- Al Gore
- I didn't vote in the 2000 election, either, because I was on my mission. I didn't know anything about the issues, and the only thing I knew about Gore was that he was the robot that invented the Internet.
- The Environment
- I'm down with the environment.
- Environmentalists
- I think they're wackos that are so fanatic about the environment that they fail to see the solution to their own issues. (Just for the record, that's also what I think of most libertarians.)
- Global Warming
- I haven't been convinced if it is a real thing or not. I realize that they've been doing research on the issue for a lot of years, but even if they'd been doing it for one hundred years (which they haven't been), I don't think that's anywhere near the data that they'd need to make a claim that the Earth's temperature were rising (anymore than it would normally, as part of the Earth's natural cycles), let alone that we as humans have anything to do the rising.
For me the most impressive piece of evidence was the core samples. At first, Gore just showed the graph of the data that they'd been collecting since the late 50's. I'd seen that before, and I wasn't impressed. It definitely shows that the carbon levels and the temperature are increasing, but so what? That's not sufficient to show that it's not a natural cycle. Then I learned that they have been taking samples of the ice in glaciers and in Antarctica, and that they can see what the temperature and carbon levels were up to 650,000 years ago. Over that time you can see the past seven ice ages, and you can see the Earth's natural temperature (and related carbon) cycle. Then you can see that within the last 100 years we've doubled the carbon levels over what they've been any time in the Earth's history. You can see that the increase is exponential, and doesn't fit into the cycle at all.
I can't detail everything that the movie talked about, but just what impressed me about it. One of the things that I felt after the movie was just that I was sad that I hadn't known about any of this sooner. I don't think this is new evidence, but just that it hasn't been made publicly available. Or at least it hasn't been in front of my face before. I guess if I'd cared about the issue I could have looked into it on my own and probably found some of this out, but realistically, what incentive could I have had to look into it on my own? Why would I research it personally if I hadn't ever been convinced that it was an issue that I should be concerned about it? And how many people are like me, in that they would care about the environment if they were convinced that it were in danger, but simply haven't seen any evidence? And how many of those will continue that way despite this movie? Would I have continued in my ignorance if I hadn't been dating Kelly? Do we choose to stay ignorant because we don't know any better, based on the limited evidence we've seen, or do we do it knowingly? Are we close-minded because of political prejudices, or just because it's scary to think that we've done this and that it'll be hard to fix?
The other thing that I realized, besides simply that global warming is actually occurring, is that it is occurring now. This isn't a problem that our children's children will have to face, it's a problem that is already killing people. I'm sure not everyone thinks about things the same way as I do, but I've certainly noticed the increase in natural disaster that's happened in my lifetime. I've considered it as part of the signs of the times, and fulfillment of revelation. It never occurred to me at all that we were causing these things because we have been altering the climate of our planet. I wonder how many religious people are like me, and recognize the signs without recognizing the causes.
8 comments:
i concur.
This is frustrating. This is an issue that so obviously & directly impacts our lives, yet some people would rather not be bothered. They don’t want to learn more because doing so might make them feel guilty. They don’t want to learn more because they’re comfortably apathetic... or just Darwinian (e.g., who cares if some people die--we’ll just have to move on and adapt or become extinct). They don’t want to learn more because it’s “raving liberal rhetoric,” and so they just don’t want any part of it.
That last bit really bugs me, because it's not raving liberal rhetoric. I think republican and democratic politicians alike tend to avoid facing the facts about global warming. But it makes me sad when I hear my mom say things like "I know I should probably learn more about the issue, but I'm not willing to see that movie because of Al Gore." She’d rather stay ignorant than have to listen to a democrat explain it. I wish we could get past those political hang-ups to really deal with the pervasive ignorance that’s lingering around here.
One last thing. Global-warmind-disbelievers who haven’t seen the film keep saying to me, “People who believe we need to stop global warming tend to not give realistic suggestions for how we should change. Did the movie talk about what we should do to fix the problem?” It's as if because the movie lacks a checklist of things to change, its points are invalid. Look, the focus of the movie was not to provide a checklist. The focus of the movie was to get information into the hands of the public. It was about helping us become aware of the facts and proving that global warming really is a problem. It covered a lot of material and debunked a lot of myths. Its purpose wasn’t to magically change its viewers... change is something you do on your own; a movie can’t hold your hand through the process. (Even so, the film does provide viewers with a source to go to for more information and a few suggestions on how to change.)
And anyway, do you really think it’d be effective if Gore dove in and started asking you to cut your carbon dioxide emissions before you even understand what the problem is? What’s wrong with having a movie that’s focused on informing the public? Why does it have to be filled with a checklist of dos and don’ts in order to be valid? If you’re expecting this movie to automatically change everyone’s behavior just by virtue of seeing it, then I’m sorry, but you’ll be disappointed to know that it can’t do that. (I know no one REALLY believes that will happen, but I just get frustrated when people imply that.) Gore does explain that we DO have all the technology we need to fix this problem and that there ARE things you can do to help. But this movie isn’t a cure-all. It’s just a step to help us become better informed. If learning the truth about global warming isn’t enough to make you want to learn how to change, then a checklist isn’t going to have much of an effect either.
It's as if because the movie lacks a checklist of things to change, its points are invalid.
I've noticed, too, that a lot people seem reluctant to open their minds to the movie because it doesn't give specific solutions. I think a lot of that is due to them being afraid to confront a problem that doesn't have easy answers. It's not that this problem doesn't have answers, but it might have many answers and not all of them are easy.
Someone to whom I talked about the movie said that "People shouldn't complain about problems if they can't give a solution." I think that's a really ignorant attitude, because it limits the possibility of ever having a solution. I don't think that he or others actually believe that, because they wouldn't promote that idea in other areas of our lives (that you can't question something until you've already researched the solution), but I think it's easy to do it about things that we'd scared of. The same idea might even apply to people that are afraid to question things in their religion because it's not their place to change it.
And just for the record, when I say that there aren't "easy" answers, I mean that the changes to our lives and our political systems aren't easy to make, because the solution itself is easy: If global warming is caused by creating more greenhouse gases than our environment can handle, then the solution is to limit the amount of these gases we create and/or to help our environment handle them. That much should be obvious. It's just the application of that idea gets less clear-cut.
They don’t want to learn more because it’s "raving liberal rhetoric," and so they just don’t want any part of it.
I don't have anything understanding to say about that. It's just too bad that we close ourselves off to ideas like that. I wish people could be open-minded and critical at the same time. You don't have to accept something just because of who it comes from, and you don't have to reject something that way, either.
Since I feel like I'm the person who both Kelly and Bryant are referring to, I guess I will post a rebuttal that doesn't make me sound like an idiot. That may be impossible, because I haven't seen the movie, but here goes:
Creating a movie to inform the masses about global warming is not bad. It is commendable. But please forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of a film, which purports to be an end product of over 20 years of passionate work, that does not provide any solid solutions to a problem "that so obviously and directly impacts our lives." That may not have been the point of the movie, as has been suggested, but then what is the point?! I would assume that the ENTIRE point of the film would be to convince people of the direness of the situation so they would make changes in order to confront this problem. Again, I haven't seen the film, so there could be some of that in there, but it sounds more like a debunking of arguments against global warming- which is fine, but if I'm gonna get worked up about something, I'd like to have some suggestions of what to do about it.
I admit, this may just be stubborn heel-digging against something that I don't want to face because "there are no easy answers." But that leads me to my other main point. Like all enviromental issues, global warming boils down to a problem of economics. There's a cost associated with protecting the environment, the ice caps included. Are you willing to pay $5.00 a gallon for gasoline, or to go without A/C in your car or apartment, or to see electric bills skyrocket in order to fight global warming? Are you willing to deal with disposing of nuclear waste in the ground so you don't have so much CO2 in the air? Are you even willing to invest more than 2 hours (in a heavily A/C'd theater, mind you) towards finding out what you can do? Would you write your Congressman? Or start using a clothesline? Or buy a hybrid? For me, that's where the "easy answer" to global warming gets much more complicated. And until more Americans answer yes to these questions, global warming, pressing as it may be, will continue to be a reality.
**Having reread my comment, I realize that both of these criticisms are actually the same, and neither of them are really about the film itself, but the issue of global warming in general. Like Bryant, I have my biases about environmental issues. I would just add Economic Impact to his list.
That being said, I should go see the movie. It may change my mind, and convince me to answer yes to more of the questions above.
First of all, the movie ends with a discussion of ways with which the problem of global warming can be rectified. While I may not share Gore's hope in humanity, he seems pretty sure that things can be corrected and offers solutions.
Second, Gore does address much of the economic issues as well.
Just a quick follow-up. I poked around the various Inconvenient Truth sites last night and found some very practical ways to reduce one's CO2 emissions (stop breathing, for example. kidding). The most telling thing I found, however, was an Upton Sinclair quote they have on climatecrisis.net's homepage: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I agree completely, and add that it is difficult to get a man to DO something when his salary depends on his not DOING it. I think that may be the real problem with creating lasting change.
I also appreciate how aptly titled this movie is.
No se nada sobre la pelicula de la cual hablan, pero creo que si existe algo que diga y exponga puntos sobre el calentamiento global y sus dañinos efectos en nuestro ambiente, es algo bueno.
En mi ciudad los efectos del calentamiento global se estan haciendo ver con fuerza, con inundaciones que no habían nunca antes, con inviernos muy frios, y veranos muy calurosos.
Hoy por ejemplo la ciudad de Concepción tiene una temperatura de 5ºC y en esta epoca del invierno nunca es tan frio.(tu que viviste en concepcion lo sabes bien)
Si hay algo que muestre lo que suceda en el mundo esta bien, aunque concuerdo contigo, a la vez deben mostrar posibles soluciones.
Saludos desde Chile.
So after a few minutes into it, I realized it was not Pirates of The Caribbean and that I was not listening to Johnny Dep, but it was in fact, Al Gore.
Overall: I liked it
Al made some Good points
Some Hollow points
And then loaded the Hollow points into his gun and fired them at the Republican Party.
Ignoring the cheap political jabs (that both parties always make) I really liked when he showed the info on cars and where Japan, China, and the USA are relative to each other.
I also liked the statistical survey of journalists vs. scientists. Some of his points were well founded.
I just wish he had cleaned up some of the errors in his science to make an even stronger case. I can easily see people pointing to some of his faulty reasoning in order to object to the whole argument. For example, I did not appreciate his comment about the oceans becoming super concentrated when the polar ice caps melt. This would actually dilute the ocean, not concentrate it. I saw it months ago, so I have trouble remembering all of the "bad science", but it was mixed with legitimate science.
I also thought it did try to make suggestions, but that its main suggestion was contact your congressman. In other words, Al wants us to work through the system that he says has failed him during his entire crusade.
I'm just excited that this movie is reaching more people that that articles sometimes don't. A guy at my brothers’ work wrote a paper on how we could drastically become cleaner and more energy efficient with our vehicles over a 6 year period. His conclusion was that no one in the U.S. will care until they have to pay several dollars a gallon. Its interesting, how several years’ later people, such as myself, are taking more notice of the problem.
Overall, Global Warming is a problem and has been for some time.
And I enjoyed the credits that listed some things to do
Post a Comment