I caught a matinee of "An Inconvenient Truth" Saturday and found it to be an excellent primer on global warming well explained by the most earnest professor Al Gore. If you've seen it, what did you think?
My younger brother, Tom, a Ph.D. in chemistry, got all of the science genes in the family, but even I could understand that we need to watch what's going on with our planet at least as carefully as we monitor Rush Limbaugh's Viagra dependency.
I was the first one in the theater, followed by two other women, who were disappointed to see only me. "Well," one said, "I guess there aren't too many concerned citizens in this town." I didn't really expect too big a group, allowing as how it was early, hotter than heck and any sane person was floating in a swimming pool someplace. By the time the film rolled, there was a decent crowd of, I'd say, about 150 folks of all ages in there. There was enthusiastic applause at the end, and people were caught up in little knots of conversation as they exited the theater. That's good.
The film is clearly a well-told lesson, not a movie in the traditional sense. I like to learn things, so that was fine by me. But, as Bee reviewer Donald Munro pointed out in his review, it's hard to get people to sit down and listen to a presentation about something as unsexy as global warming. Gore deserves credit for giving the information to people in a way they're willing to take it in: full color, lots of visuals, clear writing. Delivered well, science really is, of course, fascinating. If nothing else, it helps to put the environmental news into perspective. For example, on Sunday morning the New York Times story about the vanishing Greenland glaciers came out and it was much easier to capture the significance of the melting ice sheets if you've seen the film. If you're looking for a big political back-and-forth, you'll have to go to the Web for that. But whatever your politics, the lifestyle changes suggested by www.climatecrisis.org shouldn't scare anyone. Even if the oceans don't rise a single inch, the worst that could happen from making the lifestyle suggestions is that I'll have a lower gasoline bill, the country will be less dependent on Bin Laden land, I'll save money on my electricity bill, we'll have more trees, I'll be healthier, my car will last longer.
There will be some habit changes needed, and that's always an inconvenient truth, but sometimes change is good. It's easier to make changes if you truly understand why you're doing it. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a good way to get out of the heat and actually learn something. I wouldn't hesitate to take intelligent teens in the family to the film. It'll make for a good family discussion.
Let me see if I have this straight: The subject is Al Gore, his film and the subject of the film, the environment and global warming - is it just me or is the crack about Rush Limbuagh's supposed "Viagra dependency" sort of out of place? Unless, of course, there is an agenda or reason for bringing up his name.
Being naturally curious about the rationale behind "sniping" (especially in the political realm), I speculate that the insertion of his name is probably geared to arouse the sympathies of a certain segment of the populace, the "global warming crowd." We all know how they feel about RL.
Limbaugh is only one of many effective opponents of the global warming concept. His "thing" is using hilarious satire while mocking their hypocrisies. (One of the funniest: someone figured out how much fossil fuel Al Gore burnt flying from environmental conference to environmental conference to environmental conference....and to top it off had video of some of Ozone Al's SUV caravans he uses for transportation).
I can't comment on the merits of the film, not having seen it, but wouldn't it have been a little more intellectually honest to let the film rise or fall on strictly scientific merits rather than invoking an emotional response by inserting Limbaugh's name? Is global warming controversy to be settled on emotion or scientific fact?
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that there are many scientists that disagree with the global warming crowd. Are we to dismiss them simply because they don't fit a certain preconceived agenda?
Parenthetically, it might be of interest to your readers that 40% of Ann Coulter's newest book (pages 172-281) has to do with the Left's war on legitimate science. Coulter, admittedly no scientist, does however, give an excellent digest of all the "problems" the Left has with science.
My goodness, TC, you read way too much into things. The mention of Mr. Limbaugh's airport crisis was only because it was the "hot" gossipy news yesterday and probably the silliest. In fact, my first draft said "Brad and Angelina's baby," which I think also is getting way more attention than it deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh and his prescription drug issue at the airport is a topic for another blog. Let's write later about that -- how to carry prescriptions while traveling without gettng in trouble incited a very interesting office discussion. Was he just getting picked on because of his history and high profile? Or was he just unlucky? Do we all need to be careful about how we carry prescription drugs while traveling?
When you've seen "An Inconvenient Truth," I'd like to read your opinion, since you're well versed on the opposition view already.
My wife and I saw the film last week. It was very well-done. I thought I was already fairly knowledgeable about the subject, but I learned a lot from the movie. I found it an effective call for action, and have been increasing my own conservation efforts since then.
I do imagine that some conservatives will not find the movie pleasant, though. Some won't be able to get past the fact that Gore is presenting it. And the truth about global warming is, indeed, inconvenient for most Americans.
Al Gore the movie star? Maybe not, but Davis Guggenheim's documentary, "An Inconventient Truth" is certainly the vehicle to put Al Gore on the "A" list. The film can be a little cheesy, however, it's very informative, and surprisingly engaging.
As a conservative Republican, I couldn't believe I was actually going to pay to sit and listen to Al Gore talk about Global Warming. I'm so glad I did.
It's embarassing that our country has not wrapped their arms around this issue and enforced change. Now is the time. We have to take responsibility for the health of our planet.
Go see the film and see what happens.
Cindy: How refreshing to read such an open-minded post.
So many people are trying to make this about politics instead of education. Sure, there's a whole political side whirling around out there, but before people even put a toe in those waters, they need to understand the information.
Al Gore is far more a teacher in this film than any kind of "star." It's not about him. It's about the the earth we all share. Whatever people think of his skills as a politician, I'm impressed by his persistence over years -- ever since he was a college student -- to keep trying to teach people about a topic many consider just an esoteric science lesson. How wrong they are!
I second Gail's comment about Cindy's post. It is refreshing to see someone who is able to separate the message from the messenger - something that seems so rare these days.
I haven't seen the movie but I read that many mainstream scientists claim it's based on old and debunked science. I'd like to hear from people who really know something about it. I've never been able to understand how we could be worried about global cooling a few decades ago and now it's warming. I also wish our media would have real debates and information about science rather than a few sentences from one point of view.