I just finished watching "An Inconvenient Truth" for a class assignment. Aside from its dated material now (it was released 4 years ago, which is significant when discussing as much scientific data/conclusions as were in the film), it was... eh.
I did not really care for the egotistical-feeling introductory sequence where Gore walked on stage amid clapping and cheers (and between footage of his time as a politician), or for the other sequence showing his defeat in the 2000 presidential race. Neither had anything to do with the matter at hand, since he said at the outset that climate change was not a political matter (though he said later that it was, and I'm pretty sure he meant the two statements in different ways, but still).
As for the science... well, I just attended a seminar (part of the class for which I watched the movie) in which almost all of it was covered in more depth and with more up-to-date data (which Al Gore can't help, I suppose). I'm not convinced. (Whether the earth is warming, whether it's man's fault, whether any of it can be measured accurately... any of it, so far.) I look forward to reviewing my notes before the next seminar, and to hearing what the panel members discussing the movie have to say about its science-based claims and its projections/predictions.
Tangent: I doubt the fact that Toyota and other Asian carmakers "went green" is going to comfort us when we're seeing their cars' safety issues. That's the only thing I could think of when Gore was talking about how all these Asian car companies have made their products with a more environmentally-conscious mindset than the American brands have.
P.S. Al Gore remodeled his house so it's not quite the energy-sucking monster it once was, and Bush (President the Second) got a new house that's about 8,000 square feet. Sorry, that pseudo-news doesn't change my perception of Gore. It's the principle of the thing--you don't go around telling people to give up their comfort for the good of the planet when you yourself won't do the same. Just because your comfort is a little more energy-efficient doesn't justify still having a 10,000-square-foot house. That is excessive.
I think a lot of it's simple pride and selfishness. Usually human problems are derived from simpler roots than they are initially perceived to be from.
I did not really care for the egotistical-feeling introductory sequence where Gore walked on stage amid clapping and cheers (and between footage of his time as a politician), or for the other sequence showing his defeat in the 2000 presidential race. Neither had anything to do with the matter at hand, since he said at the outset that climate change was not a political matter (though he said later that it was, and I'm pretty sure he meant the two statements in different ways, but still).
As for the science... well, I just attended a seminar (part of the class for which I watched the movie) in which almost all of it was covered in more depth and with more up-to-date data (which Al Gore can't help, I suppose). I'm not convinced. (Whether the earth is warming, whether it's man's fault, whether any of it can be measured accurately... any of it, so far.) I look forward to reviewing my notes before the next seminar, and to hearing what the panel members discussing the movie have to say about its science-based claims and its projections/predictions.
Tangent: I doubt the fact that Toyota and other Asian carmakers "went green" is going to comfort us when we're seeing their cars' safety issues. That's the only thing I could think of when Gore was talking about how all these Asian car companies have made their products with a more environmentally-conscious mindset than the American brands have.
P.S. Al Gore remodeled his house so it's not quite the energy-sucking monster it once was, and Bush (President the Second) got a new house that's about 8,000 square feet. Sorry, that pseudo-news doesn't change my perception of Gore. It's the principle of the thing--you don't go around telling people to give up their comfort for the good of the planet when you yourself won't do the same. Just because your comfort is a little more energy-efficient doesn't justify still having a 10,000-square-foot house. That is excessive.
I think a lot of it's simple pride and selfishness. Usually human problems are derived from simpler roots than they are initially perceived to be from.
Comments
Mark