An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Reviews

• A must see.

  chefboyargee2006-04-17

  Plain and simple - all the negative comments here are from people that simply haven't seen it. See the movie before you try to disprove points that it's not trying to make. See the movie even if you think the globe is in a cooling pattern for some reason (then you can debate the evidence it lays out before you.) I for one have seen it, and it serves not as a political soapbox, but simply a filmed version of a presentation which Gore has been giving since for over 20 years - only to pick up where he left off after conceding the last election. The film is a call to arms for us to fix a fixable problem, explaining the few things each individual can do to bring CO2 levels back down to where they were pre-1970's - On a whole - the film views a little like a college lecture, because it essentially is one. But the topic discussed is imperative. Don't get bogged down by anyone trying to turn the film into a political issue. It's a right or wrong issue, plain and simple. Just the facts ma'am.

• 30 minutes each of self promotion, fear mongering, and interesting, but poorly interpreted, data.

  DennisH2006-06-04

  Let me start by saying that energy conservation and incentives to stop pollution are A Good Thing. Too bad the film isn't about that topic until the final credits are rolling. Al Gore is on a mission; however, it's not to save the environment. He's on a mission to get elected president. He says he's retired, and opens with a comment of how he used to be the next president of the United States and continuously makes comments about his opponents administration. His tactics are scaring us into believing that he will save us; however, he doesn't even acknowledge the one technology that would actually reduce carbon emissions (nuclear power), except for showing the bomb. Okay, first, about the 'facts': -The graph of the 300,000 years of carbon dioxide and temperatures. Brilliant data, poorly interpreted. Gore smugly states the obvious 'fact' that the changing carbon dioxide is what changed the temperatures over the seven ice ages. He does not mention the possibility, or probability, that the changing ocean temperatures affected the gaseous solubility of the carbon dioxide in the ocean water and resulted in varied CO2 concentrations. Read that carefully, it is just as likely the temperature change over the known history caused a change in CO2, not the reverse. Then he gets on a scissor lift to show the change in CO2 spiraling out of control, without acknowledging the zero of the concentration axis would be ten feet below the floor. -The 'hockey stick' graph--Gore neglects to mention that the authors of that figure did not release their methods for analysis, nor did they release the raw data to others for critical analysis. Subsequent analysis had shown the data are sharply skewed to reflect a stronger contribution from recent temperatures. Then there were tons of pictures showing the earth is getting warmer by the melting (see how beautiful they are) glaciers; however, there are no timestamps on them showing what season they are. Maybe they are permanently iced, maybe they aren't Then he tugs on heartstrings. He shows pictures of the Antarctic glaciers melting, and follows up with a CGI polar bear swimming and drowning. Then he shows the World Trade Center memorial being flooded from Greenland ice melting. He barely acknowledges that those are absolute worst case scenario predictions. It is probable that the global temperature is increasing, just like the temperatures increased before all of the other ice ages. And, it's true that the CO2 is increasing at this moment. Those are facts, but as I have seen dozens of times in my career as a chemical engineer, two variables trending does not define the dependence of one on the other, nor if there is a dependence, it does not define which variable is dependent. In short, Gore oversimplified a global phenomenon that he does not understand, and tried to scare the world. If, because of this film, people drive slower and use less electricity, then the effect of the film is not bad overall, but to make those statements with such ignorant smugness is irresponsible. That's why I gave it 5 out of 10 stars.

• Frightening realizations and insightful discussion -- Best movie I've seen in last year

  greenphreak-12006-04-24

  I just got out of a sneak preview of this film, and I must say that it is the best movie I've seen in the last year. Go see it! Whether you're a fan of Al Gore or not, he isn't really the issue here. He does a great job presenting the various forms of overwhelming evidence for global warming and mankind's link to it, but he doesn't do it in a political or spiteful way. He shows global temperature and atmospheric carbon patterns, and he shows that our last 20 years have been the highest by a longshot over the previous 600,000 years. Frankly, before seeing the film, I'd heard a lot of information about global warming being a myth, but this film dispels that notion with many independent pieces of evidence. Even more importantly, it goes to show why we should care that global warming is occurring. As you may have seen in the trailer, if global warming continues at its current rate, the earth's coastlines will be flooded displacing tens of millions of people, it will increase the strength and frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes, it will irrevocably kill off many of the worlds glaciers, it will dry up lands interior to the coastline (like our heartland), and it will disrupt/kill species after species from polar bears to birds. These changes could occur in as short a time as ten to fifty years from NOW. Lastly, he finishes with ways in which we can affect a change. It would be easy to see this film, get depressed about all the state of affairs, and throw up one's hands in despair, but the film offers us ways, big and small, to help reverse global warming's effects right now. I urge you to see this film, you will not regret it.

• "You owe it to yourself to see this film ...

  dougleigh2006-06-05

  ... If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to." - Roger Ebert After the closing credits to An Inconvenient Truth rolled, I walked out to my car in the theater's parking lot. LA's infamous haze hung low, crimson in the twilight. In the foreground a solitary grasshopper pump drew up oil that had laid dormant for hundreds of millions of years. If Supersize Me made the prospect of a Big Mac and fries a little less appealing, imagine the feeling of slipping into a six cylinder car for a three mile trip home. Just the same, An Inconvenient Truth is not about blame. It's also not only about the problems that global warming poses. Instead, it sets aside the matter of "who's fault is it" and leaves the viewer with the desire to ask and answer the question of "what can I do?" The film (and companion website) does not fail to deliver: both offer practicable steps to take regarding the literal sea change facing the planet. The movie presents evidence that, to me, was quite compelling. Is it incontrovertible? Not being an environmental scientist, I couldn't say. But it's telling that out of almost 1000 peer reviewed scientific journals the film examines on the topic of global warming, the matter was not questioned by one (though doubted in more than half of the popular literature written during the same time). It's also worth mentioning that while Al Gore hosts the film, this movie is not about him. And while he may have showed up for some six years ago as stiff and stodgy, in this context he is masterful in blending the informative with the entertaining. Go see the film for yourself. Bring a friend. Trust me, you'll be glad to have carpooled.

• Bullying = Concensus?

  patricialewis2006-10-04

  Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus". If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them. Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again. So who's a stooge..?