An Inconvenient Truth.

genevieve

Searched the Forum and didnt see a thread.

Wonder what everyone thougth of this movie.
I would love to see the real talk to get the full effect.


No matter what side of the argument you are on you must agree that doing these things to stop global warming is good either way. What harm could it do. So why the fight against it? I doubt we will ever stop need in fossil fuels so I doubt the money in that market would come to a halt. If everyone just tried a bit harder...

small town beck

I enjoyed it but I must say it made me a bit depressed( GO FIGURE!! :cool: ). Although, I did know quite a bit of that already it really illustrated to me the changes that we do need to make.

musicismylife78

i applaud Al Gore for the book and the movie, he does seem to truely care for the environment. Havent seen the film, but its on my must see list.

Anyways, the movie itself and the ideas expressed seem to pose several problems

1. Al Gore is a noted environmentalist, I have no doubt about that, but he is also a person who is hypocritical. Case in point, his support during the clinton years of the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA etc... One big concern by antiglobalization activists in the late 90's was that those organizations caused major environmental damage. For example, in order to compete globally and to lure other companies to leave the u.s. and to set up shop in third world countries, those third world countries must lower their environmental standards. Thus one major reason why so many companies move to these other countries. How can he support the WTO, and NAFTA, and then call for environmental reform?

2. I applaud all engaged in action big and small, to preserve and protect our trees, waters, oceans, plants, animals etc... However, from what I have heard and from what I can tell, Al Gore, isnt exactly thinking big here. True its important to recycle, and to demand organic food etc.. but lets be realistic, thats not going to stop global warming and it aint going to stop our old growth forests from being cut. In order to fully be an environmental movement we must engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, and Gore isnt advocating this.

3. Gore, working under clinton supported wars in Kosovo and that bombing in Sudan. One must wonder, how he can say, I support the environment and it must be preserved, yet support the bombing of countries. I would assume, we didnt drop bombs on sudan and kosovo that magically preserved trees and protected the ocean life. Hell no. Bombing and wars cause obvious environmental damage

So all in all, I still want to see the movie, but I think one must realize this guy aint Christ incarnate. He's fallible, he is hypocritical and his ideas are problematic. We need to take his advice on some ideas, but in other arenas we need to start engaging in acts that are going to bring some radical change.

I also think it would be different if he was a person who came out and said NAFTA, WTO and others cause enviromental damage, and that he is sorry he supported them, and that he knows that wars cause environmental damage, and he apologizes to those people in said countries. I highly doubt he does that in the film.

He has good ideas, but he is very problematic

Scubascott

Cheguevara6 wrote:

In order to fully be an environmental movement we must engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, and Gore isnt advocating this.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I'm not sure what you meant be this. Nonviolent civil disobedience? What exactly are you proposing we do?

jeffbr

Here's a thread from months ago:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=210412

Here are some threads with more references to the film:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=224944
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=224556
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=210412

There are some good personal attacks and name calling in these threads that definitely raise the entertainment level.

musicismylife78

Scubascott wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I'm not sure what you meant be this. Nonviolent civil disobedience? What exactly are you proposing we do?

Scubascott, i dont really know exactly. The point is we as a society have to come up with actions, and start thinking outside the box.

The point is: recycling is great and everyone should do that, but lets face it, its not going to stop the ongoing destruction of the world. Thats a fact, sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

So in calling for nonviolent civil disobedience I am really just calling people to engage in actions that are going to cause significant damage to the system, and make it so it isnt allowed to destroy things and plants and animals so easily.

I feel, the people who are killing the planet, the people who clearcut, who harm the environment, who build factories that expel dangerous pollutants into the air, they are only going to listen, if we engage in actions that are nonviolent but militant. For example, if we can make life so hectic, so chaotic, so unmanageable for the system and the people who run it, the destruction will stop. Simple as that. These guys respond to money. So if they spend more money on trying to stop and oppress the activists, than they do on polluting the world, something will happen,

I guess what i am saying is, something must be done about the environment. Al Gore has some great ideas for us to think about, but ultimately he is the problem. What you choose to do to combat this destruction of the world is up to you, but I think we must "bring the war home" so to speak. Make it so, as long as people are cutting down trees, as long as large fishing companies take huge nets of fish from the ocean, as long as the factories produce crap in the air, then we will be making and creating chaos in the cities.

It would be so great if recycling would save the world, and we all should practice recycling, its important, but it aint going to save us, we are too far gone.

polaris

genevieve wrote:

Searched the Forum and didnt see a thread.

Wonder what everyone thougth of this movie.
I would love to see the real talk to get the full effect.


No matter what side of the argument you are on you must agree that doing these things to stop global warming is good either way. What harm could it do. So why the fight against it? I doubt we will ever stop need in fossil fuels so I doubt the money in that market would come to a halt. If everyone just tried a bit harder...

well ... living in alberta - you are at the centre of much of the debate here in canada ... and before everyone gets tied up in a knot - its not just albertans who are problems - we ALL are ...

however, much of our increase in CO2 emissions is the result of the oil sands ... and windfall of epic proportions ... greed, self-interests and political ties basically is saying now that we won't do anything that will disrupt those massive profits .. and ultimately, it is where we fail ...

chipboy

I remember thinking when I watched the movie to see what kind of deal I could get on ocean front ice covered property in Alaska just in case he is right. Alaska could be the new Hawaii.

The sad truth is that if environmentalists want to save the Earth they are going to need to buy it.

cincybearcat

Is this the movie about how Al Gore invented the internet?

chipboy

Isn't it ironic that the butterfly (ballot) caused him to lose the election?

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

Is this the movie about how Al Gore invented the internet?

"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I fyou want to play a game of quotes and compare Al Gore to Ronald Reagan...you are so on...

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

I fyou want to play a game of quotes and compare Al Gore to Ronald Reagan...you are so on...

ha! ... happy holidays man ... happy holidays!

The Waiting Trophy Man

polaris wrote:

"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

never trust a man with alzheimer's.

Pearl Jam and toast

We've been here a million times in the last year on this forum.

I'll sum it up..

Conservatives: "He's lying! Global Warming doesn't exist! No evidence! *sticks head in the sand*"

floyd1975

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

We've been here a million times in the last year on this forum.

I'll sum it up..

Conservatives: "He's lying! Global Warming doesn't exist! No evidence! *sticks head in the sand*"

You forgot the liberals:

Everybody should spend their hard earned money to see this movie because everything Al Gore says in it is irrefutable. If you try to refute it, you are being ignorant and a (insert insult here). Now let's go hug a tree.

Pearl Jam and toast

zstillings wrote:

You forgot the liberals:

Everybody should spend their hard earned money to see this movie because everything Al Gore says in it is irrefutable. If you try to refute it, you are being ignorant and a (insert insult here). Now let's go hug a tree.

I thought i'd let the other side do that part

sourdough

Very good movie with well-represented facts and studies in a surprisingly engaging documentary by Gore. Just to clear things up, although Gore is front and centre, it is not him or his beliefs that are important about this movie but the facts and studies that he presents. It is not HIS facts and studies, but it is of those of scientists and experts. I find it absurd when people attack the movie because of Gore himself. That is just like somebody refuting the accuracy of March of the Penguins because they don't like or trust Morgan Freeman.

From someone who has a decent amount of environmental education training it is quite accurate and well represented.

Scubascott

sourdough wrote:

Very good movie with well-represented facts and studies in a surprisingly engaging documentary by Gore. Just to clear things up, although Gore is front and centre, it is not him or his beliefs that are important about this movie but the facts and studies that he presents. It is not HIS facts and studies, but it is of those of scientists and experts. I find it absurd when people attack the movie because of Gore himself. That is just like somebody refuting the accuracy of March of the Penguins because they don't like or trust Morgan Freeman.

From someone who has a decent amount of environmental education training it is quite accurate and well represented.

There are many ways to present facts. Al Gore presents them like a politician, not a scientist. He left out quite a few details in his film. Maybe he did it just to leave out the confusing and contradictory stuff and maintain the clarity of the message, but I can't help feeling that he was spinning the facts just a bit.

The most compelling part of the film (in my opinion) is the bit where he shows the graphs of the ice core data, with the clear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. On the graphs he presented it looks like temperature and CO2 rise simultaenously, and he actually suggests that this is the case when he mentions his old school mate asking the question about the continents fitting together. He failed to mention however, that the increase in CO2 levels actually occurs about 800 years after the intial increase in temperature.