Thoughts on "An Inconvenient Truth"

Yesterday was a rainy summer day in S.E. Michigan. The wife and I took advantage and caught a matinee showing of “An Inconvenient Truth” at the local theater complex. What they are saying about the movie is accurate. This is a very well made, very powerful lecture about the reality of global warming.
If you have not yet, you must see this movie.

More after the fold.
It is also a very thought-provoking look at what our country’s leadership would have been like, IF the U.S. Supreme Court would have appointed the person who accumulated the largest popular vote in the Nov. 2000 election for President of these United States. What an honest man! What an absolutely unbelievable contrast with the current administration!

If you know anything about Finnish people you know that living in the sub-arctic/arctic they have a tendency to be a bit pessimistic. I am, besides being a native born American, a Finn. I see the most negative possibility in most any situation. Given that, my view of the current state of global warming turns out to be overly optimistic! Go figure.

Near the end of the film, certain realities are exposed. One that I will carry with me to my grave contrasts the scientific view with that of the MSM. Of 900 scientific articles reviewed concerning the validity of global warming, exactly 0/900 contested the Al Gore version that we are headed for ecological disaster. At the same time over 50% of MSM articles question the validity of scientific conclusions on this topic!

Not only does this bode negatively regarding the likelihood that our country will come to grips with our role in destroying the biosphere, it also speaks volumes about why progressives/Democrats have an almost unattainable task of overcoming the GOP hold on our government in the upcoming fall elections.

If the MSM can underplay the largest ecological disaster in THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN without as much as a hiccup, is it any wonder that they can make a loose coalition of liberal-minded folks like the Democratic Party look like boobs?

Nobody that I know or have read has indicated the task at hand will be easy. However like the “Inconvenient Truth” about global warming, the truth about the last six years of GOP rule is on our side. Like Mr. Gore, we must step up to the challenge and not shy away from the task at hand. If we chose to stand fast, we can win in November, and stand fast we must. After all, there is nothing much at stake here, except maybe the future of life on this planet.

13 Comments

Second Nature on June 22, 2006 at 10:11 pm

I just read today that the earth is the hottest it’s been in 400 years.

keepinon on June 22, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Or 2000, or….??

CabinGirl on June 22, 2006 at 10:12 pm

Thanks for the review…I keep hearing so much about this movie, I think I’ll have to go see it soon.

ignorant bystander on June 22, 2006 at 10:44 pm

This is a very well made, very powerful lecture about the reality of global warming. If you have not yet, you must see this movie.

I whole heartedly second that recommendation. I took my family to see it last Friday. We drove about 90 minutes to the nearest theater, one of two in the whole state, to see it. It exceeded all my expectations. I thought very seriously about driving back to see it again the next day.

If you have not yet seen it, please, go see this movie. It is worth your time.

ask on June 22, 2006 at 11:57 pm

The movie is absolutely recommended. Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Wanted to buy the book as well, which I wanted to discuss with my kids over the summer.
Well, they were ahead of me and gave me the book for Father’s Day. I’m on travel overseas this week and brought it with me. Great reading as well.
See the movie; get the book!

forgetting2 on June 23, 2006 at 1:14 am

Saw it yesterday.

The graph, which goes back 650,00 years, by way of ice samples, showing the levels of CO2s in the atmosphere, the part where Gore gets on a lift to go up to the place those levels are at now, about 3 three time what they’ve ever been in that length of time, was frightening.

Real History Lisa on June 23, 2006 at 2:55 am

I started to get teary-eyed when they showed scenes from the 2000 election. Oh, what could have been, and should have been!!!

sittingonthepavement on June 23, 2006 at 4:54 pm

I do think this may have been the one vignette the movie could have done without. I think it leaves a partisan taste in some people’s mouths, I know it did for some of the people I saw it with.

Over all though, the movie was excellent, and during that scene I was cursing about 2000 to my girlfriend.
- ask on June 23, 2006 at 6:34 pm
  
  There is nothing wrong in reminding the public that the 2000-election was stolen. An Inconvenient Truth in many respects.
  And invite a doubter or two to go with you to see the movie, exposure to fact may be painful to some – they deserve that pain 100% for their complacency.
- ignorant bystander on June 23, 2006 at 9:37 pm
  
  This is what I wrote about that over at the orange place
  
  I had mixed feelings about the inclusion of the 2000 election footage. I can see why some might see that as out of place, a sour grapes aside from a sore loser. I share some of his bitter feelings myself. And I’m sure some who want to find a reason to disagree with Gore’s message or find fault with the movie will get some mileage out of that.
  
  But I saw it a little differently. There are two different stories woven together in the movie. One is the climate change story, the one Al Gore seems to have dedicated his life to telling whenever and wherever he can find anyone willing to listen. The other is the story of Al Gore himself, how he came to the place in his life where he could and would make such a single-minded commitment to the climate change issue.
  
  I read somewhere that the producers of the movie told Gore they couldn’t make it work as a movie unless they made the story about Gore himself — the complex of events and motivations that led him to the cause of climate change. I understand why they would say that and I tend to agree with their judgement.
  
  If you look at the 2000 election footage in isolation, it does look a little out of place in a movie about climate change. But if you look at it as a watershed event in the life of an ambitious politician, and then place it in the context of the other elements of Gore’s story that are also presented in the movie, perhaps it has a place after all.
  
  Others have voiced similar criticisms of the inclusion of the story about his son’s near-fatal accident and the story of his sister’s death from lung cancer. Some have made much of the supposed hypocrisy of growing up on a tobacco farm and then making a ploy for sympathy over his sister’s death.
  
  Taking those segments in isolation, I can see how some might take such a cynical view. But taken together, in the context of a life story, I saw them somewhat differently. The movie began and ended with the beautiful, idyllic images of the river where Gore grew up. He spoke, quite eloquently I thought, of the life-changing shift in perspective he underwent when he and Tipper almost lost their son. The sense that something precious that had long been taken for granted could be suddenly and irrevocably taken away. Those who have experienced such an event will understand perfectly.
  
  Taken in the context of the larger story, the death of his sister takes on larger meaning as well. Later in the movie, Gore visits an old abandoned shed on the farm. He doesn’t say so, but I took it to be a tobacco drying shed. He makes the point that his father, a lifelong tobacco farmer as well as a successful angus breeder and Tennessee politician, stopped growing tobacco. In the context of the larger story, not just Gore’s but ours as agents of climate change the message could not be clearer: we can change. We can recognize our mistakes and move to correct them. We can’t save Gore’s sister, but perhaps we can save others. Perhaps we can save the polar bears. Perhaps we can save the planet for those who come after us.
  
  That’s my take, FWIW.
  - keepinon on June 23, 2006 at 10:27 pm
    
    Your take, and your explanation of your take is worth a lot, and are spot on. Let’s remember he did get the most votes in a campaign that many found fault with after the fact. He has credibility with those folks who voted for him from the start. Some conservatives, perhaps a lot of them, will take the cynical view concerning the more personal scenes in the movie. Call me crazy, but I still think that some Republican voters can be moved by exposing ones soul, so to speak. The personal messages make the “lecture” that much more powerful. They enhance his credibility, I believe.

ejmw on June 23, 2006 at 10:26 am

I saw it on Tuesday night. I second, third, fourth, etc. everyone else’s recommendations. It makes a stunning case even if you go in prepared for it.

Cali Scribe on June 23, 2006 at 3:10 pm

not too long after we get back home Sunday — won’t have time to see it till then. Almost bought the book to bring on vacation, but I’ll get it when I get home as well…

Second Nature on June 22, 2006 at 10:11 pm

I just read today that the earth is the hottest it’s been in 400 years.
- keepinon on June 22, 2006 at 10:32 pm
  
  Or 2000, or….??
CabinGirl on June 22, 2006 at 10:12 pm

Thanks for the review…I keep hearing so much about this movie, I think I’ll have to go see it soon.
ignorant bystander on June 22, 2006 at 10:44 pm

This is a very well made, very powerful lecture about the reality of global warming. If you have not yet, you must see this movie.

I whole heartedly second that recommendation. I took my family to see it last Friday. We drove about 90 minutes to the nearest theater, one of two in the whole state, to see it. It exceeded all my expectations. I thought very seriously about driving back to see it again the next day.

If you have not yet seen it, please, go see this movie. It is worth your time.
ask on June 22, 2006 at 11:57 pm

The movie is absolutely recommended. Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Wanted to buy the book as well, which I wanted to discuss with my kids over the summer.
Well, they were ahead of me and gave me the book for Father’s Day. I’m on travel overseas this week and brought it with me. Great reading as well.
See the movie; get the book!
forgetting2 on June 23, 2006 at 1:14 am

Saw it yesterday.

The graph, which goes back 650,00 years, by way of ice samples, showing the levels of CO2s in the atmosphere, the part where Gore gets on a lift to go up to the place those levels are at now, about 3 three time what they’ve ever been in that length of time, was frightening.
Real History Lisa on June 23, 2006 at 2:55 am

I started to get teary-eyed when they showed scenes from the 2000 election. Oh, what could have been, and should have been!!!
- sittingonthepavement on June 23, 2006 at 4:54 pm
  
  I do think this may have been the one vignette the movie could have done without. I think it leaves a partisan taste in some people’s mouths, I know it did for some of the people I saw it with.
  
  Over all though, the movie was excellent, and during that scene I was cursing about 2000 to my girlfriend.
  - ask on June 23, 2006 at 6:34 pm
    
    There is nothing wrong in reminding the public that the 2000-election was stolen. An Inconvenient Truth in many respects.
    And invite a doubter or two to go with you to see the movie, exposure to fact may be painful to some – they deserve that pain 100% for their complacency.
  - ignorant bystander on June 23, 2006 at 9:37 pm
    
    This is what I wrote about that over at the orange place
    
    I had mixed feelings about the inclusion of the 2000 election footage. I can see why some might see that as out of place, a sour grapes aside from a sore loser. I share some of his bitter feelings myself. And I’m sure some who want to find a reason to disagree with Gore’s message or find fault with the movie will get some mileage out of that.
    
    But I saw it a little differently. There are two different stories woven together in the movie. One is the climate change story, the one Al Gore seems to have dedicated his life to telling whenever and wherever he can find anyone willing to listen. The other is the story of Al Gore himself, how he came to the place in his life where he could and would make such a single-minded commitment to the climate change issue.
    
    I read somewhere that the producers of the movie told Gore they couldn’t make it work as a movie unless they made the story about Gore himself — the complex of events and motivations that led him to the cause of climate change. I understand why they would say that and I tend to agree with their judgement.
    
    If you look at the 2000 election footage in isolation, it does look a little out of place in a movie about climate change. But if you look at it as a watershed event in the life of an ambitious politician, and then place it in the context of the other elements of Gore’s story that are also presented in the movie, perhaps it has a place after all.
    
    Others have voiced similar criticisms of the inclusion of the story about his son’s near-fatal accident and the story of his sister’s death from lung cancer. Some have made much of the supposed hypocrisy of growing up on a tobacco farm and then making a ploy for sympathy over his sister’s death.
    
    Taking those segments in isolation, I can see how some might take such a cynical view. But taken together, in the context of a life story, I saw them somewhat differently. The movie began and ended with the beautiful, idyllic images of the river where Gore grew up. He spoke, quite eloquently I thought, of the life-changing shift in perspective he underwent when he and Tipper almost lost their son. The sense that something precious that had long been taken for granted could be suddenly and irrevocably taken away. Those who have experienced such an event will understand perfectly.
    
    Taken in the context of the larger story, the death of his sister takes on larger meaning as well. Later in the movie, Gore visits an old abandoned shed on the farm. He doesn’t say so, but I took it to be a tobacco drying shed. He makes the point that his father, a lifelong tobacco farmer as well as a successful angus breeder and Tennessee politician, stopped growing tobacco. In the context of the larger story, not just Gore’s but ours as agents of climate change the message could not be clearer: we can change. We can recognize our mistakes and move to correct them. We can’t save Gore’s sister, but perhaps we can save others. Perhaps we can save the polar bears. Perhaps we can save the planet for those who come after us.
    
    That’s my take, FWIW.
    - keepinon on June 23, 2006 at 10:27 pm
      
      Your take, and your explanation of your take is worth a lot, and are spot on. Let’s remember he did get the most votes in a campaign that many found fault with after the fact. He has credibility with those folks who voted for him from the start. Some conservatives, perhaps a lot of them, will take the cynical view concerning the more personal scenes in the movie. Call me crazy, but I still think that some Republican voters can be moved by exposing ones soul, so to speak. The personal messages make the “lecture” that much more powerful. They enhance his credibility, I believe.
ejmw on June 23, 2006 at 10:26 am

I saw it on Tuesday night. I second, third, fourth, etc. everyone else’s recommendations. It makes a stunning case even if you go in prepared for it.
Cali Scribe on June 23, 2006 at 3:10 pm

not too long after we get back home Sunday — won’t have time to see it till then. Almost bought the book to bring on vacation, but I’ll get it when I get home as well…

Thoughts on "An Inconvenient Truth"

About The Author

keepinon

13 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments