Complete text -- "Review: An Inconvenient Truth"
28 April
Review: An Inconvenient Truth
Finally got around to renting the flick that everyone has been talking about. I give it a B+.
The film had many good aspects: riveting and memorable images were among the best. The photos of the receding glaciers and crumbling ice shelves were compelling. So was the image of the world as seen from space. Also good was use of charts, graphs and other ways of depicting the changes that are taking place and their potential consequences. At the end of the day, I came away more convinced than I was before that climate change is potentially a serious problem that will need our attention.
The film also had its cheesy moments such as the animated frog in the boiling water sequence. More distracting in my estimation is the focus on Al Gore rather than the subject matter. Yes, he has been a consistent crusader for environmental issues but I would have liked it more had he receded to the background. The clips about the 2000 elections seemed particularly gratuitous and distracting.
Critics have pointed to possible errors and distortions in the presentation?the link between global warming and hurricanes, for example, is not as widely accepted as Gore made it to be. Also, it is my understanding that his ?sea level will rise by 20 feet? estimate is not necessarily shared by all scientists. More generally, the use of charts and graphs, while illustrative and often illuminating, also run the risk of being manipulated for effect (since the viewing audience can usually not even see what the units on y axis are let alone be cognizant of whether they are reasonable). I thought his ?carbon and temps are going so high I have to get on this lift to point to them? was a bit manipulative and cheesy.
Shooting the messenger
Part of my problem with the film was my general sense of unease about Gore in general (which is why I would have rather he wasn?t such a central subject of the film). I believe that Gore is sincere about his environmental crusade. And yet ?.
The tobacco analogy. I was thinking about that one even before Gore invoked it but was surprise to hear him raise the issue of his own family?s growing of tobacco, his sister?s death due to lung cancer etc. I was actually a bit shocked to have him bring that up because four years after Gore?s sister died, Gore bragged,
?I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put [tobacco] in the plant beds and transferred it. I?ve hoed it, I?ve dug in it, I?ve sprayed it, I?ve chopped it, I?ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it and sold it? (Newsday, 2-26-88).Perhaps it took many years for the implications of the issue to sink in, but the general sense I get from this is that his invocation of moral issues might perhaps be a bit convenient from time to time.
More to the point, it was recently reported that Gore?s new home in Tennessee consumed 20x the national average of electricity (around $30,000 a year for those keeping score at home). Gore has responded that the home uses ?green sources? of electricity, that the solar panels weren?t installed yet, and that he purchases carbon offsets. These are all admirable actions but none of them negate the fact that the leader of the movement that insists that we all must change our very way of life because of the moral and survival imperative doesn?t seem all that urgent about changing his own life (building and living in a home that consumes say $2000 worth of electricity a year?all provided by green sources, solar panels etc. would send a much more consistent message about the feasibility and morality of the enterprise). I just don?t get it. Gore has been crusading about these issues for decades. Why wouldn?t he go to every length necessary (and since he?s making as much as $125,000 per speech, money shouldn?t be too much of an issue) to have the greenest, most efficient, least carbon emitting home possible? He could even go further and show the importance of sacrifice by leading by example (Ralph Nader doesn?t have a car; does Gore need one?). His own behavior appears to be in microcosm what he sadly nods his head at when invoking American profligacy and energy waste in general. I would be more persuaded by leadership and example than what appears to be hypocritical hectoring.
Crying wolf?
Still, at the end of the day, despite my desire to shoot the messenger, I find myself moved by the message. Yes, doomsdayers have cried wolf often and have been spectacularly wrong (and equally unrepentant: Google Paul Ehrlich some time for a good example of this). But, as the story goes, one day the wolves really will come and we all will wish we were more prepared. The solutions aren?t as simple and straightforward as the film and the environmental movement would have us believe. Compact Fluorescent bulbs will help us save energy, but since the vast majority of them are made in China, replacing the some 2 billion light bulbs in the U.S. will require who knows how many more coal fired power plants to be constructed in China? Ethanol may be a useful source of alternative (and somewhat renewable) energy to keep our cars going, but already the growing demand for corn in the U.S. has made it hard for millions of urban Mexicans to afford to buy tortillas. But we all should seriously think about the issues and see what we can do to help out. But doing it with a little caution and humility won?t hurt.
Comments
Ross wrote:
Good review:). I agree that Gore's hypocrisy is akin to shooting the environmentalist movement in the foot. What about the argument that the global "crisis" is actually a cover to transform society to be more socialist:
In an Article by Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.townhall.com/col...
But here's the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn't be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn't want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we'd add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn't really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, "Earth in the Balance," he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.
Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: "Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society ... (and) developing a more coherent central state."
In an Article by Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.townhall.com/col...
But here's the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn't be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn't want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we'd add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn't really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, "Earth in the Balance," he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.
Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: "Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society ... (and) developing a more coherent central state."
04/30/07 17:21:58
Loryienne wrote:
Ivan has read several volumes on global warming on both sides of the issues. He pointed out the myriad of simulations and s in the graphs in the same way that other critics have--how do you capture reality perfectly with so many variables, how to you avoid programming in your biases, and how does a science that cannot get weather prediction correct beyond 4 days, predict decades?
We follow and read all of the articles pointed to in the Drudge Report--about 2:1 ratio of anti human-caused to pro human-caused.
Arguments that make me skeptical about carbon emissions being the main cause are as follows:
1--the evidence that the "hockey-stick" poster chart used by the UN to start its research was manipulated and is untrue. Without falsification, the chart would have shown a similar rise in global temperatures in the 1200 to 1400 centuries. That rise was supressed by programming twists and by false data.
2--The fact that Greenland was farmed in past centuries before it was covered in glaciers. The same evidence is being found under the Swiss glaciers that are receding.
3--The current warming of other planets in our solar system.
4--The hypocracy of those who preach human caused--and their ultimate agenda. Have you noticed the recent articles about the need for population control due to each human's carbon footprint--no more than two children per couple?
5--The solutions (carbon offsets and global carbon tax) sound more like gloabl socialism to me.
6--The Kyoto Protocal goals are not being reached. The last article I read on that said they couldn't be reached without unacceptable cost or population decline. Anyone volunteer to leave for the good of the planet? Even at its best, the Kyoto goals would make so little difference.
7--Let's see, did I mention dishonesty more than once? Now, I'm not the best at weighing my sources, but I thought the Fraser Institute counter report to the IPCC Panel Report was convincing. It's list of climatologists with Ph.D.'s was long--and it seriously debated the conclusions of the Panel report. Here is a brief summary of the report--the link to the real report is given there:
http://www.fraserinstitute....
8--It doesn't seem like what we have done is ever mentioned. Just the executive summary of this article points out how much cleaner our air has become over the decades: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/...
9--Being responsible makes complete sense to me. I turn off lights--have switched to some florescent bulbs, but I hear they have mercy. I recycle. We bought a catalytic converter to reburn the fumes from our wood stove. We are putting another one in this fall. You can barely smell our smoke outside now where before it gave off a heavy acrid smell. I compost, mulch to save water, plant trees (though that helps most in tropical climates), particape in Freecycle.com to reduce landfill buildup. I am for taking care of our planet, but I don't believe in hysteria, and I think the Al Gore hysteria is more a religion--and I could see it becoming the Inquisition--oh, just statements like Al Gore saying there should be Nuremburg Type trials for those who don't believe in Global Warming being one piece of evidence.
Will you ever read this, Kirk?
If so, tell Kathy I was at Emilie Albrecht's (I hope I spelled that right) baptism. I talked to Kathy's father, but only got to smile at her mother.
We follow and read all of the articles pointed to in the Drudge Report--about 2:1 ratio of anti human-caused to pro human-caused.
Arguments that make me skeptical about carbon emissions being the main cause are as follows:
1--the evidence that the "hockey-stick" poster chart used by the UN to start its research was manipulated and is untrue. Without falsification, the chart would have shown a similar rise in global temperatures in the 1200 to 1400 centuries. That rise was supressed by programming twists and by false data.
2--The fact that Greenland was farmed in past centuries before it was covered in glaciers. The same evidence is being found under the Swiss glaciers that are receding.
3--The current warming of other planets in our solar system.
4--The hypocracy of those who preach human caused--and their ultimate agenda. Have you noticed the recent articles about the need for population control due to each human's carbon footprint--no more than two children per couple?
5--The solutions (carbon offsets and global carbon tax) sound more like gloabl socialism to me.
6--The Kyoto Protocal goals are not being reached. The last article I read on that said they couldn't be reached without unacceptable cost or population decline. Anyone volunteer to leave for the good of the planet? Even at its best, the Kyoto goals would make so little difference.
7--Let's see, did I mention dishonesty more than once? Now, I'm not the best at weighing my sources, but I thought the Fraser Institute counter report to the IPCC Panel Report was convincing. It's list of climatologists with Ph.D.'s was long--and it seriously debated the conclusions of the Panel report. Here is a brief summary of the report--the link to the real report is given there:
http://www.fraserinstitute....
8--It doesn't seem like what we have done is ever mentioned. Just the executive summary of this article points out how much cleaner our air has become over the decades: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/...
9--Being responsible makes complete sense to me. I turn off lights--have switched to some florescent bulbs, but I hear they have mercy. I recycle. We bought a catalytic converter to reburn the fumes from our wood stove. We are putting another one in this fall. You can barely smell our smoke outside now where before it gave off a heavy acrid smell. I compost, mulch to save water, plant trees (though that helps most in tropical climates), particape in Freecycle.com to reduce landfill buildup. I am for taking care of our planet, but I don't believe in hysteria, and I think the Al Gore hysteria is more a religion--and I could see it becoming the Inquisition--oh, just statements like Al Gore saying there should be Nuremburg Type trials for those who don't believe in Global Warming being one piece of evidence.
Will you ever read this, Kirk?
If so, tell Kathy I was at Emilie Albrecht's (I hope I spelled that right) baptism. I talked to Kathy's father, but only got to smile at her mother.
05/08/07 19:10:00
Wayne_ wrote:
Thanks for the review. Global warming is a fact. I, along with your the two previous commentors, am unconvinced that it is manmaded. And even if it is manmaded, I am unconvinced that we know how to correct it. The regulators scare me. I do not trust Gore at all.
05/08/07 20:12:03
Loryienne wrote:
I apologize for my overcommenting, but I do it anyway. I just ran across an article by Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, and scholar on the founding of the American Republic--his writings over the past several years have thrilled me:
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection ? similarly to the old Marxists ? wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world. "
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection ? similarly to the old Marxists ? wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world. "
05/09/07 12:01:25
Add Comments