two thumbs up.

It is great.

Great.

I read it in the magazine when it was published and I just re-read it in Remnick's new collection of essays.

Here's a link.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/040913fa_fact

vomit-free since '93

if they had been different in 2000...

Scary...Sad...
Can't wait to see this movie

8 (or at least 4) years of global healing.

I put up a thread in Activist a while ago that has become quite entertaining.

just thought I'd boost this.

Now is a good time for you to read the New Yorker profile, if you haven't (link above).

praise to the first full POWERPOINT MOTION PICTURE....

(yes, I know he's using Apple's Keynote)...

well done!

The moral flaws of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
By Gregg Easterbrook
Posted Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 6:05 AM ET

A scene from An Inconvenient Truth. Click image to expand.

A scene from An Inconvenient Truth
Relax: The Al Gore movie has no sex scene. Gore is the only presidential candidate who has made out on national television, so this was a legitimate worry. Otherwise, An Inconvenient Truth could use some action. Maybe a chase scene through the winding streets of Davos. Maybe Gore parachuting off a skyscraper as he shoots at American Petroleum Institute commandos aboard a helicopter. Instead, we get a 100-minute PowerPoint presentation interrupted by outtakes from campaign ads, plus shots of Gore apparently rendered despondent by the weight of his environmental knowledge.

As someone who has come to the view that greenhouse-effect science is now persuasive, I'm glad Gore made a movie that will help average voters understand the subject. An Inconvenient Truth is worthy in content, admirable in intent, and motivated by the sense of civic responsibility Hollywood on the whole has abandoned. About two-thirds is a quasi-documentary of Gore presenting to an audience the greenhouse slide show he's been giving for nearly 20 years. (I attended an early effort, in the late 1980s.) Mostly we see Gore talking and pointing at charts, interspersed with detours into the former vice president's political career: the Florida recount, Gore's stump-speech telling of his son's auto accident and his sister's tragic death from lung cancer. The political sequences have all the heft of a video press release: Time and again we are shown crowds looking adoringly at Gore, or cheering him on. And Katherine Harris may be a natural disaster, but what's she doing in a movie about climate change? If director Davis Guggenheim wanted to film a biography of Gore, he should simply have done so.

When Gore isn't being applauded, Guggenheim presents him as alone and melancholy: walking alone, musing alone, standing alone in a darkened barn. The scenes are meant to convey our inability to imagine the burden the former vice president bears. But they make the political part feel contrived, since Gore scarcely suffers solitude; he has a wonderful, loving family and participates in many public causes.

Continue Article

As a motion picture, An Inconvenient Truth has a lot to say, but contains little imaginative cinematography that might have made global warming engaging at the suburban cineplex. The picture the movie paints is always worst-case scenario. Considering the multiple times Gore has given his greenhouse slide show (he says "thousands"), it's jarring that the movie was not scrubbed for factual precision. For instance, this 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations, including the National Academy of Sciences, warns of sea-level rise of four to 35 inches in the 21st century; this amount of possible sea-level rise is current consensus science.

Yet An Inconvenient Truth asserts that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect. Gore says the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly; the film then jumps to animation of Manhattan flooded. Well, all that ice might melt really fast, and a UFO might land in London, too. The most recent major study of ice in the geologic past found that about 130,000 years ago the seas were "several meters above modern levels" and that polar temperatures sufficient to cause a several-meter sea-level rise may eventually result from artificial global warming. The latest major study of austral land ice detected a thawing rate that would add two to three inches to sea level during this century. Such findings are among the arguments that something serious is going on with Earth's climate. But the science-consensus forecast about sea-level rise is plenty bad enough. Why does An Inconvenient Truth use disaster-movie speculation?

An Inconvenient Truth spends too little time on what audiences might do about global warming, too much time trying to impress us with the Ask Mr. Science side of Gore's personality. Fewer details might have made the movie more effective, especially given that some details are off. For instance, Gore spends a while saying Earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, then somberly declares, "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." Thickness is not the issue. Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced by fossil-fuel combustion and forest fires, has molecular bonds that vibrate on the same wavelengths at which infrared energy radiates upward from Earth's surface; the vibration warms the CO2, trapping heat. The main atmospheric gas, nitrogen, does not absorb energy on those wavelengths. It is the chemistry of carbon dioxide, not its density, that matters. (See this chemistry page maintained by the carbon dioxide study center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.) Anyway, you don't really need to know how greenhouse gases function. Why does Gore insist on giving a wrong explanation?

The movie takes a wacky side-trip into a conspiracy theory about Philip Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute and then became chief of staff of George W. Bush's Council on Environmental Quality—and then got a plush office at ExxonMobil. Gore asserts Cooney was "in charge of environmental policy in the White House," which is nonsense. The EPA administrators, Josh Bolten, Andrew Card, James Connaughton, Mitch Daniels, John Graham, Al Hubbard, and Karl Rove, have been Bush's go-to figures for environment policy; and Connaughton, to whom Cooney reported, is green as can be. Gore implies Cooney's secret mission was to sabotage such efforts as the federal Climate Change Science Program. If so, Cooney better keep his day job, since that program recently declared "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

An Inconvenient Truth comes to the right conclusions about the seriousness of global warming; plus we ought to be grateful these days for anything earnest at the cineplex. But the film flirts with double standards. Laurie David, doyenne of Rodeo Drive environs, is one of the producers. As Eric Alterman noted in the Atlantic, David "reviles owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable, a private jet." For David to fly in a private jet from Los Angeles to Washington would burn about as much petroleum as driving a Hummer for a year; if she flew back in the private jet, that's two Hummer-years. Gore's movie takes shots at Republicans and the oil industry, but by the most amazing coincidence says nothing about the poor example set by conspicuous consumers among the Hollywood elite. Broadly, An Inconvenient Truth denounces consumerism, yet asks of its audience no specific sacrifice. "What I look for is signs we are really changing our way of life, and I don't see it," Gore intones with his signature sigh. As he says this, we see him at an airport checking in to board a jet, where he whips out his laptop. If "really changing our way of life" is imperative, what's Gore doing getting on a jetliner? Jets number among the most resource-intensive objects in the world.

This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity's proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!

Related in SlateClick here for a cheat sheet on global warming by Chip Giller and Katharine Wroth. This spring, Rob Nixon reviewed two new books on climate change, Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes From a Catastrophe and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. In 2000, James Q. Wilson explained why the environment isn't a major campaign issue. Earlier this month, Gregg Easterbrook debunked the bird flu panic.

Gregg Easterbrook is the author, most recently, of The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse.
Still of Al Gore and others from An Inconvenient Truth by Eric Lee © 2006 Paramount Classics. All rights reserved.

(okay, i'm clearly spending too much time in The Lesson.)

what a meandering, non-point-making piece of wishy-washy. it doesn't even deserve to be called a plea cop.

I'm not buying this guy's thesis. He has a valid point in his critique of the "political" portions, where they show Al Gore looking sad and try to offer a fawning biography of his career. Those portions of the movie don't work that well, and could detract from the much more important message it is trying to get across. However, his criticisms of the science and factual content seem totally off-base. Al Gore made a speech that could reach as wide an audience as possible. As such, it isn't going to cover every fact in exact scientific detail. This critic is definitely losing sight of the forest for the trees on this point. The same is true for Gore's criticism of the Bush administration's environmental policy. We should be outraged that individuals representing the interests of oil companies are having a hand in shaping our response to environmental issues, and that he attempted to re-write the science. Whether he was the head of the agency or not seems irrelevant - he was in a position of power with regard to the government's stance on global warming, and he was in the pocket of the industry. The other issue I had with this critic's essay was his argument that Gore should have done more to discuss solutions to global warming and call for more sacrafices by the audience. This was not the focus of the movie. He touches on this question toward the end, in an intentionally cursory way. I think the goal was for the film to be optimistic and hopeful regarding solutions, and to spark political action from the audience, not to give a laundry list of remedies. And I don't see what the alleged hypocrisy of individual environmentalists has to do with Al Gore's larger point, either - it just wouldn't have fit into the movie. This movie is not about placing blame on a single cause of global warming, but more just creating awareness and advocating change across the board.

I thought that Gore intentionally talked about worst case scenarios in order for us to focus on the enormity of the issue. Katrina was a worst case scenario, too; only a few individuals took the threat seriously and look what happened there.

And then I thought that he made a few specific points about what individuals can do, in order for us to see that it's not really that big of a sacrifice for each of us to make, to ensure that the planet has a future.

I came out of the film hopeful as to our ability, troubled as to our will, angry as to the current political situation, although this last predates the film.

It's easy to acknowledge global warming exists, all of the nations that signed the Kyoto Accord agree there. But when it comes time to make the sacrifices necessary to follow it everyone copped out. So it is a valid argument against the film. It's the reason why Bush can get away with listing some magic bullet cures to the problem to avoid actually doing anything that woukd hurt the oil industry.
The whole argument that his overstatements and misuse of facts are forgiveable because they raise awareness is the same one used to defend Fahrenheit 9/11.

>The whole argument that his overstatements and misuse of facts
>are forgiveable because they raise awareness is the same one
>used to defend Fahrenheit 9/11.

That's just a lazy comparison. One was clealry a liberal offensive against our president, the other an educational documentary that is based on science rather than the flexibility and hindsight of recent history. To bring Fahrenheit 9/11 into this discussion at all clouds the issue and suggests that this is somehow a liberal vs. conservative issue, like abortion or gay marriage. It's not, it's far bigger than that. Plus, his overstatements are still based on science, they just happen to be on the far end of the How Fucked Could We Actually Be spectrum.

that's how it ends up playing out, because conservative = pro-business at the risk of everything else, and those who would like us to believe that global warming (and, say, evolution) are "just" theories do have a conservative agenda.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the Fahrenheit 9/11 comparison is not apt. For one thing, F9/11 created a firestorm of chatter and people on both sides of the issue went to see it. I don't think we can hope for that with this film.

>that's how it ends up playing out, because conservative =
>pro-business at the risk of everything else, and those who
>would like us to believe that global warming (and, say,
>evolution) are "just" theories do have a conservative agenda.

if this cause has any chance of picking up steam it MUST move out of the shadow of big business vs. tree-huggers. This is why I see comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11 as potentially very damaging to the film. People will view it as merely leftist propaganda and may ignore it entirely.

I'm at a loss as to what the solution is, but on this issue an Us vs. Them two party system is more damaging than on any other.

he SAYS that this is a message that is best conveyed one on one, in small groups, in families.

That's our mandate. We've seen the film, we know it's not us vs. them, now it's our job to edify and uplift those around us who did not see it.

>he SAYS that this is a message that is best conveyed one on
>one, in small groups, in families.
>
>That's our mandate. We've seen the film, we know it's not us
>vs. them, now it's our job to edify and uplift those around us
>who did not see it.
>

I haven't owned a car in 11 years, lol, and I am grateful to live in a place where that's possible.

which will be quite soon, unfortunately.

Making its debut prior to an important election. It's a political film and there is no way to dispute that, sorry.

How is stressing the worst possible scenarios of global warming all that different from the Republicans doomsday predictions about flag burning, gay marraige and immigration right now?

I think our sympathies are certainly with Gore, and rightfully so, but he's effectively doing the same things to his base as the republicans are to theirs. I think the point made about celebrities championing the cause while flying around in private jets is important to bring up because Gore does it too.

And I think it's obvious thay overstating the facts just leaves his entire position open to some very effective attacks by those who think global warming is bogus.

>How is stressing the worst possible scenarios of global
>warming all that different from the Republicans doomsday
>predictions about flag burning, gay marraige and immigration
>right now?

That's ridiculous, but true. These scientifically dubious worst-case scenearios just make the importance of climate change much more dismissive to them.
Presenting a more sober view of global warming and giving solid ways to prevent it might not win people over in droves but I think it would be more progressive.

>How is stressing the worst possible scenarios of global
>warming all that different from the Republicans doomsday
>predictions about flag burning, gay marraige and immigration
>right now?

because we have real world, scientific, indisputable evidence of how human beings are hurting the environment. flag burnings and gay marriage don't hurt anybody.


>I think our sympathies are certainly with Gore, and rightfully
>so, but he's effectively doing the same things to his base as
>the republicans are to theirs.

again, wrong. the Republicans are using racism and homophobia to rally their ignorant ass base to the polls. don't you fucking dare compare this to that.

>because we have real world, scientific, indisputable evidence
>of how human beings are hurting the environment. flag
>burnings and gay marriage don't hurt anybody.

And he's preaching to the choir. Big whup. I support the cause but I can't see this film as anything other than a way for Gore to bolster his public profile. I think he's a decent guy, but this movie is pointless.
The comparrison is not unfounded, both sides are trying to accomplish the same thing by bringing these issues up right now and without bringing up the hard facts of what it'll take to beat global warming Gore is doing it shamelessly.

>again, wrong. the Republicans are using racism and homophobia
>to rally their ignorant ass base to the polls. don't you
>fucking dare compare this to that.

And just yesterday the republicans were citing statistical evidence that gay marriage has been harmful in the countries where it's legal. Sure if we take a closer look it's bullshit and we can easily discount it entirely. But democrats can't even manage to make that clear.
The Bush administration and Co. are expert in spinning bullshit and discounting the truth.
Why should we condone spinning the facts of global warming when the flaws in such an argument give right wingers grounds to discount the theory entirely? Because they could do that if they felt the need, easily.
But, they can just ignore it because all the film is accomplishing is inciting some AL Gore backslapping parties like this post. Or have you guys started biking everywhere, made contributions to clean energy lobby groups and made sure everything in your house is energy star certified?
A major project like this should aim to educate the ignorant republican base and convince them that changing our ways is doable. Otherwise it's a waste of time; we can find better information about climate change for free online and on TV anyways. Leonardo DiCaprio did more for the world on Oprah a few months back.

serious question, I can't tell

And I think you might be missing an important point, I think the hope is that even if he's preaching to choir, those who watch the film will be inspired to do more, to spread the word. As Janey noted above, it's going to have to person to person, this film isn't going to be a magic bullet nor does it aim to be. No film could succeed at that. If it sparks dialogue and increases awareness it serves an important purpose.

It shoots itself in the foot.

all this naysaying and you haven't even checked it out to come to your OWN conclusion?

But aren't you just a little cynical when a charged politician becomes the center of a debate like this?

NOT when this has been the most prominent issue of his lengthy career.

NOT when the man is no longer in politics.


That's like saying Habitat for Humanity is a sham because Jimmy Carter's involved with it. They send out letters over his name. Am I skeptical? No.

>NOT when this has been the most prominent issue of his
>lengthy career.

how much did he really do in office?

>NOT when the man is no longer in politics.

we don't know that for sure yet.

>That's like saying Habitat for Humanity is a sham because
>Jimmy Carter's involved with it. They send out letters over
>his name. Am I skeptical? No.

When Gore ditches his Jet and starts donating hybrids I'll drop my reservations.

>And he's preaching to the choir. Big whup. I support the cause
>but I can't see this film as anything other than a way for
>Gore to bolster his public profile. I think he's a decent guy,
>but this movie is pointless.

if you think this is pointless, you're already beyond hope.

>The comparrison is not unfounded,

the comparison is UNfounded, wrong-headed and nonsensical.

>both sides are trying to
>accomplish the same thing by bringing these issues up right
>now and without bringing up the hard facts of what it'll take
>to beat global warming Gore is doing it shamelessly.

if you've seen the movie, you know that he does bring up the hard facts of what it will take to beat global warming. he address alternative feul sorces, hybrid technology, etc.
people just dismiss that because it makes it easier to bash the movie.

>And just yesterday the republicans were citing statistical
>evidence that gay marriage has been harmful in the countries
>where it's legal. Sure if we take a closer look it's bullshit
>and we can easily discount it entirely. But democrats can't
>even manage to make that clear.

i'll say it again. there is no proof that gay marriage is going to harm the fabric of society. none.


>But, they can just ignore it because all the film is
>accomplishing is inciting some AL Gore backslapping parties
>like this post.

see, this is a big part of why things are fucked up. someone makes a movie from the heart and tries to bring attention to something that is a big problem and you dismiss it as an Al Gore backslapping party and compare it to gay marriage.

>Or have you guys started biking everywhere,
>made contributions to clean energy lobby groups and made sure
>everything in your house is energy star certified?

no, but my wife and I own one car; a 97 Civic. and we walk whenever possible. and when the time comes to buy a house, or a new car, we'll be as environmentally friendly as we can afford to be about it.
by the way, this is just the kind of Ann Coulter, bullshit, attack the messenger shit that conservatives do.

>A major project like this should aim to educate the ignorant
>republican base and convince them that changing our ways is
>doable.

which the movie did.

Otherwise it's a waste of time; we can find better
>information about climate change for free online and on TV
>anyways.

yeah, cause the unwashed masses really search out enlightening television.

>Leonardo DiCaprio did more for the world on Oprah a
>few months back.

no, he didn't.

That is unless your education system is a complete failure.
The unwashed masses are more likely to watch Oprah than pay to see an Al Gore lecture.
This movie will do little to raise awareness. It's the Al Gore movie.

And that magic solution of alternative fuels and hybrid technology is some simplistic politically motivated BS. Vote Democrat and we'll save the world! You don't even have to lift a finger! How are those HARD facts? The truth of the situation is that we need to turn to nuclear power and/or make sacrifices in our quality of living. According to that slate piece and the critics the movie doesn't really delve into that.

This movie stars Al Gore and your trying to claim the messenger doesn't matter? Come on.

~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing.

But the concept of placing a partisan political figure at the core of an educational film just seems absurd to me.

but long before this film was made we knew that this was his big issue.

On the one hand, the messenger DOES make a difference -- if this film starred some unknown scientist, no one would see it.

Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- because he's Al Gore, he has access to really great computer equipment (a powerpoint presentation that was NOT boring? Whoa!).

Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- you know it wasn't his idea to make this film and that he was reluctant to do so when approached by the filmmakers? And ultimately he decided that however few it might reach it would still reach more than the live audience presentations he was making.

Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- he won the popular vote in 2000, so that would indicate that he has a built in relatively appreciative audience.

Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- so why is that a criticism of the film? Gore has a great deal of credibility on the national stage and this film points out to those who weren't already aware of it how long he has been concerned with environmental issues.

Tell me again why filming Gore's presentation (which he has made to live audiences around the world) shoots the film in the foot?

Did you see Darwin's Nightmare?

political figure is at all productive. Even if he did win the popular vote. Basically this :" film points out to those who weren't already aware of it how long he has been concerned with environmental issues" becomes what the movie is about. What good does that really do for anyone, especially if he isn't going to run for office.

The producers should have found somebody with broader appeal to deliver the message. There is little opportunity for films about subjects like this to be given a wide release. Couldn't they have hired Morgan Freeman?

I haven't yet seen Darwin's Nightmare. But I did grow up watching David Suzuki, now there's a guy who can deliver the message effectively.

And isn't the critiscism that Gore himself is shown to be a conspicuous consumer wasting fossil fuel a little disconcerting?

that I can continue to discuss this with you rationally.

I really have tried to give a variety of reasoned comments on why the film was made as it was, and you keep coming back to Gore. Either it's bad that Gore's a Democrat or it's bad that Gore won the popular vote or it's bad that Gore had a track record on these issues. So either it's bad that Gore is with the film because it will draw in a lot of people who already are predisposed to like/trust him, or it's bad that Gore is with the film because other people don't like/trust him.

I didn't see Darwin's Nightmare, either. Nothing about it drew me in. Nothing. And I see that you weren't motivated to see it either. Maybe that's why it never hit the top 10, as An Inconvenient Truth did. It sounds like you're not going to see An Inconvenient Truth, either, and I think that's too bad.

But do me a favor, me--an American living in a nation of people who want to drive cars that waste gas as a way of showing those bad terrorists that they haven't won. Me -- an American who sees thoughtful ideas get shouted down by right wing politicos who can present idiotic notions in quick sound bytes. Do ME a favor and don't dismiss the film or talk it down or discourage others from seeing it. I obviously can't change your mind, but could you please not get on the bandwagon AGAINST it? Global warming IS an issue, even if you don't like the film.

I just don't think it will amount to any change. It's too politically charged to attract any attention from those who don't agree with the facts already.
The media attention it's generated has been concerned with Gore taking another run at office, not changing America's habits.
Those people who waste gas driving SUVs to show the terrorists they haven't won are less likely to change their ways when Al Gore so prominently becomes the spokesperson against it.
I see it as a wasted opportunity.

How is that not a rational argument?

Maybe I'm just too cynical about anything to do with American politics. I just can't get too excited about this movie unless I see something coming of it in the real world, and I don't.

you're trying to debate the finer points of a movie that you haven't even watched.

I am just as dismissive of The Da Vinci Code, if not more, and I haven't seen the film.

However, it is true that I don't take on performances as an issue. Just plot. And audience. And I did read the book, to my everlasting dismay.

I know what it's about. I know who he is. I know his message. I know about global warming. Hell, I agree with his principles. I'm the exact audience this movie is going to reach, almost exclusively and that's my issue with it.

First off, the trailer has all the scary bits. Most of the presentation is done in measured, rational tones. The trailer is trying to get people into the theatre, remember.

Secondly, the trailer doesn't show all the data that the film shows. As an example, the trailer says la la la the hottest years on record have been in the last ten years la la la. At that point, my best friend turned to me and said, but we've only been measuring temperature for 120 years. And that's fair. So it's further information when you go to see the film and learn about how temperature and CO2 levels have been measured going back 650,000 years.

Finally, the trailer doesn't show the plot twist where Gore talks about what we can do as individuals and as nations. That to me is the core of the film.

There are other plot twists not shown in the trailer, but I'd get in trouble for revealing spoilers if I told you about them.

So you're not even planning to see the film?

I do take issue with the exaggerations that the slate argument brings up. But I agree with Gore about the reality of the problem. I just don't like what I hear about his heroism being made central to the argument.

The voracity of my arguments in this post can be partly attributed to Nick's abrasive argumentative style.

but don't post an article and proceed to complain--wrongly--about a movie that you haven't seen.

>That is unless your education system is a complete failure.

yours, mine and ours. that's why Americans consume the way we do.


>The unwashed masses are more likely to watch Oprah than pay to
>see an Al Gore lecture.
>This movie will do little to raise awareness. It's the Al Gore
>movie.

this movie has already done a ton to raise awareness. it's one of the main topics of discusison on magazines, news shows, blogs, etc.


>And that magic solution of alternative fuels and hybrid
>technology is some simplistic politically motivated BS.

no, it's not. those are just some of the ways that the average person can start doing something about the problem that we have helped create.

>Vote
>Democrat and we'll save the world! You don't even have to lift
>a finger! How are those HARD facts?

nice try. maybe if you actually saw the movie you would know that he delves deeply into the specific data on exactly what we're doing to the planet, and how we can potentially stop doing harm.

>The truth of the situation
>is that we need to turn to nuclear power and/or make
>sacrifices in our quality of living.

no, the truth of the matter is that we can seriously slow down and or stop the effects of what we have already begun by doing lots of things.

>According to that slate
>piece and the critics the movie doesn't really delve into
>that.

the movie doesn't talk about nuclear power i don't think, but he does delve into ways that we can make changes.

>This movie stars Al Gore and your trying to claim the
>messenger doesn't matter? Come on.

i never said the messenger didn't matter. but i'm not gonna discount the movie just because he once ran for president.

maybe next time you should actually SEE a movie before you try to rip it apart?

that says a lot.

DrNO-
Since I appreciate your taking the time to respond thoughtfully to my comments on Easterbrook's article, I felt I should respond in kind to a few of the point you made. Some of these arguments have been made already by fellow supporters of the film, but I figured I should give a response as well. I think you and I agree that global warming is a legitimate issue, and that it deserves to be talked about in a way that will increase public awareness of the problem. We also agree that the best way to change policy and behavior in the necessary ways is to bring this message to an audience beyond the core environmentalists who already "get it". However, we disagree on the specific merits of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" (check your local listings). I found the film compelling and believe it has the potential to: a. Change the minds of people who don't understand the issue AND b. Galvanize the movement that has already begun to take political action on the problem. The criticisms offered in your posts and Easterbrook's article have not changed my opinion about the film's potential to do these two things. I disagree with some of the ways you and Easterbrook have characterized the film, which I will describe below.

1. You say that "its easy to acknowledge that global warming exists." As Gore points out in the film, the US has NOT signed the Kyoto Accord, and a large proportion of mainstream media articles continue to perpetuate the false impression that "the jury is out" on the matter. While you and I may not need to be convinced of the problem, there are PLENTY of people for whom just hearing the scope of the problem is a real eye opener. And, while the film spends more time establishing the problem than it does describing the solution, it DOES also talk about realistic steps that our society can take to cut down carbon dioxide levels. As janey rightfully points out, this is one of the major take-home messages of the film, that we CAN take steps towards fixing this problem.

2. You complain that the film is too "political". In a sense, I agree, in that there are parts of the film seem to be there simply to glorify Gore, and stray momentarily from the more important message of the piece. However, I never felt that the movie allowed these biographical tidbits to sidetrack Gore's speech, which is an argument that really does transcend partisan politics. Although he does make mention of the current administration's refusal to address the science of global warming, I never felt that he was scapegoating Republicans. In fact, I thought he at least implicitly acknowledged that his own Clinton administration failed the world by not doing more to solve this crisis. I also walked away with the impression that the political roadblocks to addressing global warming are coming more from the energy industry than from either political party.

3. I don't believe Al Gore misuses the "worst case scenario" data in the film. The flooding cities are one piece of data out of a hundred, and I thought it was clear from the way he presented it that this was not some foregone conclusion, but one potential consequence. The flooding he describes is certainly much more plausible than the collapse of marriage at the hands of homosexuals, or the destruction of our nation's precious flag reserves at the hands of anti-patriotic arsons. But, as I said, I don't think this can be equated to the Republican scare tactics, because the message of the film is NOT "vote democrat" - not by a longshot.

4. Your point about Gore preaching to the choir is one that I agree with in part. I just don't think that it is any fault of his own. If Republicans who doubt the existence of global warming were to watch this documentary, I suspect they would rethink their position on the issue - it is just that persuasive. The fact that they stay away from this movie out of a knee-jerk reaction to its narrator says more about them than it does about the film. To continue to choose ignorance when the preponderance of evidence is so convincing is just inexcusable. And, if the movie's only impact is to get the choir to run out and preach to the rest of the world, I'd say that's still something of an accomplishment.

You've openly acknowledged that you haven't seen the documentary yet, and I urge you to check it out in spite of your reservations. If you walk out of the movie still convinced that Easterbrook's critique got it right, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. Until you do see it, I'll echo the sentiments of others, and urge you not to perpetuate the notion that the movie is an overly partisan political piece. I just don't think it is.

>I'm not buying this guy's thesis. He has a valid point in his
>critique of the "political" portions, where they show Al Gore
>looking sad and try to offer a fawning biography of his
>career. Those portions of the movie don't work that well, and
>could detract from the much more important message it is
>trying to get across.

Found out from the director Q&A that Gore wasn't sure about the personal portions but Guggenheim told Gore to "trust him." Guggenheim lives in Venice and said he'd be underwater if sea level rose.

>Gore's movie takes
>shots at Republicans and the oil industry, but by the most
>amazing coincidence says nothing about the poor example set by
>conspicuous consumers among the Hollywood elite.

get a life, prick. trotting out the "hollywood elite" as anything other than a infinitesmally minute percentage of the population who has no real political leverage or say in policy is the token move of dweebish and weird conservatives. the author is like an anti-social teenager who hates the cheerleaders because they won't return his lustful ogles.

>This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its
>carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of
>greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical."
>Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use
>is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era
>of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy.
>But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and
>gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven
>malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest
>U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most
>rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's
>airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find
>unethical.

you can make the argument that slavery helped build the south. that doesn't make it ethical.

>get a life, prick. trotting out the "hollywood elite" as
>anything other than a infinitesmally minute percentage of the
>population who has no real political leverage or say in policy
>is the token move of dweebish and weird conservatives. the
>author is like an anti-social teenager who hates the
>cheerleaders because they won't return his lustful ogles.


Yahmean?

Shit.

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

man st. louis is sleepin.
i can't wait for our landmark to get it.






NEW DUMHI AVAILABLE!
Guest Appearances from Che Grand, Von Pea, and Vex Blizzy
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi http://www.myspace.com/dawgeatah

www.climatecrisis.net

i caught it before it went nation wide.

we are so deprived in the midwest.
we DID finally get a 70mm screen and a luxery theater though.
Weird thing is they aren't the same theater. :(




NEW DUMHI AVAILABLE!
Guest Appearances from Che Grand, Von Pea, and Vex Blizzy
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi http://www.myspace.com/dawgeatah

i did 2 years in Tucson before coming back here and it almost killed me.

indefinite stay here.

if i got some high paying job though, moms would send me off with a blessing. know of any high paying entertainment jobs available? lol




NEW DUMHI AVAILABLE!
Guest Appearances from Che Grand, Von Pea, and Vex Blizzy
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi http://www.myspace.com/dawgeatah

______________________________________________________________________
"Both teams played hard, my man."
-Rasheed Wallace, providing my new stock response to any future OKP "board beef" starters

I realize I've just been arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not even sure what my original incentive was at this point.

Weird.

He doesn't have a jet.

xxoo

I guess I still love you, after all.

Anyway, I'm not impressed. I ride an electric bus.

I walk everywhere!

You explained what this film' s purpose was at post 20. People are making a big fuss about a film that will be quickly forgotten. Everyone will still be driving their SUV's and Janey will continue buying a new pair of Birkenstock every two months.

Now I typed that long-assed reply for nothing. Oh well. Let us know what you think of the movie if you see it.

where the fuck was he in 2000?
he started off with this platform
but then took the easy way out
and backed off it.

if he runs again, he BETTER stick to his guns.



the legendary sigs:
__________________



http://www.myspace.com/georica

he did what he had to do to win the election I suppose. Environmentalists have been painted as fanatical extremist in this country and his handlers made him back off from his most passionate issue in order get the votes. He regrets it.

even though he hasn't entirely ruled it out himself, is that he's saying things and taking positions that would kill him in a national election.

Let's not forget who was the US official most deeply involved in structuring the Kyoto Protocol, which we later declined to ratify.

i dont think those positions would kill him.
i think theres a LOT of people out there who
support his views on global warming.
dems just dont play to that side.
they try to be repub-lite and when they
see an issue they have isnt working they abandon
it.
hell they cant even come out and vocally support
gay marriage. they want "civil unions".

im gonna stop. lol.




the legendary sigs:
__________________



http://www.myspace.com/georica

there's that.

he abandoned one of his core causes in order to appear more appealing. and he lost/tied/won an election because of it.

>where the fuck was he in 2000?
>he started off with this platform
>but then took the easy way out
>and backed off it.
>
>if he runs again, he BETTER stick to his guns.

absolutely.

It was gratutitous at times (the polar bear drowning? lol)
Clearly a small part of it that was dedicated to Gore the man (not the message)

That being said, those are very small negatives when compared to what he achieved with the lucid, passionate and absolutely crucial ideas he put forth.

Bravo to Gore for doing what he can to further this cause.

for every hybrid car we buy in america, they're selling ten SUVs in india and china-- the two fastest growing auto markets on the planet. you think our two or three hundred million cars are fucking up the planet? just wait till two billion chinky-eyed muhfuckas trade in their bicycles for toyotas.

really, the problem is, due to vastly improved technology and health care, there's just too many people on the planet, and too many of those people want to live like americans (i.e. consume, consume, consume, waste, waste, waste). the planet can't sustain it. the planet can't support the population we have now (6 billion), how the fuck is it gonna handle 10 billion people in 2050?

short of destroying every gasoline-powered vehicle and power plant on the planet in the next five years AND establishing strict population controls designed to *decrease* the population, what can we really do to stop it? it might take another 200 years or the earth may hit a tipping point and the whole thing could go to hell in a few decades, but with the population exploding, the population's rate of consumption exploding, and the world's governments wasting time bickering about a solution (or still trying to decide if there's even a problem), it's a near inevitability at this point.

or if you don't like al gore, do some research on the subject. but the fact is you're wrong. the US can dramatically change the course of global warming in a relatively short amount of time.

China and India are indeed on the verge of a green house gas explosion. But that time is a long way off. Right now the US gives off as much pollution as the rest of the world outside of Europe COMBINED.

If the US changes its habits, and promotes global initiatives to do the same, global warming is not inevitable. but if people have defeatist attitudes like yours, then yes, the earth is fucked.



>for every hybrid car we buy in america, they're selling ten
>SUVs in india and china-- the two fastest growing auto markets
>on the planet. you think our two or three hundred million
>cars are fucking up the planet? just wait till two billion
>chinky-eyed muhfuckas trade in their bicycles for toyotas.
>
>really, the problem is, due to vastly improved technology and
>health care, there's just too many people on the planet, and
>too many of those people want to live like americans (i.e.
>consume, consume, consume, waste, waste, waste). the planet
>can't sustain it. the planet can't support the population we
>have now (6 billion), how the fuck is it gonna handle 10
>billion people in 2050?
>
>short of destroying every gasoline-powered vehicle and power
>plant on the planet in the next five years AND establishing
>strict population controls designed to *decrease* the
>population, what can we really do to stop it? it might take
>another 200 years or the earth may hit a tipping point and the
>whole thing could go to hell in a few decades, but with the
>population exploding, the population's rate of consumption
>exploding, and the world's governments wasting time bickering
>about a solution (or still trying to decide if there's even a
>problem), it's a near inevitability at this point.

~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing