I don’t see anything wrong with passing judgements without “trying to understand” things. A casual look at previous comments would reveal that 90% of the time, we are passing judgements on blog posts here. And to play the Devil’s Advocate, I am sure some of you would “pass judgements” willy-nilly if the documentary was about W. instead.
Al Gore, despite the fact that he invented the Internet, has never appealed to me. I am not sure if a movie about the environment is going to do much to change that impression for me. But then again, looking at the current crop of the donkey party, he might be the lesser of the evils.
LOL.
I am not such a big fan of rantlust now that I know most of your comments are about things you do not understand.
Boo!
At the risk of belaboring the point… the movie is not about Al Gore. You may or may not like him, but his message may have some meaning for you. If someone you did not like told you your house was burning down, I would hope your dislike for the person would not stop you from doing something about it; at the very least go check if he’s right.
Maybe so but you did say that he should be made president. Hence my paragraph about the man. I do not concur.
Sure but that doesn’t mean I would want that person to be made president.
We all have finite time and different interest.
Often, we increase our understanding about the world and the life from readings, from traveling, from experiences, and….
from talking to and listening to others, as well.
I haven’t seen the film (not for lack of interest), but a couple of criticisms I have heard - his narrative is not truthful, in the sense that he seems to indicate that global warming, it’s causes, man’s role in it, the risks of not doing anything about it vs trying to do something about it were all well understood for decades. As far as I can see, even now, scientists can have valid debates on many of these points, though the preponderance of the consensus seems to be towards people taking a more interventionist stance on global warming.
Second, of the proposals to fix the problem he steers clear of obvious ‘inconvenient’ measures such as imposing a carbon tax which is arguably the best way to address the externalities related to burning of fossil fuels.
Maybe I’ve been misinformed on these counts, but in any case he must be commended on making the film. However it does seem that there is some self serving propaganda there.
- When something is called, “science” and gets published in “scientific journals” doesn’t make it something I personally and automatically ascribe to. That’s called “religion”. It’s fine if you get your religion at movies, I don’t.
- We cannot predict the weather this weekend, much less 2050’s weather. We’re still busy figuring out El Nino, and can’t. Thank you very much.
- Let’s say Al Gore never lost to President Bush in a contested election. Wait let’s just say he never even ran for President, he just disappeared into the woodwork, or the abyss. Let us now say Bush is not in office f*ing shit up super bad like he is right now. We might not be so vocal about global warming if this movie had been presented by, Ray Liotta, for example
- The “Al Gore phenomenon” you are experiencing at the moment is early 2008 democratic party campaigning in motion. i.e. donkey masterbation, a.k.a. spanking the donkey. It’s Al’s way of saying, “See ya’ll should have voted for me instead of the Iraq War”
- If in 10 years we start experiencing strange weather and flooding, then in 9 years let’s do something about it. The movie claims this starts in 10 years. My suggestion is to buy REI stock long, and see what happens. We as a scientific community will have grown exponentially in 10 years, and, by then we’ll have super trendy parkas to wear so we can go outside and fix the ecosystem. Nations currently dealing with actual problems like: poverty, hunger, healthcare, education, war and oil will have to look up for a moment of 10 years and pool their resources and figure out how to turn it around. Think of it rather as an “Inconvenient Vacation”. We’ll just have to kick it a while with fish dinners from the porches of our boathouses. We can do that for 10 years whilst science returns the planet to brand spanking new.
- I liked this movie better when it was called “Waterworld”, only because Kevin Costner wasn’t a sore loser who needed to go around inventing internets, lockboxes and planet warmth. Even Costner knows when he’s a loser, and does well at it. Am I the only one who thought Jeanne Tripplehorn was an extreme babe in that movie? http://imdb.com/name/nm0000675/
I understand that this is a political discussion. I wanted to comment on merely the logical aspect of one point that stood out to me:
This is a non-sequitur (i.e. the implied point does not follow). Global-warming, whatever your opinion about it, aims to calculate the long-term average of weather trends. Local weather prediction, whatever your opinion about it, aims to predict the weather at a particular time and place. It is entirely consistent to be able to accurately determine the average, but not be able to say anything about particular instances. If fact, the latter is a much harder problem in general.
…
Since this is a political discussion, here is my obligatory political comment. I think that the worlds’ climate scientists are changing at an alarming rate. Apparently, a few decades ealier, they were warning of an impending global cool down.
I guess predicting the current opinion of a particular climate scientist is easier than guessing the long-term average opinon trend of climate scientists.
The two are actually not mutually incompatible. One of the theories related to global warming is that it can cause certain parts of the world (such as western Europe) to experience a rapid cooldown. This article in the New Scientist talks about the phenomenon of global warming wreaking havoc with ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, causing the distribution of heat to change worldwide. The movie does go into this very complex phenomenon, albeit using a simple (in my opinion oversimplified) model.
I would be very interested in any theory that proves that global warming is not incompatible with global cooling.
What perhaps you meant to say, and what the article you refered to points out, is that global warming is not incompatible with local cooling — which no one disputes.
What I meant was the theory (or rather, set of theories) that is commonly referred to as global warming is actually a theory of atmospheric warming or global heat redistribution, though I guess the latter is not as catchy. The same factors that cause warming in some parts of the world (such as the polar ice caps) can cause rapid cooldowns in other parts of the world. Specifically, the article you’d linked to in the earlier comment talked about the cooling down of parts of Europe and advancing glaciers in those regions, a phenomenon which is not incompatible with observations of warming in other areas.
I think you may have misunderstood what the link was talking about. Try this.
Global cooling is a now outdated theory, which as you will read, predicts consequences incompatible with the predictions of global warming.
I’ve been silent for far too long and must speak up. I am incensed by Harpoonfly’s blatant narrow-mindedness - Jeanne Tripplehorn is an extreme babe ALL the time! Clearly, anyone who thinks otherwise lacks credibility.
BTW, every gallon of gas consumed in an engine creates nearly 20 lbs. of CO2 ( http://www.terrapass.com/calcdetails.html ). Diesel creates slightly more per gallon but less per mile due to the 30-40% higher fuel mileage of diesels, and B100 biodiesel creates less than 6 lbs. per gallon ( http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/bio_benefits.html ). Do what you can to conserve fuel (accelerate gently, coast a lot, use public transport, etc), and you’ll not only save yourself money, you’ll also do the environment a favor.
The Donkeys’ past two contenders have been rather uninspiring. Maybe Obama can beat Osama…
You guys must be crapping me! She reminds me of Seabiscuit. I think even Teri Hatcher (botox and all) is better looking.
Joe Klein of “Primary Colors” fame has a nice essay on Obama in this week’s issue of Time.
There’s some pollution that happens when biodiesel is made, that also has to be considered. It might be more than what’s produced when regular oil is taken out and refined.
I like Jeanne Trip’s face, but she took her top off in Basic Instinct, she’s got very basic tits. But definitely a good face.
dei, aana karyum parayumpol chena kariyum parayelle!
Ee kinnum verum oru thara batch annuh! Pashe, ah paranjeh pennenthe kariyum nokkumbil, egedesham oru cheriya satyam onthe
Maybe the earth just invented us to put back some of the carbon that the those pesky life forms have been removing over the last few eons.
Egad! Even first thing in the morning with a hangover Jeanne would look better than Teri in THAT particular shot. Granted, nobody can look their best all the time, but yikes!
Thanks for the link to the Time article. I’d like to see Obama nominated someday, though ‘08 might be too soon. At least he’d be a Democratic candidate that centrists could enthusiastically vote for. Until then, all we have is McCain, who may not be a viable candidate in ‘12 or beyond due to his age.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Mashing up two current events - the world cup aims for carbon neutrality (though I don’t think 100,000 tons amounts to much). Also from the article:
I wonder if the movie will ever run in India. Normally, movies like this will come for a week and disappear.
If I get the disc, I will certainly run some private screenings.
Here’s an ad with Futurama’s Bender for the movie.
Those of you who are so gung-ho about global warming like Mr G
Bore, let me point you to the Copenhagen Consensus. You may or may not have heard of it but this is a good time to remind us of the importance of priorities:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006808
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
That’s one of my peeves about this movie. If they are truly concerned about getting the message out, they should’ve released it on the Internet as well. Surprisingly, there are no bit torrent versions out there, despite some people trying really hard. You’ll just have to wait for the pirated dvd.
That was an interesting read. But if you read the complete findings of the Copenhagen Consensus panel, they actually agreed that global warming is an important problem that needs tackling. What they did not agree with was the economic feasibility of some specific schemes that they evaluated such as the Kyoto protocols, and the carbon tax scheme. Much water has flowed under the bridge since their first report anyway, and it will be interesting to read what the 2008 report says.
Nobody is disputing the fact that global warming is “an important problem.” It’s just that we have even more pressing issues to tackle with the scarce resources we have.
Yes we have more important issues to tackle: global conflict, hunger, aids, poverty, etc. But it is vital to recognize that global climate change will exacerbate and complicate all of these issues, and hence action on it cannot be subjugated to these “more important” concerns. The point is that politicians and society at large must come to see the essential interconnectedness and mutual interdependencies that characterize all of our pressing crises. Given our scarce resources, we need to take this wholistic view rather than spreading our efforts thinly and failing to adequately meet any of our present challenges.
“Nobody is disputing the fact that global warming is “an important problem.” It’s just that we have even more pressing issues to tackle with the scarce resources we have”
what are these “more pressing issues?”
Controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, for one. Decreasing poverty and hence malnutrition and hunger is another one.
Get ready to move to Canada.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/americas-breadbasket-moves-to-canada/
Please don’t treat global issues as household errands (which we prioritize). I think we have sufficient resources to address global warming alongwith other issues.
Do we now? Have you read the Copenhagen Consensus report referred to earlier? We’ll talk after you digest that. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, at least read this. Everything needs to be prioritized whether they be “global” issues or “household errands.”
Again, let me re-iterate… I am not saying that protecting the environment is not important.
Yes, I have read that report. It is merely suggesting how development dollars need to be spend. That’s one aspect. However, solutions are not limited to government funding. It includes lifestyle changes, private contributions etc .. Moreover, development dollars can be better allocated. Humans have evolved to suffcient degree in intelligence, numbers and fiscally to pursue and find solutions to multiple global issues at the same time. Analogy to Copenhagfen report is similar to GOD telling us that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. Did we stop there ?
I don’t quite make the connection on how combating greenhouse emissions would take away resources from the fight against AIDS or poverty. For example, if we force PG&E to enforce stricter controls on emissions at their plants, that would definitely help with global climate change, but unless they’re donating every dollar of their profits to the fight against AIDS or poverty, it’s not going to take away resources from those efforts. The same point could be made for individuals (especially in the US which is by far the single biggest contributor) making appropriate lifestyle choices. My point is this is not a zero-sum affair (which I suspect is what bab was getting at), and to portray it as such merely confuses the issue.
I don’t get your analogy which seems irrelevant to the discussion here.
Ignoring that, I’m all for lifestyle changes, private contributions, and such to tackle global issues such as this. And a few people like fellow blogger suman are taking the right steps. But economically speaking, we do live in a world of finite resources, evolution or not. And there’s only so much “development dollars” to tackle all the global issues. And boy, do we have a lot of issues to tackle!
Adding more fuel to the fire… provided without further editorial comment…
Have you heard of the “Stern Review?” This is a report published recently for the UK government by Sir Nicholas Stern (former chief economist of the World Bank) on the effects of climate change and global warming on the world economy. This is a report that has been widely criticized by other economists including Bjorn Lomborg who is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. See his critique here. Stern had his strong supporters as well (even among economists):
Which part of “finite resources” did you not understand?
I’ve already addressed this in comment #43.
In one of the critiques of the Stern Report, Lomborg makes the valid point that some of the numbers used in the report are based on less than solidly grounded estimates. He accuses the report of excessive fear mongering, but then goes on to say this:
I’m not an economist, but this sounds laughable even to me. He’s treating the GDP as the equivalent of a pool of money by comparing it with the estimated cost of addressing some of the world’s problems. Maybe we could get everyone in the world drinking water by spending $75 billion, but not taking the 1% GDP hit is not going to magically produce that money for investment in other projects. The discretionary spending of governments (or individuals) is a miniscule part of the GDP. Again, it’s not a zero-sum issue.
As for the finite resources argument, just to put things in perspective, US military spending for 2006 was $440 billion, with an additional $300 billion for staying the course in Iraq. The problem is not one of resources, but the political will to allocate available resources in the most meaningful manner.
Agreed.
But let’s for the sake of argument ignore the current spending on things like wars, bridges to nowhere, congressional redistricting, etc. from a big government perspective. And also down at the individual level, let’s ignore the money we spend on luxury goods, long commutes, sports cars, SUVs, concert tickets, etc. Let’s just focus on the money that is available at the end of it all. And let’s assume that there is at least some money to spare.
How do we spend this spare money? Do we spend it all on protecting the environment? Do we allocate it equally to solve all the global ills? Or do we identify which of the global ills need more attention NOW and allocate proportionately?
I also am not an economist but I understand priorities. For everyone with a pet cause, theirs deserve the utmost attention and resources. For some, these causes may be baby seals, penguins, pandas, and other cute animals; for some they are buddhist statues; for some they are archeological sites; for some it’s the environment; for some it’s education; for some it’s malaria. If you don’t have a pet cause or are just starting out to find one, where do you start? If I had as much money as Bill Gates, I’d do exactly what he’s doing with his family’s foundation. Give it for the causes that needs the most urgent attention.
Whatever money I give as charity these days is not going to Greenpeace, that’s for sure. That doesn’t mean I won’t make lifestyle changes. While I haven’t yet traded my sports car for a Prius or a hybrid scooter, at some point, I might be willing to to this. I can conserve electricity at home, support local legislation for more environmental standards (thankfully I live in a state which is far ahead of the rest in this regard… republican governor or not), commute less, etc.. These things I can and will do but my spare money is not going for protecting the environment but for causes such as education and healthcare for the poor.
Having said all this, I do think that we need the Al Gores and Nicholas Sterns to keep the environment cause alive as sooner or later we’ll have to deal with it. And I do think we are dealing with it in our own way. We are a long way from 30 years ago in our understanding of the environment. What Stern doesn’t state in his report is that his figures are based on the assumption that we (as in the whole world) are not going to do anything to change the situation for the next 50 years. In that case, yes by 2050 we will be royally screwed. But I don’t think that’ll be the case. We’d have advanced leaps and bounds scientifically by then and we’d come up with more efficient solutions to these problems. For now, let’s focus on preventing the millions from dying in Africa and getting some shelter and food to poor people the world over. Let’s also focus on trying to find cures for the epidemical diseases that pose a more serious threat to mankind. And let’s educate everyone so that they will understand the stuff Mr Gore is talking about.
And now to close with a comment about your statement about unnecessary spending. While I have no panacea for that, I’d just say that it starts at the individual level. Are you prepared to stop spending your money on unnecessary stuff and give it all to the environment?
Become vegetarian:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=88713
Sigh. I guess I’ll just have to focus on the other 80% then. There is no frigging way I am going to make that lifestyle change.
http://snipurl.com/15aln
From the WP article linked to above by kinnum:
I am not sure about anti-American or eco-freak (though that’s a useful word for me to remember… papi/bab beware) but if this catches on, it’s definitely anti-capitalist. Whenever my wife, the financial director of our household, gets in the way of me getting my gadgets and scotch, I just tell her that I am contributing to the GDP.
For the eco-friendly folks: http://www.fivelimes.com/
Apparently, Al Gore did not just make up the myth of global warming. He is, in fact, the person who’s causing it.
http://www.algoreiscausingglobalwarming.com/
It’s on the Internets, so it must be true.
We finally got about to watching this film on dvd and the data presented is certainly eye-opening and disconcerting … especially the accelerated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere over the last few decades and its impact on average global temperatures and the cascading effects of that. On the dvd version, the extras had an update that included a Russian scientific report that says that the thawing permafrost in Siberia and Greenland, if it continues to thaw, can lead to releasing currently trapped carbon dioxide that can potentially double the current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. If accurate, it just makes you wonder if we might actually see radical global climate changes sooner than projected. Regardless of what your scientific or political biases may be, this film in my opinion is important enough to be watched by everyone … if only to get everyone to ask questions and think about the issues being raised.
I thought it was a well made political film and the liberal elite that rules Hollywood blessed our man Gore with an Oscar a few weeks ago. I was squirming all over my couch watching all of them praise the man. One thing I have to give to him is that he is becoming more and more funny in public appearances. Gore the Bore doesn’t sound right anymore. On Oscar night, I thought Ellen Degeneres was funny when she mentioned the diversity of people nominated this year and compared Jennifer Hudson (who didn’t receive America’s votes on American Idol) and Gore (who did receive America’s votes … ).
I also agree that Gore definitely comes across as having a pretty good sense of humor. I thought Ellen Degeneres did a pretty decent job although I read some people found her boring.
BTW, Al Gore did NOT win an Oscar. The documentary won it and so the award went to the film’s producers, of which the director was one. I think people think Al Gore won because he went up on stage with the producers and made a statement.
I actually liked Ellen’s hosting. She was funny without the big production shows that used to be the trademark of people like Billy Crystal or Chris Rock. And let’s not forget the disaster that was Dave Letterman during the Oscars (Oprah… Uma… Oprah… Uma… ah the nightmare!).
Check it out I finally watched Al Gore’s pseudoscience crap and also here is my review of a new documentary which is out on BBC Channel 4. It says Al Gore is a big lying prick grinfucker. Hah ha my documentary is better than yours nahhny nah ne nah nanny
FWIW - one take on Al Gore’s and George Bush’s environmental credentials.
I wonder if Gore drives a minivan too. At least his wife Tipper fits the stereotypical profile of a minivan driving parent.
An Oscar, an Emmy, and now the Nobel Peace Prize. Will he run or won’t he?