Tuesday June 27, 2006 I decided to go see a movie tonight. Things have been really hectic lately, so I was in the mood for mindless entertainment – and there were plenty of choices to choose from. But on impulse I decided to go and see An Inconvenient Truth instead. If you haven't heard about it, it is essentially a documentary from Al Gore regarding global warming.
Okay, I will admit that it sounded a bit boring. And if there's one impression the Republicans were able to hammer home to the public in 2000, it's that Al Gore is boring.
However, I found the movie energizing – I highly recommend it. (And don't just take my word for it – check out what the critics are saying ). It was engaging, as well as compelling. Even those of you happy with the current U.S. administration should not dismiss this movie as political propaganda, or place it in the Fahrenheit 9/11 category - it's not.
One of the points made in the movie is that a lot of people think global warming is simply a theory, and a controversial one at that. That's not surprising given media reporting on the topic. However, scientific publications on the topic universally agree on the global warming trend: it's not just a natural cycle as in past ice ages and subsequent melts. In media reporting, however, more than half(!) of the reports are sceptical. Sure, it's possible that this reporting imbalance is simply due to lobbyists at work. However, I suspect people want to hear that there's no problem. That absolves all of us of any responsibility. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a fitting title - it's a truth nobody would like to hear.
However, the movie presents irrefutable evidence of the trend. One thing is the temperature and CO2 graphs, but the side-by-side pictures of glaciers, evaporated lakes etc. over very short time intervals are hard to argue with.
In the U.S. we now have an ad campaign against the conclusions in this movie, touting the benefits of carbon dioxide! That's right boys and girls, never mind the connection between CO2 and global temperatures. Carbon dioxide is good! It's natural. It comes from trees. Without it, life wouldn't exist! Thankfully, John Stewart on The Daily Show made fun of these ads. But the problem with comedy is that we laugh, then move on to the next show (in my case, The Colbert Report!) and fail to act.
This movie is pretty effective in trying to inspire people to take some action. Not only is it specific in what you can do, but it also has a pretty positive message. You might think global warming is all gloom and doom – and if we don't do anything, you wouldn't be all that wrong. But it makes a point I was not aware of: that we have averted a global environmental crisis in the past, so we can do it again.
Remember the ozone layer problem? I sure do. To this day I still use deodorant sticks because I remember the environmental campaign to avoid ozone-layer hazardous CFCs used in among other things, deodorant aerosol sprays that were popular at the time. What I had not heard until I saw this movie, is that this effort was successful and things are well within control today.
I was heartened to see that the movie was well attended. But then this is northern California, which politically is "out of touch" with the rest of the U.S. And, I suspect the people least likely to see this movie are the ones who need it the most, and vice versa.
It's very easy to ignore global warming. That's right. Click on the next blog story in your reader, perhaps something regarding Web 2.0, and forget all about it. But if you're reading this, chances are good you're in one of the top CO2 emissions countries causing the problems – and that makes you part of the problem. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. Watching the new Superman movie may be entertaining, but please consider assisting Superman in saving the world yourself! Watching this movie will make you think, and perhaps inspire you to do your part.
P.S. After posting this, I watched tonight's Daily Show and they announced that Al Gore will be the guest tomorrow night!
(2006-06-27 23:24:34.0) Permalink Comments [7]
Posted by Alexis MP on June 28, 2006 at 01:40 AM PDT #
Posted by Rob on June 28, 2006 at 05:18 AM PDT #
So we should make scientific decisions based on which side can make the slickest documentary? If that wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
My son went and saw this movie with his school. It makes me so mad that in the U.S. we have to fight to teach established scientific fact (evolution), and at the same time in an area where there really is some controversy, the other side is ignored.
You say that it is not "political propaganda", but I'm sorry, it is, pure and simple. It is loaded with anocdotal evidence and misleading presentations. I know for a fact that Al Gore has mis-represented the views of scientists that he maintains support his cause.
I have no vested interest in the issue either way. I have just not seen any reliable evidence or studies that have convinced me of the validity of either side. I am very frustrated by fact that as each new study comes out that is touted to "prove" global warming, if you actually read the study it does no such thing. The issue is so political, we have reached the point where you cannot even trust scientists to publicly state their actual opinions for fear of professional reprisals.
Don't get me wrong. I think that many, or even most of the proposed "solutions" are worthwhile pursuing. More efficient energy use, cleaner energy consumption, I am all for those. But until we get some real data, we should be looking at "things we should do anyway".
Posted by Brian Utterback on June 28, 2006 at 06:31 AM PDT #
Posted by Paul Monday on June 28, 2006 at 07:17 AM PDT #
Brian, I am glad you are for energy efficiency. However, since you haven't seen the movie, I don't think you can label it as political propaganda. I am sure conservative talk shows label it that way. However, I think that's more spin - the only way to argue against facts is to attack the messenger and other underhanded tactics. Remember the outrage by scientists that the administration edited reports, told NASA scientists to withhold information etc? Remember the unprecedented petition signed by 49 Nobel laureates and 8,000 other scientists? See this NPR article for example.
Here's what Roger Ebert said in his review:
Take a look what the administration's EPA site says. (source)
Posted by Tor Norbye on June 28, 2006 at 08:36 AM PDT #
Regarding whether man-made green houses are a fact or not... I think they are but even if there was a doubt, the potential impact is so high (just think of the Gulf Stream shutting down or changing) that simple risk analysis should make us act urgently.
Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on June 28, 2006 at 01:30 PM PDT #
Posted by Rob Abbe on July 03, 2006 at 03:09 PM PDT #