Una verdad incómoda

Let me get this straight. The environment is changing rapidly, very rapidly. We have to get the message out to as many people as we can as fast as we can.

So, you don't put it on PBS or a basic cable channel. First you made everyone get in their car and DRIVE to a theater and PAY to see this crucial information. Then, if they missed it at the theater, now then can buy this crucial information (but not until Nov. 21st).

This is nothing more than a fancy documentary. But you gave it a premier like a movie, ran it in movie theaters (with movie prices), held it for DVD release like a movie. What gives Al Gore? If it can be held for months for DVD release or not shown for free, than I guess it can't be too damned important.

In the early 90's the CIA changed its charter from monitoring the Soviets to looking at all serious threats to the nation. Out of this came Project Medea, focused on climate change. Using classified intelligence — much of it still classified — this large project concluded absolutely that global warming was occurring and that it was an immanent threat to the nation. This was reported in public by the Director in 1996.

When Bush came to power, the project was dismantled by Cheney who as Secretary of Defense fought the establishment of Medea. The results were buried and denied and Bush went on record saying that climate change was a hoax. (Both he and McCain now admit that climate change is occurring but that we need to "be deliberate" and "cost effective" in responding. You know what that means.)

Some of the material from Medea is used in this movie: the Arctic Ice Cap thickness survey, but if Gore (who was briefed at the time) could have used that larger material, his case would have been even stronger. It is strong enough, despite a few unnecessarily dramatic photographic effects that bend the context here and there. That classified science might not have made for a cinematic presentation because much of it deals with extinction-scale pandemics.

The presentation program used here is KeyNote, Apple's competitor to Microsoft's PowerPoint. Its worth noting that it is a very snazzy product. Apparently much of the design from that period came from the wishes of Gore for this project and the demands of Steve Jobs for his own keynote speeches. Its a great story by itself.

In terms of narrative construction, there are two stories here. One is the story of the collapse of the Earth's weather system. Frankly, I think he could have done a better job on this. The science is complex but overwhelming. But it does not lend itself well to pictures or simple predictions.

To make this palatable, you need a wrapper story, a framing narrative. What's refreshing about this is that the usual choice wasn't made: to focus on the "conspiracy" of climate change deniers, a couple of outlier scientists and a passel of industry groups and ideologue political organizations. Instead, they chose to wrap the slideshow with a story of redemptive idealism about the presenter. I think it works, but it carries baggage.

About two fifths of the electorate voted against this guy, and many of those did because they preferred a different myth, a different story. That's a pretty heavy burden to overcome if what you want to do is lubricate the essential message. I had only a little trouble with it because I know how truly earnest he is. But earnestness and dedication isn't science, and facts, truth is supposed to be the issue at core.

You cannot be successful in advertising that with personal voyages and memories.

But so far as the slide show. Its definitely worth watching.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

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.

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.

This is another one of those Michael Moore type documentaries but even more extreme. By that I mean that at first glance, the film seems to completely level whatever it is attacking (in this case its telling us about how we've screwed up our climate) and does a pretty good job at it but when you really focus in on the scientific aspects, you'll find out an inconvenient truth. In this case it is that you don't here the other side of the story and there is a lot to it.

Al Gore is one very good presenter and speaker. He knows how to connect to the audience and how to sell his arguments. But don't be fooled because although there is a lot of truth in what he says and the message is noble, there is more to the story than what Gore bothers telling you. He doesn't do so much lying but simply picks what he says very cleverly and knows what not to say. If you're a bit more familiar with the topic, these things become overly evident.

First of all carbon dioxide. Yes, temperature rises (only 0.6 degrees C over the last century) have gone hand in hand with carbon dioxide level rises but there is more to the story. Firstly only a small part of all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is anthropogenic (man made), secondly the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming are logarithmic whereby the more you add, the less effect it has and thirdly, carbon dioxide isn't even the largest greenhouse gas. Water vapor (of which 99.999% is of natural origin) is and is responsible for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. Plus he neglects to mention all the astronomical factors that effect our climate such sunspot and sun irradiance cycles and the changes of the earth's tilt and orbit among other things. Now aren't those convenient facts to simply leave out? Then Gore talks about the sea rising by the end of this century by a whole 6 meters (accompanied by many frightening shots of famous locations like New York) being flooded. The United Nations lists a somewhat different figure- 0.48 meters. Gore simply takes the absolute worst case scenario prediction and tells us that that is exactly what is going to happen. Then very cleverly he works in all sorts of horrifying images that he passes off as the effects of global warming. One such example is the drying of lake Chad which according to Gore was caused by global warming. He says the same thing about the Aral Sea accompanied by frightening shots of boats in the middle of the desert. Unfortunately for him, both were caused by the over exploitation of the rivers that fed the lakes. There is more, a lot more.

He constantly uses demagogy to support his points by showing moving images of a drowning polar bear or the completely unrelated topic of his son getting hit by a car. But despite all his inaccuracies and convenient omissions, the message is still sound. We should be looking for other energy sources and he does touch this subject briefly. Perhaps that should have been the main focus of the film.

If you see this film, be aware that there is more to the scientific part of the story than what Gore is willing to talk about. See this to learn how to give a good speech and sell your arguments.