An Inconvenient Truth: Can PowerPoint save the planet?
I watched former US Vice President Al Gore’s film about Global Warming – ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ – the other day and thought I should give a quick review. Aside from a bit of pandering, a fair amount of posturing and a liberal helping of product placement, the film ultimately does an excellent job of clearly illustrating its (power) point – that Global Warming is very real and that we need to act now. In fact, one of actions suggested at the end of the movie is to recommend the film to others. I can now check that off my ‘Save the World’ list.
Something the film doesn’t touch upon (that I only recently learned about) is the countering effects of Global Dimming. It is currently believed that the planet cooling effect of dimming (caused by air pollution) is masking the actual impact of Global Warming (caused by greenhouse gases). And, because the warming effect is increasing much faster than the cooling effect, there is a significant likelihood of rapid acceleration of Global Warming. So, don’t plan on retiring to Florida (and you might want to buy a generator that runs on grain alcohol).
Check out climatecrisis.net
Some fun facts about Al Gore:
- He uses a Mac (model?) – and is a lousy typist.
- He has a Treo 700 – not sure which carrier.
- He totes his own luggage through airports and goes through security just like you and me.
I’ve kept asking an inconvenient question or two, after being exposed to much talk about the film and seeing it at tupperware parties:
(a) Is the range of climate change greater today than two hundred, five hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years ago? (Europe’s mini-iceage, mammals at the poles, etc)
(b) Is there any meaningful human contribution to these natural planetary cycles, or are we lost in the noise of the natural changes?
(c) Would the legislation recommended make any actual difference? (Kyoto regulated the developed world, when it’s the developing world where precipitates are formed.)
What I’ve seen of the film makes me barf, so I haven’t seen it all, and although I’ve read enough Gore I haven’t seen the above inconveniences addressed. Does the film hit the basics? tx.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:13 amHi JD,
I would say that the film is intended to serve 2 purposes:
1. To increase public awareness of the dire nature of global warming – “Yes, it’s real.”, “Yes, it’s serious.” and “Yes, we can/must do something about it.”
2. To cast Al Gore as a smart, likable, conscientious leader.
I believe it succeeds on both points, though the second seemed a bit contrived. Regardless, Gore definitely ‘walks the walk’. I couldn’t imagine for a second that ‘W’ or his ilk would put this much thought and energy into a project for the betterment of the planet.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:36 amAnother fun fact about Al Gore and his movie. He uses Apple Keynote for his slide show, not PowerPoint.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:04 amApple Keynote, eh? Shows how much I know about the Mac.
Does this mean we are ’saved’, or just that we will meet a more stylish demise?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:59 amhehe… well… I guess it means that in 10,000 years, after we’re long gone and the next string of people populating our world start digging our bones, they will find Al’s fossils still clutching his MacBookPro, and they can turn it on and at least know how we were wiped out.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm[...] Back in December, I posted a brief review of Al Gore’s documentary feature ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘, a movie that has since won several awards including an Oscar or 2 (or 3 – I wasn’t paying close attention). This evening I watched a video on YouTube called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle‘ thanks to a recommendation in Ted Patrick’s blog. I have to admit I was a little reluctant at first, and suspected it was probably nothing more than right-wing propaganda and pseudo-science attempting to muddy a seemingly clear issue. As it turns out, this 75 minute documentary (for the BBC?) makes some valid and intelligent arguments against the significant human contribution to global warming and points out that solar activity (such as sun spots) and cosmic rays are much more likely causes of climate change. The film also discusses the politics behind climate science and the negative impacts our ‘precautionary policies’ are having on developing regions of the world. Very clearly, there is more to this issue than many of us have been willing to admit – myself included. While we might like to point the fingers of blame at our governments, our corporations and ourselves for irresponsible environmental policies, we may have to accept that heating the surface of the planet isn’t entirely our fault. « The human brain is pretty amazing: Who needs ‘Leetspeak’? [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 10:04 am