"An Inconvenient Truth" Talkback

[Classic Speedy]

"I'm Al Gore. I used to be the next President of the United States..."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/speedyboris/Unsorted%20Toon%20Zone%20Pics/inconvenienttruth_photo.jpg

Release date: May 26, 2006
Studio: Paramount Classics
Director: Davis Guggenheim
Cast: Al Gore

Plot Summary: (from imdb.com)
Director Davis Guggenheim eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Mr. Gore's personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. "Al Gore strips his presentations of politics, laying out the facts for the audience to draw their own conclusions in a charming, funny and engaging style, and by the end has everyone on the edge of their seats, gripped by his haunting message," said Guggenheim. An Inconvenient Truth is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry to protect the one earth we all share. "It is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly, and wisely," said Gore.

Comments?

Saw it last night, coincidentally, in the midst of a huge thunderstorm that caused lots of power outages in the Twin Cities area. :sweat:

I thought it was pretty good. Al Gore's speaking skills have certainly improved since the '90s, and not once did I get bored listening to him, even when he rattled off statistics. I suppose the visual graphs and animations in the background helped.

Only major weak spots of the film were the jarring scene transitions where the movie suddenly cuts to a series of close-ups of Gore while he narrates some stuff about his life. It gives some nice background info, but it really messes with the pacing and I always dreaded the next time they would come up. The best parts of the film are undoubtedly the parts where Gore showed the comparison photos and the creative end credits.

[Sharklady]

I have *got* to find the time to go see this.

[The Weed Of Cri]

So, after four failed attempts at the Presidency, Al Gore has finally figured out what it takes to be a credible candidate: ya gotta have a movie! I guess he's hoping this one will headline at the next Democratic Convention like John Kerry's "Going Upriver", and the Thomasons' Clinton Movie "The Man From Hope" did at previous conventions.

While I have to give Gore props for cleaning up his oratory style (he's abandoned that "bearded revivalist preacher" schtick he flirted with in the wake of the 2000 election, and he is no longer the dullest politician in America -- that dubious distinction now belong to Kerry), there's very little else in this movie that is worth respecting. More doom prophecy agitprop from the man who practically made a religion of it. There's really very little new here; most of what's in the movie is the same rhetoric that's been spouted by the global warming crowd for the past 20 years. Gore has merely put a fresh coat of paint on it.

But no matter how much you polish a turd, you won't make it shine:

Gore's claim: An impending environmental disaster caused by global warming is a given fact.
The Inconvenient Truth: While few scientists will dispute that human-created pollution has a deleterious effect on the environment, there is no concensus on the extent of the damage it has or will cause. Of course, this movie doesn't contain anything like a real debate on the issue; Gore doesn't interview a single actual scientist for this movie. He is all the authority he thinks we need.

Gore's claim: He is thoroughly committed to stopping the inpending disaster.
The Inconvenient Truth: During the Clinton Administration, when Gore was the second-most-powerful man in the world and had the ear of the President every day, global levels of carbon dioxide (which Gore erroneously identifies as the most prevalent greenhouse gas) went UP! He did not do a thing to stop it or slow it down.

Gore's claim: The United States, being the world's Number One polluter, is mostly responsible for the crisis, whereas nations with larger populations, like China and India, are substantially more enviro-friendly.
The Inconvenient Truth: China is the world's #2 polluter; India is #3. Both nations have permanently exempted themselves from the Kyoto Treaty, on which Gore places so much faith, which means they have free rein to pollute as much as they want, forever. At the rate China is industrializing, they will be producing more pollution than the United States within 20 years.

Gore claim: Everywhere on Earth there is evidence of ice caps receeding, it is the fault of global warming.
The Inconvenient Truth: The recession of the snow cap on Mount Kilamanjaro is the result of periodical shifts in atmospheric moisture levels, and not the result of either global warming or the greenhouse effect. It has happened at least three times before in the last one hundred years.

Gore's claim: 99 % of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct.
The Inconvient Truth: Gore pulled this bogus statistic out of his butt, and has been repeating it for 20 years, blissfully unaware of how nonsensical it sounds to anyone with a solid education in any branch of science. This statistic is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty because: a) we have no conceivable way of determining how many species have ever lived and, given the numerous fossil gaps, we never will; b) we have no way of ever determining how many extinct species there were, for the same reason given in "a"; and c) we don't know how many species exist today, because new ones are being found all the time. So how Gore arrived at a statistic based on three completely unsolvable variables is an even bigger mystery than why anyone still takes him seriously.

Manbearpig!

[Classic Speedy]

Of course, this movie doesn't contain anything like a real debate on the issue; Gore doesn't interview a single actual scientist for this movie. He is all the authority he thinks we need. That was sorta odd, true, but I guess it didn't bother me since this was basically a straight-up taping of one of his speeches (aside from the interstitials, obviously). That would've made his arguments stronger, though; I agree.

One other thing I noticed is that very few (if any) of the slides contained a source at the bottom. Unless I'm blind, I didn't see them. I'm so used to documenting EVERYTHING from college that it looked odd to see these impressive graphs on the big screen but no tiny text at the bottom.

[peacebyanymeans]

One other thing I noticed is that very few (if any) of the slides contained a source at the bottom. Unless I'm blind, I didn't see them. I'm so used to documenting EVERYTHING from college that it looked odd to see these impressive graphs on the big screen but no tiny text at the bottom.

That would go in the credits, I believe.


Manbearpig!

Are you serial?

[sun]

.I saw the movie "In Invenenient Truth" on the evening of Wednesday August 16..Now , I had read about the science and its implications long before..I had accepted this before I saw it because I read much, and a very good friend who was a science teacher told me about it, and it's truthfullness..I believed this to be true before I saw it..Mainly because I trusted this friend for his honesty, and I have known him for over 35 years, he knew this subject, and wouldn't lie to me..
..So seeing the movie, was somewhat anticlimatic.
..It is an impressive film, some excellent visuals, some humor, quite sobering, but one must ask three questions about it?
A. Is the science presented factual?
..B. Is Gore a lier?r
C. If Gore is a lier, Why?

A. .I do blieve the science is factual..Almost all independent climatologists who have examined these charts, pictures, and numbers, says what he is saying is truth..
..A few studies say otherwise, but, if one looks at who is financing those studies,and who is paying those scientists, one finds those studies questioning the validity of Gore facts, are not independent, but financed by oil and coal interests..They obviously are not independent. They have something to lose.

B. Is Gore a lier? Would he purposely lie about all of what he presents?
While some of the film seems self serving, that is not important. Are the fact presented lies....If so, why? Spoilers ahead....
...Gore presents his history, about the germination of his beliefs when he was a student at a university in the 60s. He names the professor who motivated him, shows the professor's reasearch projected into our times, which has been proven correct, and he shows, his efforts later in Congress in the 80s to make the country aware of these ideas and efforts to change the laws and allert people to this problem. (his efforts in the 80s failed)
....If you watch the film, one gets the feeling this is not a new issue, but something that he believes in deeply, and would not lie about, more importantly, these beliefs are not new, but have grown over a 40 year period.
..C. Let's assume he is a lier.Why? Why go to this much trouble to lie, and decieve everyone?...Does he think he can get away with it??Certainly after the film's release, people would check his numbers, pictures,and charts and prove him completely wrong..I do not think that has happened..
..His thesis is not, that "global warming is taking place." Everyone agrees that we are in a warming period.
..His thesis is that over the last 200 years," the rate of increase caused by human development,the results of the industrial revolution, .and population increases, is far greater than would normally exist. That this dramatic temperature increase is caused by the tremendous increase in greenhouse gases, due to production of electrcity, cars, etc.
.. This rate is so much greater than it would normally be, that it actually threatens us all"...
If he were indeed lieing, there would be rush to disprove every word in that movie.. This has not happened.


There are many impressive photos, contrasts, charts, and graphs presented here. (Speedy Boris points this out)

Clearly the most impressive chart was one shown that demonstrated the climatic changes over 650,000, years.. If you see this film, this particular chart, is really the key to his thesis, since it spans several ice ages, and takes into account the warming and cooling of earth without man, which has naturally occured..and the warming that has occured since man, and since the industrial revoution and the last l00 years., the last 50 and the last 10...
...The movie concludes with hope.

This fact from the Associated Press appeared after the film was released into the theaters. I would like to add it in support of seeing this film:

By Associated Press
Published July 14, 2006, 1:19 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the United States.

The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.4 degrees above average for the 20th century.

That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reported.

No state was cooler than average and five states -- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri -- experienced record warmth for the period.

While much of the Northeast experienced extreme rainfall and flooding at the end of June many other areas continued below normal rain and snowfall.

As of June, 45 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in moderate-to-extreme drought, an increase of 6 percent from May.

Dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental U.S., according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Worldwide, it was the sixth warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.



...I urge everone to view this film..Decide for yourself the truthfullness of "The Inconvenient Truth." Soon it will be on DVD, you can rent it, and eventually you will be able to get it at the library for loan...Most libraries charge a dollar or less.. It is worth it, and the time spent watching it.... Even if you accept only some of this film, it is still worth seeing, becuase we need to ask ourselves this very important question..
..."If the science in this film is truth, or has a reasonable chance of being the truth, then can we as humans afford to ignore it?"
........................................................................ Stuart

[The Weed Of Cri]

A. .I do blieve the science is factual..Almost all independent climatologists who have examined these charts, pictures, and numbers, says what he is saying is truth..
..A few studies say otherwise, but, if one looks at who is financing those studies,and who is paying those scientists, one finds those studies questioning the validity of Gore facts, are not independent, but financed by oil and coal interests..They obviously are not independent. They have something to lose.

That's not true. The only consensus is that human-produced pollution has a negative impact on the environment. There is an enormous amount of debate on the extent and future implications of that damage, and not all of the people who disagree with Al Gore (who is not a scientist, and really should not be passing himself off as one if he's not going to take to time to learn how scientific research and debate actually works) are in the pocket of Halliburton, et al. And not all of the doomsayers are as "independent" as you think. Many of them are financed by universities and environmental groups that are pushing specific political agendas. Read A. K. Dewdney's Yes, We Have No Neutrons to see examples of how personal bias can destroy scientific objectivity and credibility.


B. Is Gore a lier? Would he purposely lie about all of what he presents?

He is not technically a liar, because he really believes this stuff and is not out to deliberately deceive anyone. However, he is guilty of using half-truths and withholding facts to support his claims. One example: there is a scene in the movie in which show the names of over 100 countries which he says all signed the Kyoto Treaty. What he doesn't say is that most of those countries are exempt from the terms of the treaty. No wonder these countries support the treaty...it doesn't apply to them!



..C. Let's assume he is a lier.Why? Why go to this much trouble to lie, and decieve everyone?...Does he think he can get away with it??Certainly after the film's release, people would check his numbers, pictures,and charts and prove him completely wrong..I do not think that has happened..

Of course he can get away with it; he's been doing it for years. The trick lies in a complacent news media that won't give equal time to both sides of a scientific debate, especially when they share the political views of one side.


..There are many impressive photos, contrasts, charts, and graphs presented here. (Speedy Boris points this out)

"Impressive" isn't the same thing as "accurate", "correct", or "true". Read Darryl Huff's How To Lie With Statistics for some valuable lesson on the efficacy of using "impressive" charts and diagrams, instead of strictly accurate ones. Published more than 50 years ago, the book is still eerily accurate of what is happening today.


Clearly the most impressive chart was one shown that demonstrated the climatic changes over 650,000, years.. If you see this film, this particular chart, is really the key to his thesis, since it spans several ice ages, and takes into account the warming and cooling of earth without man, which has naturally occured..and the warming that has occured since man, and since the industrial revoution and the last l00 years., the last 50 and the last 10.

And who, exactly, was collecting the data during the Ice Ages? Most of what we know about climatology from more than about 150 years ago comes from paleontological and geologal evidence. The database is, at best, woefully incomplete, and grossly inadequate for the job of creating an accurate picture of the global climate Way Back When.


WASHINGTON -- The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the United States.

A perfect example of back-handed deception. The unspoken implications of that statement are legion. Are they trying to say that the first half of 2006 are the highest temperatures recorded, or that the first half of 2006 was warmer than the first half of any other year. If the warming trend does not sustain for the second half of the year, will they blame that on global cooling, or admit that the year as a whole was not the hottest on record. You never see a headline that says, "Temperature is pretty average for this time of year". Only when some record is broken, does it make headlines, so people are fooled into thinking there is some gradual warming trend occuring when the weather is simply being its usually sporadic, unpredictable, changeable self.


Worldwide, it was the sixth warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.

So, there have been at least five other years in the past when it was hotter than it is now. Isn't that evidence that it's getting cooler? Or maybe just a statement on the general sporadic nature of weather patterns?

[Lord Dalek]

This movie is frightening from a Portlander perspective. We have been having one of it not the hottest summers on record this and the day I saw this movie (Sunday, July 21) we had a high of 98. If you don't believe Mr. Gore (who I like even more now after this movie), go outside, watch the Weather Channel read Time Magazine, the writing is on the wall and its up to us to save our planet.

[Dogbert]

This movie is frightening from a Portlander perspective. We have been having one of it not the hottest summers on record this and the day I saw this movie (Sunday, July 21) we had a high of 98. If you don't believe Mr. Gore (who I like even more now after this movie), go outside, watch the Weather Channel read Time Magazine, the writing is on the wall and its up to us to save our planet.There are valid points on both sides of the argument, but I beg of you, please do not use anecdotal evidence. Best case scenario: Earth's temperature will not change over the next 50 years. Worst case scenario: Earth's average temperature will change by as much as 5 degrees over the next 50 years. Either way, you won't notice the difference by going outside during a typical heat wave and saying, "man it's hot today."

[Doop]

The ice is melting in the arctic, and the polar bears are in danger of drowning. I'm sure it applies to other animals as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

[sun]

The next statement was made by a previous poster who wishes to argue the facts...

"And who, exactly, was collecting the data during the Ice Ages? Most of what we know about climatology from more than about 150 years ago comes from paleontological and geologal evidence. The database is, at best, woefully incomplete, and grossly inadequate for the job of creating an accurate picture of the global climate Way Back When."....The Weed of Cri

The fiilm, shows ice bores into the Antartic ice that is able to show climatic conditons over thousands of years..
They do this by checking the thickness of the ice, its rate of melting, and checking CO2 content...These ice bores, are shown in the film, and the names of the researches are mentioned. These bores tell the story of the climate into the distant past, as does the rings of a tree...The above statement is false, if one accepts the science of this film...

...Therefore..I suggest all that question this film, without seeing it, should see it....Then google the film, and read the support of the scientific community, vs those scietists who oppose this film..One does not have to believe anything in this thread..The science can be checked out by the individual if one want to check it out....

...Would it be more believeable if this film were narrated by Robert Redford,
Gene Hackman, or John McCain?
...Is it the messenger, or the message?...
...Let each one decide for himself where truth lies in this film.....Then, do the research which is available easily with these computers. A user can prove or disprove as much as one wants to know.
...I have no quarrel if anyone wants to believe that this is not true...Especially if they have honestly checked out the science...But at least watch the film, with an open mind...then, see the footnotes in the book, and check them out..That is fair..
...I think it is: www.google.com (http://www.google.com). There should be a story or two there about this film...Thanks again for reading this..

[Sharklady]

> The ice is melting in the arctic, and the polar bears are in danger of drowning. <

They aren't in danger of drowning- those critters can swim for fifty miles in one go.

The concern is that Polar bears could become extinct because they require ice to hunt seals (their most importaint winter food), and every year now, the Arctic's winter ice-sheet is forming later and melting earlier. A shorter hunting season = greater chance of starvation, especially for cubs.

[The Weed Of Cri]

The fiilm, shows ice bores into the Antartic ice that is able to show climatic conditons over thousands of years..
They do this by checking the thickness of the ice, its rate of melting, and checking CO2 content...These ice bores, are shown in the film, and the names of the researches are mentioned. These bores tell the story of the climate into the distant past, as does the rings of a tree...The above statement is false, if one accepts the science of this film.....

Like I said, ice bores are geological evidence that paints, at best, an incomplete picture of the global climate in the distant past. The CO2 content is only relevant if you think CO2 is the only factor that contributes to global temperatures. Ice bores tell us absolutely nothing about algae levels (because algae doesn't fossilize), seasonal fluctuations, convection from air currents, heat transfer from tidal kinetics, volcanic activity, or the effect of the #1 Greenhouse Gas: water vapor. And because permafrost doesn't retain any appreciable fossil content, you can't learn anything about the processing of CO2 through natural photosynthetic cycles, which can provide a vastly different picture of atmospheric CO2 levels than what dissolves in water.
The rings of a tree only provide evidence of two things: how much a tree grew in any given year, and details of the local soil chemistry. Climate fluctuations only account for about 5% of a tree's annual growth; the other 95% comes from nutrient/water levels in the soil.



..Would it be more believeable if this film were narrated by Robert Redford,
Gene Hackman, or John McCain? ..
Frankly, this film wouldn't be any more believable if it were narrated by Jesus Christ. Junk science is junk science, regardless of the junkman.

[sun]

Junk Science....Read this from Today's Chicago Tribune..(Sunday August 20, 2006.) It won't convince ,"The Weed", that is ok,,maybe someone else will believe that this is true, and that this film is at least worth watching and afterwards, each one decides for themselves.......The Tribune wouldn't publish this, if it did not believe it....
"The Oceans are swallowing Islands in the Pacific."
The say it is "Global Warming" Here is part of the story from the Tribune:


"The ocean is slowly claiming Malasiga. They say it's global warming"

By Evan Osnos
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published August 20, 2006

MALASIGA, Papua New Guinea -- First, their fathers noticed the palm trees that seemed to be inching toward the water's edge and the fire pit that vanished beneath the tides.

Later, researchers came, scribbled measurements and offered a grim diagnosis: The sea is coming

There is not a power line or factory or air conditioner within a day's walk of this village of 400 people in the southwest Pacific, but these subsistence fishermen are no strangers to the power of industrialization and climate change.

"There used to be two rows of houses," said Mickey Tarabi, a wood carver in his 50s, nodding toward the crystal blue sea. "The first one has been moved, and the second one will be gone soon."

Far over the horizon from the most advanced nations, scientists are measuring the effects of global warming in the world's least-industrialized corners. As the World Bank puts it, 15 percent of the world's population lives in high-income countries but releases "more than 75% of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are altering The Earth's climate..


If anyone still had doubts, government's Climate Change Science Program in May found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system," echoing the world's leading science organizations on the causes of global warming:

That climate change raises sea levels by heating the oceans, causing them to expand, and by accelerating the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, which funnels fresh water into the seas.

By the middle of this century, smokestacks, tailpipes and other sources are on pace to raise the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 50 percent. In turn, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise about 1 1/2 feet, or as much as 3 feet, by century's end.
(story continued...........) (sorry the link did not work earlier...so I copied it and pasted part of the story here)
................................................................................................

This story, published a while ago..tells of the tremendous increase in dirty coal coming out of China...even though the technology for clean coal is there, the Chinese have put on line a huge number of dirty coal burning electric plants in the last two years....Here is that story

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10458 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10458)

Thank you again for reading this...........Stuart

[The Weed Of Cri]

Islands have been rising and sinking in the oceans for the last billion years. It's usually caused by plate tectonics, and it happens more frequenly in the Pacific Ocean because the plates reaching across the ocean from one coast to another are currently in motion (that's why California and Japan have so many earthquakes -- although I'm sure Al Gore thinks global warming is causing that, too). But there is a lockstep reaction on the part of people who know little or nothing about real science (like, say, most journalists) to blame every climatological mishap on global warming. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning is a logical fallacy: it's not enough to point at something and say, "global warming's doing that", you have to consider all the possibilities and determine which one best fits all the available data.

Re: China: According to Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, China is much more enviro-friendly than the U.S. And guess what: they are exempt from the Kyoto Treaty, too, so the likelihood that they will stop using dirty coal in the foreseeable future is slim.

[sun]

I did not get the impression from the film, that China was more "envior-friendly" then the U.S.A...My impression was that this was everyone's problem...The U.S.A. uses more energy, ergo, causes more of the problem..
....But that is likely to change as the Chinese economy and the Indian economy continure to expand rapidly.. Those two countries will cause more of the problem. If just half of the people of each of those countries owned cars (not true today), there would be 700 million more cars polluting the air than there are today....
..Even if one disagrees with the science, there is still the increasing problem,
of, "air pollution." Is that something to argue with? Twenty years ago I approached Chicago from one hundred miles, on a bad air day..You could see the smog in the air then...It is not better today, it is worse. More cars, more trucks...buses that throw out back smoke, as do about 15 per cent of the trucks..
.. What ever side you want to take,,and what ever is said after this, I have made my case...Believe what you want.
...But I still suggest you see, "Inconvenient Truth" decide for yourself...

If the research interests you, find out for yourself, the truth..

.It is one hundred minutes..That is all....This film, should be seen, at some point, if not in the theater, then later.............Thank you....Stuart...

[Sharklady]

> I did not get the impression from the film, that China was more "envior-friendly" then the U.S.A... <

Historically, Communist countries have had the worst environmental records, probably because their leaders' determination to build industries made them dangerously short-sighted. For a long time, northern Poland was cited as the most heavily polluted place on earth- I don't know if that's changed since the wall came down. And nobody believes it's coincidence that the worst nuclear-plant accident to date happened in the USSR.

[bgmark13]

And do four dead polar bears really prove global warming?

The film is entertaining but it is meant to educate and a great many people are now using its "science" as proof of global warming, so it is a terrible piece of propoganda because of that. It even quotes the very much discredited Mann et al Hockey Stick as gospel and Mr Lonnie Thompson's work on Tropical glaciers where he managed to get six widely differing results from six ice cores and averaged them coming to the conclusion that suited him even that the average really was the opposite of four of his six cores.