View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth


Debaser
05-30-2006, 12:21 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23459

Massawyrm's Incredibly Incendiary INCONVENIENT TRUTH Review

Hola all. Massawyrm here.

Here’s something I just had a hard time wrapping my mind around. An Al Gore movie. Seriously, an hour and a half lecture by, and a documentary about, ex-Vice President and Presidential Candidate Al Gore and his views on global warming. How can a guy known as wooden at best, and positively robotic at worst, make a film that doesn’t make Lars Von Trier movies look like action packed, tightly paced, thrill rides?

Well, because the Gore-bot 2000 is dead. A relic. A thing of the past. Al Gore is far from what he used to be. An Inconvenient Truth not only proves to make a compelling call to action about global warming, but also makes Al Gore seem like something he hasn’t before to many people. Human.

Now, I typically try to keep my religion and politics out of my reviews, knowing just how incendiary such subjects can be. Especially on the Internet. And frankly, film is incendiary enough stuff that I don’t feel I need to throw gas on the fire. But here, with An Inconvenient Truth, I feel it is almost inescapable. For me, at least.
Those of you who know me well or read my blog know that I am an incredibly politically minded guy, and even more importantly, a Republican. A lifelong, old school, traditionally conservative (which doesn’t mean what many of you think it means), Republican. And I have SERIOUS ISSUES with Al Gore. Have for nearly two decades now. Granted, most of my fervor stems from his support of his wife Tipper, who founded the PMRC (the guys who put labels on records and CDs) and crusaded to ban offensive albums, films and television shows.

And for a traditionally conservative Republican pop culture junkie – the idea of censoring ANYTHING is a cardinal sin – especially at the federal level. Throw onto that his views on using the military as a peacekeeping force in other countries and his part in the Clinton Administration and you start to paint a picture of exactly the kind of politician I have problems with. So as you can probably guess, I voted against him in 2000 (you know, back when Bush still talked like a Republican) and hoped that would be the last I heard of him.

Needless to say, the idea of waking up early on a Friday morning to listen to Al Gore talk for 100 minutes was not exactly my idea of fun. But like I said, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it. I mean, this sort of thing just isn’t done. This isn’t a Documentary about a politician who was followed around by a docu-crew. Gore plays a large part in the making of and the structure of this film – both as a subject and creatively. And Ex-Politicians, especially Ex-Vice Presidents, are supposed to fade into obscurity. They take cush jobs at large firms that do world wide business, or sit on the board of large corporations. They don’t continue the crusades they failed at when in power. Not unless they’re Jimmy Carter. But Carter’s a whole different kind of cat – the only President in modern history to be a better man after his presidency than he was during it. Vice-Presidents don’t make films. Not like this. It was something so insane I HAD to watch. I couldn’t pass it up. It was like one of those links your buddies post that reads: Click here to see something so vile it will scrape out your soul. You can’t help yourself. And neither could I.
Now, understandably, this film has stirred up a lot of controversy. Unfortunately, the controversy is far less scientific than it is political. You see, somewhere along the line my party stopped being the party that quoted the founding fathers. Somewhere along the line we stopped being the party of a sound, cohesive philosophy that virtually every republican held, despite our personal, issue-based beliefs. Somewhere along the line “Ditto Rush” stopped meaning, “Wow, Rush said exactly what I’ve been saying for years” and became “Well, if that’s what Rush said, that’s what I think too.”

And already the smear campaign has started, encouraging Republicans to boycott this movie. Because apparently, we aren’t allowed to make up our minds for ourselves anymore. The party line is what we’re told to believe, not what we actually believe. And the party line on Global Warming is “We don’t have enough evidence to support a position either way, so why risk hurting industry for something that’s just a theory?”

Well, with An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore sets out to challenge that way of thinking and manages to turn what could easily be a 100 minute episode-of-Nova snoozefest into a riveting conversation and argument on the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. This is effectively a filmed version of the lecture he’s been giving over the last six years, inter-cut with a series of personal anecdotes shot at locations pivotal in Gore’s life. Using stories of his past as metaphors, Gore manages to introduce us to himself in a whole new light, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for arguments made later in the film. And those arguments are incredibly simple – elegantly simple in fact.

While not entirely unassailable (as arguments go), what seemed like a “Save the Spotted Owl” plea for environmental consciousness rapidly became a wrecking ball of rhetoric that tore down common myths and hit every point in the argument, from personal cost, industry and the technology needed. This isn’t some crazy, left wing, bleeding heart, tree hugger plea – this is an honest to god, very well thought out evaluation of facts, figures and concepts. And its an argument, valid or not, that is so good, it should be heard by members of all political slants and bents.

This film, this lecture, comes across as very personal; a passionate argument in the old school sense of the word. This isn’t the stodgy, stiff shirt Al Gore we all remember – this is an Al Gore who jokes openly, is warm and entertaining and speaks with pain about his loss in 2000. You can easily tell that he’s a changed man, someone who while on the track to the White House gave us what he thought we wanted, and now, with nothing to lose, can let it all hang out and just be himself.

And the man before us in the film, well, he’s one I quite like now. He’s been moved from the category of people I never hope to meet into the realm of “Man, I’d really love to pick this guys brain over a cup of coffee.” And believe me, that’s a BIG deal. This is a guy I believed stood against most everything I believe, and while he still may, I no longer think it’s because of anything but that we want different things and have different priorities.

And man, can I understand why he’s getting the BIG QUESTION in every interview he does. Because if there was ever a way to make a HUGE comeback, this movie would be it. If Gore was able to take a dyed in wool conservative who practically spit when he said the guys name and not only earned his respect, but endeared him to him, I can only imagine what this film would do to the independents in this country – let alone the liberal base that feels let down by him.

If enough people saw this film, and he kept up this kind of attitude, he could probably win the nomination in a walk. But personally, I hope he stays true to his word and chooses not to run. This crusade seems to be a much better fit, and it strikes me that he can accomplish more good outside the system than he ever did within it.

The film is simply great. It changed my opinion on a great number of things, educated me with an argument that properly debunks a lot of misconceptions, and turns some really dry material into something that never for one second bored me. Gore really seems to know his stuff, but more importantly, really knows how to explain it. That doesn’t mean Gore’s argument is by any means unassailable.
There’s plenty to be said to counter both the science and the rhetoric. But it’s a good argument, and its one worth hearing. (Please note that as I am in no way, shape or form a scientist of any kind, I make no claims to the validity or truth of global warming. But, as a film critic, I am afforded the ability to say that Global Warming lends itself to pretty good filmmaking. Except for Waterworld…and the more ridiculous parts of The Day After Tomorrow. And anything by Paul W.S. Anderson, whether he’s done a global warming film yet or not.)

Now, if I have one complaint about this film, it’s one of my usual gripes. The marketing. Sometimes I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, but this really has to be addressed. If you look at the poster for the film, or it’s unbelievably dramatic trailer…well, it’s certainly jarring. It has this immediacy to it. It uses the work ‘Shock’ about a billion and six times. The tagline is “By far, the most terrifying movie you will ever see.” And yet, it’s not. The marketing is scary, and probably will do more to scare people away than anything else.

In truth, this movie isn’t very shocking (except in regards to the aforementioned personality graft Gore received post election.) Instead, rather than sending you out of the film thinking “Oh, God we’re so fucked” it manages to end on a very positive note that leaves you thinking, “Man, I really need to change my light bulbs and get my car tuned up.” It makes you want to write your congressman, because, it can be done. Gore ultimately reminds us that it is a number of small changes - not big ones - that can really have a lasting effect, if performed by enough people. I kinda wish they’d go back to the ‘penguins in the desert’ poster, as much as I thought it was silly, because it is much closer in theme to what this movie is trying to say.

This isn’t a scare piece; it’s a motivational piece and a rational argument. I just wish they’d start treating it like one (because nothing says rational like penguins. In a desert.)

I highly recommend this film to anyone old enough to understand it. It is probably one of the sanest, most coherent, and from the heart pieces of rhetoric you’re bound to hear or see in an election year. Is it propaganda? Of course it is. It’s a persuasive argument made with images and style. But that by no means makes it something worth ignoring.

If anyone sees this, I think it most important for those of my own party, if for any reason other than hearing this argument from this point of view, that we begin to once again – as a party – think for ourselves and argue from our own knowledge of the opposing opinion rather than what we’re told it is. If we continue to let Coulter, O’Reilly and Savage do our thinking and speaking for us, then it will be left to the Al Gore’s of the world to make the only sane, informed arguments – and we’ll be left with few who can actually argue against them.

And I’d like to take this time to personally thank Al Gore for inventing the internet, without which I would be unemployed ;)

Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. I know I will.
Massawyrm

Debaser
05-30-2006, 12:28 PM
RealClimate.org has got to be the most hardcore science website about global warming that I've come across...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299

Al Gore’s movie
by Eric Steig

Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue -- indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue -- but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies).

I'll admit that I have been a bit of a skeptic about our ability to take any substantive action, especially here in the U.S.
Gore's aim is to change that viewpoint, and the colleagues I saw the movie with all seem to agree that he is successful.

In short: this film is worth seeing. It opens in early June.

Nimrod's Son
05-30-2006, 11:00 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Manbearpig1.jpg

Corganist
05-30-2006, 11:52 PM
What's up with these hacks remaking a Hollywood classic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/The_Day_After_Tomorrow_movie.jpg/200px-The_Day_After_Tomorrow_movie.jpg


Dennis Quaid > Al Gore

jczeroman
05-31-2006, 07:46 AM
I'm not going to read any of that shit.

Debaser
05-31-2006, 09:33 AM
I'm not going to read any of that shit.

first post is a review from a conservative.
second post is a review from a climate science website that points out the errors in the film.

duovamp
05-31-2006, 10:07 AM
I'd really like to witness An Invonvenient Truth. It will be like F911 though, where the rednecks refuse to see it, the Republicans complain about it, and the Democrats love it. I guarantee I am setting myself up for a nice flame here, but I always liked Al Gore. And, to get myself further flamed, he's actually a very smart individual. Too bad he "lost" that election. Ah well. Perhaps money from the film will go fund something I care about.

jczeroman
05-31-2006, 11:22 AM
first post is a review from a conservative.
second post is a review from a climate science website that points out the errors in the film.

My post was in reference to the amount of content, not its authorship or agenda.

Debaser
05-31-2006, 12:02 PM
My post was in reference to the amount of content, not its authorship or agenda.

next time just

tl;dr

jczeroman
05-31-2006, 12:30 PM
next time just

tl;dr

I just learned somethign new!

Nimrod's Son
05-31-2006, 12:32 PM
Too bad he "lost" that election.
There's no need for quotation marks or indignation or crying over spilled milk. The man lost. Get over it.

duovamp
05-31-2006, 01:03 PM
The quotation marks are there because he didn't lose. When Florida did its entire recount, after the election was forced to end, Gore won the state marginally. I'm not crying over spilled milk, I'm just bitter.

zbeast78
05-31-2006, 01:24 PM
The quotation marks are there because he didn't lose. When Florida did its entire recount, after the election was forced to end, Gore won the state marginally. I'm not crying over spilled milk, I'm just bitter.

not according to CNN and the washington post. After the extensive recount, Bush still won by 537 votes. They do concede that voter errors probably cost Gore the election.

Shawn Osmond
05-31-2006, 01:40 PM
The quotation marks are there because he didn't lose. When Florida did its entire recount, after the election was forced to end, Gore won the state marginally. I'm not crying over spilled milk, I'm just bitter.

Did you read that in the National Enquirer?

You could also make the case that he lost because of the hundreds of thousands of blacks who were turned away at the polling stations by white people, or because of the hundreds of thousands of old people who intended to vote for Gore but didnt have the hand strength to push the pin all the way thru the ballot paper. :rolleyes:

Besides, if Florida residents really felt that the Supreme Court had given their state to Bush illegally, they would have voted for Kerry in 2004. Instead, Bush actually gained support from Florida residents in that election, so your point is moot, obviously.

ravenguy2000
05-31-2006, 01:51 PM
Besides, if Florida residents really felt that the Supreme Court had given their state to Bush illegally, they would have voted for Kerry in 2004. Instead, Bush actually gained support from Florida residents in that election, so your point is moot, obviously.

Oversimplify much?

neopryn
05-31-2006, 02:01 PM
Critics Blast Al Gore's Documentary As 'Realistic'

NEW YORK— The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the 90-plus minute environmental film is "too disturbingly realistic and well-researched to enjoy." "I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after that—which makes for a movie-going experience that's far more educational than it is enjoyable," said New York Post film critic Skip Hack. "Gore's film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination, and that's just not good entertainment. Two stars." Some critics have called the film's claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the film from being unwatchably factual.

duovamp
05-31-2006, 03:16 PM
not according to CNN and the washington post. After the extensive recount, Bush still won by 537 votes. They do concede that voter errors probably cost Gore the election.

"Two newly published studies of the ballots cast in the US presidential election confirm that Democrat Al Gore was the choice of more Florida voters than Republican George W. Bush, who was installed as president after an unprecedented and anti-democratic intervention by the US Supreme Court.

One study was conducted by the Washington Post, the other by Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. The Post endorsed Gore editorially in the November election, while the Tribune endorsed Bush.

The Post reviewed computerized records of 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's largest counties to examine the pattern of the so-called overvotes, those ballots on which computer scanners or other vote-counting machines detected votes for more than one presidential candidate and discarded the ballots as invalid. The newspaper did not recount individual ballots, but relied on reports from county officials based on machine tabulation of the invalid ballots.

The analysis found that of the more than 60,000 ballots in the eight counties showing overvotes—the bulk of the statewide total—Gore's name was marked on 46,000, while Bush was marked on only 17,000. This *******s several thousand ballots in which both Gore and Bush were marked.

The 3-1 Democratic to Republican ratio among the overvotes was confirmed in the analysis of other votes cast by those voters further down the ballot. Three quarters of those who improperly cast a presidential overvote marked their ballots correctly for US senator. Of these, 70 percent voted for Democrat Bill Nelson, only 24 percent for Republican Bill McCollum, while 6 percent voted for third-party candidates.

The nearly 30,000-vote margin for Gore among the overvotes dwarfs the 537 votes which was Bush's official margin of victory in Florida. On the basis of that minuscule and highly dubious number, the Republican-controlled state government, headed by his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, awarded him the state's 25 electoral votes and a four-vote margin in the Electoral College nationally."


Had everybody understood how to vote, had all votes been counted correctly, and had the process not been stopped by hordes of Bush's campaign committee standing a the court house, and had the person presiding over the vote counting not been in charge of Bush's campaign... basically, if the election were done the right way, Al Gore won Florida... easily.

ravenguy2000
05-31-2006, 03:18 PM
^Right, but instead of giving a fuck about any of that you should just stop with the sour grapes bullshit and stop living in the past.

:rolleyes:

transluscent
05-31-2006, 03:43 PM
ravenguy you should tie your dick to that other dudes like you did that one time

duovamp
05-31-2006, 03:43 PM
I know when I've been put in my place. I'm just bitter, that's all.

Corganist
05-31-2006, 04:46 PM
Had everybody understood how to vote, had all votes been counted correctly, and had the process not been stopped by hordes of Bush's campaign committee standing a the court house, and had the person presiding over the vote counting not been in charge of Bush's campaign... basically, if the election were done the right way, Al Gore won Florida... easily.
Wrong. If the recounts had been allowed to go on as Gore wanted them to, Bush would have still won....easily. The only way anyone can say Gore could have won is if they recounted votes from all over the whole state, which was never on the table. Gore just wanted certain counties counted. They also would have had to count the ballots that had more than one candidate marked on them, also something that Gore never asked for.

Future Boy
05-31-2006, 04:59 PM
Besides, if Florida residents really felt that the Supreme Court had given their state to Bush illegally, they would have voted for Kerry in 2004.

This board is a hoot sometimes, I swear.

Future Boy
05-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Wrong. If the recounts had been allowed to go on as Gore wanted them to,.

You had to stipulate that, didnt ya. Gore woulda lost...because he didnt ask for the right type of recount.

jczeroman
06-01-2006, 07:32 AM
I will say though - what's great about this film is that if Gore made any predictions for the next ten or twenty years we can all laugh when they don't happen.

Nimrod's Son
06-01-2006, 07:58 AM
I hope there's no cussing in that film

Nate the Grate
06-01-2006, 05:57 PM
Critics Blast Al Gore's Documentary As 'Realistic'

NEW YORK— The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the 90-plus minute environmental film is "too disturbingly realistic and well-researched to enjoy." "I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after that—which makes for a movie-going experience that's far more educational than it is enjoyable," said New York Post film critic Skip Hack. "Gore's film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination, and that's just not good entertainment. Two stars." Some critics have called the film's claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the film from being unwatchably factual.

seeing as no one else responded to this post, I will. this is a whopping case of not quite "getting it". you would expect more from film critics, but I guess not.

JokeyLoki
06-01-2006, 06:31 PM
seeing as no one else responded to this post, I will. this is a whopping case of not quite "getting it". you would expect more from film critics, but I guess not.

Those critiques almost sound like a joke...

Junebug
06-01-2006, 07:38 PM
Those critiques almost sound like a joke...

ya think?

Corganist
06-01-2006, 07:44 PM
Those critiques almost sound like a joke...
Of course they're a joke. Who in their right mind would claim anything Al Gore says is "realistic"?

Nate the Grate
06-01-2006, 10:28 PM
Those critiques almost sound like a joke...

well...I guess I'm the one who doesn't "get it".

:beatup:

Nimrod's Son
06-01-2006, 10:47 PM
well...I guess I'm the one who doesn't "get it".

:beatup:
that's because as far back as you can remember he was VP

Mablak
06-02-2006, 01:43 AM
I'm enticed to see this movie out of pity, I don't think Mr. Gore has any friends.