ironhorse_iv Review of An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

It's time to tell the truth. This is probably the best well-known power-point presentation ever. Still, there were some flaws

[7/10 · 9 January 2016]

While, I give the movie credited for raising international public awareness of global warming and reenergizing the environmental movement. There were still plenty of inconvenient truth omitted in former U.S Vice President, Al Gore critically-acclaimed, scientifically-controversial documentary. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, the title stems from a quote stating that people will not believe something, even if it is true, and their livelihoods might depend on it. While, I wouldn't call myself, a 'global warming skeptic', since I kinda do believe in some of the information that Al Gore is, trying to say, and it's hard to prove against global warming, otherwise, but I do have an understandment, that documentaries like this, might have some sequences that can be somewhat subjective and placed selectively to fit into a wider narrative drive. This movie is full of scenes like that. Some good examples is the scenes, where Al Gore tells the story of his sister dying from lung cancer, and how doctors at the time, believe, cigarette smoking was pretty harmless. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting, yet somewhat sad story, but it has little to do with global warming, in my opinion. It's a little too broad. There is a more awkward section, later on, where Gore explains his decision, to turn his attention to environment reform. He stated out, the reason, he did this, was because, the fact, that his young son was nearly killed in a car accident in 1989. First off, while, it might be somewhat odd for him to decide to do something about the culture, because of unrelated incident that has little to nothing to do with climate control; my big problem with his statement is that he didn't do much, environment reform with President Clinton, until 1997 with the Kyoto Protocol. That's nearly 8 years, after the fact. I wish, Al Gore would be, more honest with his failures. Another moment in the film, is how Gore talks non-stop about, how he lose the 2000 election. Once again, what does all this political talk, have to do with saving the environment!? Could we please, focus on the main problem in hand, here? Thank you. The movie really does leans too hard on sentimental devices, as Gore looks repeatedly look like the victim of bad luck. The black and white images and sad music feel more exploitative than explanatory. I really didn't like, how the film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and the freakiest 2005 Hurricane season as a reason to claim it, was done by global warming. The reason why is because the 2005 Hurricane season was a one-off event. Since, 2005, the hurricane seasons around the world has somewhat turn back into normal, pre-2005 level of active hurricanes in a given season. Another misleading fact, is how film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age. Most scientists now, claim that this was more scientific and mathematically impossible, because the fact that the Gulf Stream works in such a rapid pace, due to the gravitation pull and the melting ice is way too slow in thawing to catch up with it. Another big mistake is how the film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. However, the film was a bit misleading with that. It's over that period, the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. Still, I did like the sequence where Al Gore needed a lift to show where the CO2 graph was going, in how funny, it was, not because how factual, it was. Indeed, Gore documentary was so controversial that in October 2007 the High Court in London found 'nine errors' in its scientific proclamations. Subsequently, a host of scientists around the world began filing law suits against Gore's film for its various other errors. Despite the errors, that I point out, one of my biggest problems with the film is how hypocritical, Al Gore can be. He is a carbon billionaire, and yes, I do believe his profiting way too much from his own environment advocacy. If he wasn't, why is his speaking fee more than $100,000!? That's way too much for somebody that says, that they cares so much for the environment. Not only that, but he has an alleged conflict of interest from his role as both an investor in green-technology companies and as an advocate of taxpayer-funded green-technology subsidies. Also, it's really hard to take his advice on limiting waste and population control, when he has 4 children and waste way too much, on private fuel jetting around the world, speaking in global warming conventions. Then, there is his home personality lifestyle; owning multiply large houses do not exactly scream "environmental moderation". Still, you have to give it to Gore. He indeed gave a wonderful, extravagant power point presentation of skyscraper graphs, pie charts, diagrams, etc. here. Despite all, the flaws that I have pointed out, I do agree with some of the film's claims. Claims like the melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro, Antarctica, and others could be evidence of global warming, because it does match up with the widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. I also agree with him, on the examples of man-made environmental disasters like bad agriculture, mining practices, and bad irrigation projects. However, the film is blemish, a bit because how already dated, this film is, and the fact that not all the informative presented here, are scientific proved. Overall: While, this film introduces complicated scientific, political, and social issues, very well, it's clear, that more research, need to be done, to get a better understanding of what global warming is, and what we can do, about it.