Directed by Davis Guggenheim
An Inconvenient Truth documents Al Gore’s multimedia presentation about global warming that he has delivered thousands of times all over the world. In it, he illustrates that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is altering the planet’s ecosystem, causing detrimental effects, some of which we are already seeing. What sounds like a boring, science lecture is instead a compelling one-man show about the future of the planet intercut with a biography about the man driven to tell the tale.
Al Gore first began learning about this issue back in the ‘60s from his college professor, Roger Revelle. According to NASA’s website, “In 1957, Revelle and Hans Suess, one of the founders of radiocarbon dating, demonstrated that carbon dioxide had increased in the air as a result of the use of fossil fuels in a famous article published in Tellus, a European meteorology and oceanography journal.” As a member of congress and Vice President he worked to further attention on environmental issues, including writing Earth in the Balance, which detailed his Global Marshall Plan.
In the film, he shows the chain of events starting with the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Experiments conducted on Antarctic ice cores indicate carbon dioxide is at its highest level during the past 650,000 years, which is certainly believable considering the increase of population, cars and industry over the years. This leads to the question, what is the impact? Greenhouse gases trap the Sun’s heat, making the planet warm enough for those of us currently inhabiting on it. When greenhouse gas levels rise, the planet gets warmer, resulting in glaciers melting, sea levels rising, and storms increasing in ferocity.
Gore presents recent changes in the Earth’s ecosystem as evidence. The average temperature of the Earth has increased at its fastest rate in recorded history in the past 50 years. The ten hottest years have all taken place since 1990 with 2005 being the hottest ever measured. Over several decades there has been almost double the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Unfortunately, this film isn’t a debate, so we don’t see critics and naysayers discuss the issues raised. For example, considering the Earth is approximately 4.57 billion years, is there any way to know with certainty how long a cycle or trend lasts?
Article comments
1 - kob
You wrote: "I don't know, and may never know in my lifetime, if Gore's assertions in the film are correct..."
I don't understand your skepticism or why you "may never know." Do your own research. It's there. It's abundant. It's undisputed. There is no credible science countering it. This isn't about Gore -- it's about the science. I thought the line of denial that Gore drew to smoking was right on. Despite overhwelming science that smoking kills, huge economic costs, there remain some vested interest who continue to lie and do what they can to get the young, vulnerable to pick up the habit. We're in such a sorry mess and instead of saying you don't know, it's your responsibility to find out.
2 - El Bicho
In the film, Gore discusses Manhattan and other coastal areas flooding due to rising ocean levels. He also discusses other events that global warming will cause in the future as well. Will they happen? Certainly possible. In my lifetime, which is probably about another 40 years, give or take? I doubt it. If these things happen after I'm dead, how will I know?
3 - Bliffle
Don't worry. When The Crisis develops (perhaps Manhattan will be submerged, no problem since it's a Blue Town, but the taxpayers who support the regime will be drowned and stop paying taxes!) The Current Rulers, whoever they are, will let big no-bid contracts to Halliburton to solve the problem, perhaps by erecting huge earthwork levees.
4 - Joe
You don't see how Gore can profit from this POS? He's an attention whore and would love to be in the spotlight for the '08 election. 50 years of records isn't enough time to make any sort of long term prediction. But it's enough if you just want to yell "LOOK AT ME!"
5 - thattherepaul
Written as if there's still a doubt over the existence of global warming, this review misleads and confuses a gravely important issue. Unfortunately, the science evidence detailing the rapid and catastrophic climate change currently underway is as clear as science evidence gets: as Gore correctly cites in his film, a review of some 928 scientific studies shows they ALL agree we have an impending climate crisis, even while--partly due to the industrious misinformation efforts of companies like ExxonMobil--53% of popular media articles still are written as if even the existence of global warming is in doubt. An act of altruism, Gore's film contains reasonable, if gravely alarming, assertions backed by solid evidence. Did this reviewer, who writes "but one day in the distant future there could be" problems, actually see the film? The film makes abundantly clear that our poorly controlled pollution has real, immense, and rapidly developing consequences.
6 - El Bicho
I know I'm doing something right if I'm getting it from both sides.
Joe, if we do all that Gore wants, then his tour ends and he stops making money with it. Does he have investments in future technologies or is their a lobby funneling money t him to take this opinion? How much does the spotlight pay? Gore is certainly appealing to the left, but I have yet to hear that he has been embraced by the party leaders and money men.
Paul, did you actually read my review? There is no doubt over global warming, it's how we exist today, but there is some doubt over man's impact upon it. Yes, the planet is getting warmer, and I do believe mankind is having a negative impact on the ecosystem, but notice I wrote "believe" and not "know." Unless you can tell me how hot the planet was one billion or two billion years ago, we don't have complete and accurate records.
I wonder if you saw the film because you incorrectly state "a review of some 928 scientific studies shows they ALL agree we have an impending climate crisis." That's abslutely false. What Gore cites in the film is that "928 peer-reviewed papers supported global warming and zero denied it." I quoted that from the press notes I got from the screening I attended when I saw the film.
While it's easy to discount fragments, you would make a stronger argument if you challenged whole sentences in their proper context.
7 - kob
I don't understand your point at all -- just what are you defending? Don't give yourself credit for doing something right here. You're not. This is so sad. There no dispute today that air pollution causes respiratory problems, but are we doing all we can to curb it? No, because people just don't want to deal with this issues. Your review is part of that denial. You interject skepticism as a means of avoiding standing up on the issue.
8 - Bliffle
Actually, we DO know quite a bit about the temperature history of the earth for thousands of years into the past. The question scientists are struggling with is how much of recent temp increases are due to human activity, and the evidence seems pretty clear that an extraordinary amout is caused by people. Then the next question is: what does the future hold? The preponderant position is that there is powerful reason for alarm. this is drawn from refereed papers by acknowledged trained experts. The opposition is weak, mostly just quibbling about isolated premises.
What I don't understand is why so many people (who are just laymen) are so violent and aggressive in denying global warming? They don't carry any knowledge that they are fighting for, they just seem to be stating a prejudice.
9 - El Bicho
kob, my review is just that, a review. I wasn't doing a dissertation on the science. I interject skepticism because I'm not absolutely clear on what it all means. Am I for less pollution and cleaning up the planet? Absolutley. Is every single statement Gore makes in the movie correct? I don't know. I stated in the review that I think Gore is "more right than wrong," but a movie review is not where I make my political stands.
10 - Jules Alder
"I don't understand your point at all -- just what are you defending? Don't give yourself credit for doing something right here. You're not."
Actually, kob, El Bicho is doing something very right. A good writer raises questions. When people merely nod and smile, that's usually a good indication that a writer's relying on the status quo rather than raising the bar. The environment's been a hot topic for a while now, so if people on both sides of the issue are bothered by this, then he's doing something very right indeed. Who can see the future?
Unfortunately, there hasn't yet been a way to work out quality assurance where intelligence of those at odds with an article lies; or, for that matter, their responses.
I basically stopped by to temper my expectations, as this is next on my list of ways to spend my pennies and, as such, you did a fine job...now, after I see it...