Una scomoda verità

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.

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.

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.

When this movie came out I purposely avoided it. The trailers for it seemed over the top with a doomsday sort of approach. It became a political football immediately and the extreme views of both supporters and detractors turned me off from seeing it as well. After 13 years I finally watched it out of idle curiosity rather than any strong interest in the pros or cons of any climate change debate. And maybe that's what it takes to view certain documentaries with any sort of objectivity. I always thought Gore was a bit of an alarmist on the topic when seeing him interviewed after the movie came out. However the ultimate irony is that the movie (and Gore) probably understated the peril of climate change at the time. After 13 years the predictions now seem a bit tame, if anything, especially when compared to the actually tally of extreme weather events that have affected just the US. And the actual rate of glacial melting, polar ice retreat and permafrost degradation is actually a bit faster than predicted even at the time the movie was made. I notice many negative reviews concentrate on the possible misinterpretation of certain data or the omission of conflicting sources and possible counter narratives using the same data. All well and good. The only problem with those criticisms now is that they have been overtaken by events in the space of just 13 years. Both Gore and his critics got it wrong. Climate change is worse than Gore or the even more extreme partisans predicted. Not a pleasant realization to come to.

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???