I finally got to see this movie. I have been itching to see it since it was released nationwide at the beginning of June, but with packing and moving I just didn't get a chance. Yesterday Adam picked Lulu up from Kaycee's house so I could head to the movie. It was fantastic. If you haven't seen it, I would highly encourage you to see it. The pictures are both breathtaking and horrifying. I kept thinking "we need to rush out to these majestic places before they are gone." It really was amazing. The other great thing, it isn't overly scientific.
The film is basically a lecture that Al Gore has been giving for the last 8 or so years. He actually did it well before he was VP, but stopped and has recently pick it up (how I would have loved to see the lecture LIVE). Intermixed in the slide show is kind of his story and how he became interested in the environment (he had a professor in college that was the first to ever propose and measure CO2 in the atmosphere). It also talked a little about his work as a senator to get people in congress concerned and aware of what was happening w/global warming, the failed presidental bid, and about his upbringing. Interesting- his family was known for raising Black Angus, but they were also tobacco farmers when he was younger. His only sibling, a sister, started smoking young and just never gave it up. She died of lung cancer. I'm unclear when they stopped being tobacco farmers, but he said when it was released in 1964 that smoking was bad, his father just kept farming tobacco. It was as if their moral compass was changed with the death of his sister and I felt that they all felt responsible for her death and this was the consequence of the moral decision they made to continue to grow tobacco (sorry very convoluted way to recap the story). It was an important point to his life, but also to his work as an environmentalist. Understanding the consequences of our actions- and there are always consequences.
I think some will find his personal history interesting and others will see it as ohh poor Al, but regardless of your view, it doesn't take away from the facts of global warming.
Really- if you can, go see it.
10 comments:
I am so interested in this movie. My husband is very enviormentally conscience, it's made me more aware. I like Al as well as I like George. The only person in National Politics that I really ever felt confortable with was Barbara Bush.
I have never heard of this movie. Maybe I am living in a closet or something. Sounds cool though.
my adam has wanted us to go see this movie too. I does sound interesting.
I've been wanting to see this movie ever since I heard them review it on NPR awhile ago. I'm not very environmentally informed, but do feel aware of what we throw away and what we recycle.
Do you think Al is doing his cause any favors? Given that a huge chunk of the population does not believe that humans are the cause of global warming (or at least don't think that the human effect is a significant contribution), and another huge chunk doesn't believe that global warming is actually happening, shouldn't someone with a scientific background be presenting this to the nation? Why should I care what Al Gore thinks about global warming? I mean, he's a journalist by trade, right? Why would I respect his opinion on this issue any more than my neighbor's?
Also, even if you assume that Al has enough training and knowledge to know what he's talking about, don't you think he does his cause a disservice by featuring himself so prominently in the movie, instead of finding some other voice-over actor? That is, people like me will find good reasons to steer clear of the film because they just don't like Al Gore, regardless of his message. (And it's not his politics I don't like. Well, it's not just his politics I don't like.)
Do you think it would be easier to understand with some scientist up there spouting off lingo that the general public, regardless of education, has a hard time understanding? hello- no one would see the movie. I would have been happy if they would have carted out a show dog, if it meant people would go and see the film and open their minds. The US public is fickle and if it doesn't impact their everyday, they could care less about what is happening and even less about the environment. It is even more difficult when it is something that you cannot see (although temperature rises, weather changes, etc are a couple examples).
Outside of America, countries are taking action and trying to reduce pollution, reduce carbon emissions, etc. So why would this happen if people didn't believe in global warming. They would have no reason to make these changes if there wasn't a concern about the environment? Why would every nation except for America and Australia ratify Kyoto?
If a chunk of the population (which I HIGHLY disagree with your figure) doesn't believe in global warming it is because they have their head in a hole, or they don't care enough to pay attention.
Actually, if you had seen the movie, (you should put aside your personal beliefs, and see if for the background in global warmning) you would know that he is giving a slide presentation that he has given for the past 8 years. It does have information about his life, but it is more as a support for why he has such a strong passion for the topic and why he believes we need to make a moral decision about what we are doing to the environment and how we can fix it.
Your final comment supports my first argument. The US public is fickle and instead of trying to educate themselves, they shy away from the topic because they don't like the spokesperson. Congrats- you are an unmitigated ass. Your bleeding heart liberal friend
Correction: I am not just an unmitigated ass, I am an unmitigated and comprehensive ass (or so Kaycee keeps telling me).
"Outside of America, countries are taking action and trying to reduce pollution, reduce carbon emissions, etc. So why would this happen if people didn't believe in global warming."
Governments believe in global warming, most people don't know or care. (By the way, western Europe is not the rest of the world.)
I don't claim to have looked at this issue as long as you, Lara, but my understanding of Kyoto is different than yours for a number of reasons. I thought 5-6 major countries backed out, including Japan, a year or two ago. Second, in spite of the fact we didn't sign Kyoto, the United States tends to do much better in a number of different pollution areas. For example, while we lead the world in emissions from cars due to the sheer number we have, we have the lowest emissions per car of any nation in the world. My understanding is that even without Kyoto, we do better than most countries who simply can't afford not to pollute. But I could be wrong on that; it wasn't my master's thesis (and how boring would I be if it was, eh?).
I'm ready for the cold hard facts from you, rather than generalizations about lazy Americans. And when you give them to me, I won't have to worry about seeing Big Al Gore.
I'd also like to hear your response to this.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Every time I'm willing to buy global warming is a consensus in the scientific community, I see one of these from somebody important in an important periodical.
I'll raise you a http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
(oh- it isn't just Western Europe that ratified Kyoto)
Sure it is the EPA- they are known for ridiculous ideas, they sell ties in the gift shop with ebola and gonorrhea, and they pander to whichever party controls the big house- however, they employ what we call scientists.
I will concede your argument that you cannot make a blanket statement that everyone agrees on this issue. But, they cannot seem to agree on anything, so why should this issue be any different.
Additional problems with measuring the "human factor" is just atmospheric modeling. Quite frankly it sucks and like any good resarch, you have to factor in the unknown variables. Obviously they try and make allowances for all kinds of bizarre things that might make an impact, but again.. you cannot account for everything. It creates problems when one person includes something and someone includes something else... giving each person a different idea of what the real problem is.
I concede that Gore is all about alarmism. But, it seems that this nation is influenced more by alarmism than it is by just general presentation of facts. I'm not trying to justify, just present my opinion on the facts. He does raise several good points that people should think about. Sure- the whole covering of NYC with water is in there for dramatic effect, but again.. we rarely pay attention to anything unless alarmism is involved. Look at all the crazy people with Y2K and Katrina. How many people do you know that ran out and bought 72 hour kits, or stock piles money in their mattress in case of a giant computer crash? I know several very level headed people that had to deposit money on Jan 2, 2000.
I will take issue with the columnist disregard for the moral decision. At no point does he say global warming isn't real. He never states it is a made up issue that has no or little support by the scientific community. He does however say.. we don't know. Well- how about we take the "human factor" out of it anyway. What will it hurt? If we are wrong- oops. But if we aren't- great.. we improved the general lives of those around us.. they pay less for electricity, they recycle, they .. horror.. exercise by walking to work instead of driving their gas hog SUV.
Now- the question.. if this was the guy in the movie- would you have seen it?
I know this will come a shock to you, but I'm not sure I'm going to spend $10 to see anyone tell me about global warming, regardless of who it is. Frankly, I find the MIT guy's article interesting not because he's debunking Al Gore, but more because he's giving me an insight into the politics of how scientists create consensus. That's something I might pay $10 to see. But I think I could save the environment more by saving the gas it takes to drive all the way over to your side of town to see a movie on a topic I don't care much about made by a guy I've never cared for (although I do appreciate him having created the internet and all).
Post a Comment