An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
518 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A must see.
chefboyargee17 April 2006
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.
619 out of 926 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
30 minutes each of self promotion, fear mongering, and interesting, but poorly interpreted, data.
DennisH4 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
218 out of 356 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Frightening realizations and insightful discussion -- Best movie I've seen in last year
Cameron24 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
411 out of 699 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"You owe it to yourself to see this film ...
dougleigh5 June 2006
... 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.
337 out of 570 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I've seen better on Discovery.. This is just a political campaign
gribelu5 January 2007
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?

I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p
173 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bullying = Concensus?
patricialewis4 October 2006
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..?
92 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good film overall, but there are a few problems
Niffiwan6 June 2006
I thought that this was on the whole a good film - I can imagine it being an EXCELLENT film for teachers to show to a class to explain global warming, actually. It explains the facts very well, explains away the objections that people have been hearing about from the media, and is also pretty funny at times. The film basically consists of a tour of Al Gore's climate change speeches around the world. It is, in essence, one long speech in various cities around the world (Al Gore says that he's given this presentation thousands of times), inter-cut with some various other footage. The film starts off with a few diagrams that many of you will probably have seen already, as well as a rather famous Futurama clip. In fact, if you're well-versed in your science, you'll probably already know much of what Al Gore talks about (though probably not quite all) - this film is really for the general public who doesn't quite know all of this, and also for those who might have heard something about global warming here and there but want to see exactly how all of the facts fit together.

As I said, a very good educational film. The problems come in the short but noticeable periods when the film tries to be a biography of Al Gore at the same time. Now, I don't know about you, but I was watching this to find out about global warming, not to find out what Al Gore thought about losing the 2000 election. I imagine that these are the bits that teachers will fast-forward over when they show this to their classes, since they don't really add anything to the film. I would have respected Al Gore a bit more if he hadn't tried to make this a film also (in a way) about himself. I guess it's to be expected, since he's a politician, but it's disappointing.

In closing, although it's not a perfect film, it's a pretty good one. It is THE film to watch if you want to find out about global warming (at least, I haven't heard of any better films out there). I don't really understand all of the "10" or "1" ratings on IMDb. It's not a "10" or "1" film. Even its biggest fans will have to admit that as a movie it could be a little tighter sometimes. I think it's good enough, but it's not perfect.
195 out of 341 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Why is it so political and no not based on science?
johnrussels5 October 2006
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.

I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".

I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.

The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.

And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.

And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".

Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
90 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, but flawed
jmeans-321 June 2006
Before seeing this movie I thought that it might sway the debate on global warming. I assumed that the entire movie was going to be about global warming, and if it had been it would have been much more effective. While about two-thirds of it is about global warming, the other third is a promo for Al Gore--including footage of the contentious 2000 presidential election. As someone who is deeply concerned about the issue of global warming, I am disappointed because I think this diversion from the ostensible subject of the movie makes it much less effective as rhetoric. It has the immediate effect of alienating any republicans that may be in the audience, and global warming should not be seen as a partisan issue, or nothing will ever get done. I'm afraid that because of this the movie will mostly be "preaching to the choir." It still may be an effective tool for educating democrats that were previously uninformed on global warming. As a doctoral student in climate science, I can say that Gore mostly gets the science right, although he weakens the presentation by not pointing out which things are still open to debate.
194 out of 342 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Friends, let us pray... " drawl drawl yawn
SupaChupacabra10 December 2006
Let me qualify... I voted for Al Gore, usually vote (but don't consider myself) Democrat, and believe that global warming, as well as energy conservation/alternate energy, are probably the top issue(s) we all need to concern ourselves with... and not just for "save the whales/world" way, but for divorcing ourselves from the middle east economy in general, as well as basic practical pragmatic cost concerns. That said, this movie is the most cloying, sappy, poorly edited, and painful movie I've seen this year. My whole beef with Al Gore is that he sounds like the Minister from the Simpsons, and is as tedious and preachy as that character. And ironically, Al's lecture on global warming begins with a Simpson's parody of a fake 1950's global warming educational film. Add in unneeded footage of him losing the election (suggesting he would have stopped global warming had he won), and Bush winning (yes we get it, Bush certainly is A if not THE problem in regards to energy problems today), the film it comes off as a not-so-subtle biopic, about a candidate reeling from a defeat after being considered having no backbone or mission, artificially coming up with "his mission": traveling back to the Tennessee riverbanks, going to Antarctica, touring college campuses. And edited in a way to be more of an infomercial for his cause, than about the subject in earnest. And instead of offering solutions (which is done in an infomercial way at the end, mixed into the credits) he pushes "separating truth from fiction"... somewhat antithetical to a movie smearing together dubious personal anecdotes and real scientific data. I've seen about 10 far more interesting, terrifying, and mind awakening docs on PBS regarding global warming than this... I would have rather watched them again. This came off, the way Kerry and Gore have in their election runs, as "talking down" to the lowest common denominator, instead of standing up for what they say they believe in. I really looked forward to seeing this, I wanted to be awestruck, and was just oozed over with smarmy sloganeering and cheesy presentation.
32 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This Time, the Sky Could Be Falling for Real
janos45126 May 2006
Is Al Gore is doing a Chicken Little act in "An Inconvenient Truth"? I wish he were. This stunning documentary about global warming is a well-reasoned, clearly-proved, intelligent, cogent, irresistible torrent of scientific data, in a curiously warm, engaging, often funny presentation. What an entertaining horror movie this is! Unexpectedly, improbably, Gore is doing a Hitchcock act here, all affable and chummy... before scaring the hell out of the audience. And that he does, with charts, statistics, projections coming from hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, none challenged, while allowing how some 50% of mass-media treatment of global warming *is* subject to questions. There is even a cute animation segment about exaggerated global-warming claims.

There is no need to exaggerate. Unchallenged studies are showing an extraordinary rise in ocean temperatures, the disappearance of glaciers, the melting of the poles - and then Gore twists the knife with a series of graphics showing areas to be inundated by rising waters. In a flooded Manhattan of the future, Gore says, the site of the World Trade Center will be under water. "Terrorism," he says, without drama or overemphasis, "is not the only danger we must face." The threatened catastrophe is not in the distant future. The US Geological Survey predicts that by 2030, Glacier National Park will have no glaciers left. In the last 30 years, 400,00 square miles of Arctic sea ice have melted; polar bears today drown when they cannot find an ice floe to rest on. What has Congress done about global warming? Absolutely nothing.

Davis Guggenheim's documentary is based mostly on Gore's multimedia presentation on climate change, a lecture he has delivered hundreds of times in recent months. While Gore is managing the show with powerful efficiency, there is nothing dry or tired about it. The film is virtually flawless, even some of the cornier visuals fit in. Gore's personal remarks are affecting: the death of his sister from lung cancer, after lifelong smoking, forced the family - after generations of tobacco-growing in Tennessee - to quit the business. No overt statement is heard, but there is an inevitable comparison with the world's addiction to many activities directly contributing to climate change.

Political references are at a minimum. The only strong criticism of the Bush presidency is in the context of the Republican rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, making the US one of two countries in the world to do so (Australia is the other one). Following a huge list of countries paying at least lip service to the cause of climate control under the treaty, Gore shows a similarly large list of US cities where local government is taking measures not supported by Washington.

Gore is clear about the danger of being overwhelmed by the danger of what's happening, and he concludes the film by saying that going from denial to despair without pausing to see what can be done is the wrong course of action, or rather inaction. "Political will," Gore says, "is a renewable resource." Gently, but firmly, he calls for attention to a clear and present danger that cannot be ignored... even if faith-based denial of the evidence before us remains largely the order of the day, with all the comfort of darkness behind closed eyes. An alternative is at http://www.climatecrisis.net/.
343 out of 624 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An extremely flawed piece of non-sensible propaganda
BloodStone13 January 2007
Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a Geo Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." Not to mention his house in Tennessee yearly uses as much power as 20 average homes do. So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us with ANY degree of certainty the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of confidence that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Forty years ago, Newsweek Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The real truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Eruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Finally, in the winters of 2009-2011 with 49 out of 50 states experiencing record cold temperatures & Las Vegas getting 6 inches of snow, how is that "Global warming?". Now there is the real "Inconvenient Truth" for Mr. Gore & company. Well that & the fact, that it's now public knowledge that the scientists proclaiming global warming were caught red handed suppressing contradictory data & fudging the numbers. Time to find a new gig, Al!
136 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not deep enough.
djo16513 August 2006
I was disappointed that this movie was not an in-depth study of the science involved in the study of global warming. It seems that 90% of the movie is devoted to telling the viewer about recent climate changes and their effects on the Earth, while only 10% is devoted to explaining why and how these changes have come about.

The movie seems to be directed at a very broad audience who knows practically nothing about global warming or our current climate related problems. If that's you, then go see the movie. But if you are expecting a thorough analysis, you would be better off looking for facts on the web.
23 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
dangerous and irresponsible
wildtrout77 January 2007
Don't drink the cool-aid.

This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.
127 out of 222 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Chicken Little revisited
Jreesing21 June 2006
This is a slick selling job by a formidable used car salesman (who happens to be an ex-VP). I won't go into the details here, but the conclusions by scientists today are far from conclusive as would be indicated by this film.

If you are interested in obtaining information and facts regarding the other side of this issue, may I suggest the book "State of Fear" by Michael Creighton (of Jurassic Park fame).

This movie is a slick selling job to whip the viewers into a "state of fear".

And the pro-environmentalist/alarmist talking points are well distributed in the postings in this "review" section of IMDb.

As far as the cause of (and for that matter, the danger of) Global Warming, the jury is still out and the majority of the scientific community is not in agreement on this issue.

This movie brings to mind one of H. L. Mencken's more profound observations.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

And what better way to keep the populace "alarmed" then by having an ex-VP attempt to sell us this bill of goods.
127 out of 222 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Why is it all about "believing"
mikailgarner19 September 2006
In spite of the fact that Global Warming is supposed to be a scientific theory, most of its defenders say that you have to "believe" in it.

I'm sorry, but science is not something to be believed in. There is science and there is faith. both are fine by me, but you should not have to "believe" in a scientific theory.

By its very name, a scientific theory is something that needs to be evaluated from every angle, contested and tested yet again. That's the essence of science, and it is disheartening to see science being hijacked by people that want you to "believe".

I was hoping this film would help foster an intelligent discussion but all it has fostered is a wave of people saying that you have to "believe", and that is the worst thing that has happened to science in a long time.
75 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What are Al Gore's credentials anyway????
cny_cd26 February 2007
This movie is nothing more than unscientific propaganda. I've come to the conclusion that Al Gore is either the smartest man who has ever lived or the dumbest - and I'm guessing its the latter. Let's review Big Al's credentials (it shouldn't take long). He went to Harvard University, receiving a degree in GOVERNMENT. Not science, GOVERNMENT. He later went to Law and Divinity school (maybe he can be a Reverend also). How does this qualify him to be an expert on Global Warming? He eventually was elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, finding time to invent the internet and put PARENTAL ADVISORY stickers on music cassettes and CDs (by the way, aren't liberals really into Freedom of Speech, and didn't these labels limit that?). Anyway, now he is the world's spokesman on Global Warming, which really hasn't been conclusively proved by anyone. His career has been one pathetic attempt after another to make himself relevant, against all odds, and this is just his latest attempt to continue that doomed quest. This film is nothing more than speculation and propaganda, nothing more, nothing less. Al doesn't even practice what he preaches, thinking nothing of flying off in a private jet, to tell the masses how dangerous it is to put dangerous gases into the atmosphere (like the massive amounts that spew out of his private jets), and how we should all stem the tide of global warming. And what about his giant mansion in Tennessee? He is an energy glutton, consuming more than 20 TIMES the energy that the average household uses per year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. How does he justify that? Hmm...sounds a bit hypocritical if you ask me. And just what did Al do to remedy this so-called crisis during his tenure in congress, and during the 8 years he was second in command of the most powerful country on earth? The first 2 years of the Clinton Presidency the democrats controlled both houses of Congress, yet nothing was ever done. During the last 6 years, nothing was even attempted. If this was such a crisis, why didn't Al use his power to save us all?? By the way, the average temperature of the earth has only increased less than 1 degree in the last 100 years - oh the humanity! I'm writing this from the Northeast U.S., where we have had one of the coldest, snowiest winters ever. Doesn't feel like it's "warming" up here anytime soon. Avoid this movie, unless you want a good laugh, or if you cannot think for yourself......
32 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Humans are so egotistical...
cheezpower24 January 2007
How can you guys believe that global warming is true? That humans can cause the earth to warm like this? Did you know that a single volcanic eruption puts almost as much pollutants into the air that would cause this "global warming" than we humans have throughout our existence? Yeah, I bet not. Also, that the average temperature of the earth has only raised .01 percent in the last 100 years still means we are in a global warming? Yeah...right, and I invented the internet. The earth goes into cycles of warming up and cooling down, these are things called like the ice age. Yeah, ice age...bet you've heard of that. Well, we are about 1,000 years late for this planets next ice age, and the earth actually does get warmer right before an ice age...Al Gore is an idiot and should not be taken seriously. This movie is almost as bad as any of Michael Moore's. My god people, I wish natural selection was still in existence with humans.
63 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hard Science versus belief and consensus
rogerpost27 September 2006
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.

It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.

Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".

Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.

But the fact remains that we don't know.

so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.

So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.

What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".

Sad, really.
155 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
pain in the ass...
yuglwek26 September 2006
What a pain in the ass... I saw this movie as a sneak preview. It happened just once before that I walked alway before the end of a movie. (princess diaries) The story is very interesting but I didn't hear anything new. Besides the main story it's a big propaganda for Al Gore.

If you want to be informed about global warming, just watch discovery channel.

But if you're American and you think you can solve global warming by putting on your air conditioning: please watch! (and support Kyoto)

If you're (like me) a well educated European: don't see it... It's simply not relevant.
65 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Same Meandering propaganda from Elites
An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.

Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.

His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".

Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.

I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence.
146 out of 262 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Truth - Inconvenient Even for Gore
gillespie-8528 June 2006
I honestly went into this movie thinking - well, maybe there is something I could learn about Global Warming...and after I left, I have to say I was a bit skeptical about Gores claimed "complete" support by the scientific community.

If you're going to go to this movie thinking it is the hands-down "word" on what to believe about global warming.. please keep in mind that this movie has nowhere NEAR widespread support within the scientific community. To quote a few of the people against the movie: Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore's film: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006 Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal Gore's film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

"…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film: "…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?"- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore's claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology," –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
202 out of 369 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pity Party
ecvorst27 December 2006
I agree with several posters: This movie would have been much more effective if it would have focused more upon the issue of global warming and less upon Al Gore continuing to cry about how Presidents are not elected via popular vote. While I only watched the movie once, I found it to be littered with self-serving political jabs that overshadowed the purported intentions of the film.

For example, Gore makes a major point regarding a Bush aide who edited an environmental report. However, early in the movie we hear a recording of New Orleans' mayor begging for help during the first days of the Katrina disaster, followed by Al Gore's voice mysteriously entering the conversation with "Please tell me what I can do to help." I suppose creating a fictitious Katrina-friendly discussion is OK as long as it continues to paint Gore as some sort of saint.

I was also unaware that the fall of Communism was a "truly bi-partisan" effort, as Mr. Gore vehemently opposed every move by the Reagan administration with regards to military escalation up to and including the Star Wars program. As we all know, these were major contributors to the Soviet Union raising the white flag that ended the Cold War.

I suppose the biggest question does not involve Mr. Gore's tireless efforts in the 70's, 80's, and over the last ten years. Instead, I wonder exactly what he did to solve this issue when he was the second most powerful man in the world. Apparently Mr. Gore had more important things to do during those eight years.

Saint Al could have done so much good with this film, but instead used it to bitch and moan about how he lost an election he should have won in a landslide. By doing this, he lost a golden opportunity to gain bipartisan support. At least it is comforting to know he used a massive motorcade to travel the eight blocks to the movie's premiere instead of following his own advice and WALKING.

Do as I say, not as I do.
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Global Warming myth propaganda
burgershmurger13 January 2007
According to Al Gore and all his supporters of the GW myth, we have to do something about climate change or face the consequences. But in reality it has never been proved that humans cause GW. But regardless of the truth in this matter, the notion that we must save the climate from changing lies solely on a false assumption of the current and past climate: That today's climate is tame and easy to adapt to. But the reality is that even today and in the past there have been storms, floods, droughts or too much snow. So what on earth makes GW proponents believe that today's climate deserves peresevation? Tell it to the people in Asia where they have to face the annual Monsun inundations and hundreds of them drown each year. Tell it to the people in Colorado who have to shovel tons of snow from their yards. Tell it to the people who cannot grow anything on dessicated land in Africa. Tell it to the people who cannot pay for their increased heating costs because of hard winters. So where is this oh so friendly and clement climate that deserves preservation? Even thousands of years later people still grapple with adapting to the climate and you know what? They never will because climate is too incalculable. And the idea that today's climate is the ideal climate is just recondite. No, Al Gore proved nothing in this movie. He just parroted the same talking points of people who want to make us believe that GW is a threat. It's just scare tactics to fleece money off governments and to secure funds for future research. Face it: Climate has always been a threat to humanity. And it always will be.
30 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You can fool some of the people all the time?
shaun750-111 September 2006
I suppose climate change is the new gospel music for ex politicians.

You know singers that are no longer in the charts suddenly start sining gospel and then they have a career again.

Weather has been around long before Al Gore discovered it. According to NASA car exhaust gases are a tiny fraction of the cause of global warming. There was global warming in the fourth century. We are coming out of a mini ice age from the middle ages. Since 1880 the temperature has risen by 0.6 of a degree. Every one realises that fossil fuels wont last for ever so why worry?? They will run out and then therm will be no need to tax everyone to death???
65 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed