An Inconsistent Truth

This only has good reviews because only lunatics would see this movie. From the first moment, it is simply attacking one man rather than actually addressing the topic at hand. All his experts are listed as "expert reviewers", which is a nice way of saying that they are outliers of the scientific community and hold no official positions. Much like the "picking and choosing of facts" that Phil Valentine talks about Al Gore doing, he is doing the exact same thing. I've never seen such a ridiculous polemic before. Why is this a diatribe against Al Gore? He is not global warming! Who cares about Al Gore? I'm more interested in our planet not melting, but apparently my interests lie in the wrong place.

I was forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth in fourth grade, right around the time the film had completed its wave of publicity and fame through the cinemas and the awards shows. Roughly three or four classes were gathered into a room where they showed us the film and provided us with a brief lecture on it afterwards. All I remember was being petrified for the poor polar bears and concerned that their safety was threatened. I went home to tell my mother, where I had to be consoled and assured that the polar bears were fine.

My disdain for Al Gore's monumental documentary may come from the fact I was shown it at an age where I was unable to digest information of that size and fall for the film's scare tactics and statistic-advertising, but it also comes from Al Gore's approach to the material, a didactic, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is your fault" kind of approach.

Furthermore, I decided to research opposition on the macro-issue that is global warming, stumbling across radio host Phil Valentine's documentary An Inconsistent Truth, which takes a look at the idea that global warming is either a natural part of the weather cycle or the level of its severity has been greatly stretched and overblown. I want to take this time in saying I still have no idea what the hell to believe when it comes to global warming and believe only time will tell with an issue like this. As with many issues in the scientific universe, for every one-hundred scientists that say something is happening there are another one-hundred scientists who say it isn't happen, both bearing very convincing arguments and statistical data.

Such is the case with the global warming issue, as I consistently find myself ping-ponging back and forth from two sides. On one end I see that perhaps it's better to take action and respond to science by attempting to make our lives a bit more eco-friendly (however you want to define that term), and on another end, I find myself agreeing heavily with Valentine's claims, along with the numerous reputable people he obtains interviews from in this documentary. What's my opinion on global warming? It all depends on what side of the bed I get up on in the morning.

From the minute An Inconsistent Truth begins, Valentine hits the ground running, defining a term like "dirt person," otherwise known as a person who has gone to meticulous lengths to assure they are living a green, environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Valentine also explains how he, himself, while remaining skeptical and often denying the global warming issue, he has combated things like fossil fuel by utilizing biodiesel or vegetable juices to make his vehicle run. Right off the bat, here's a guy who practices a healthy alternative in terms of transportation, while we see a man like Al Gore, who has gone on to make a documentary that grossed millions of dollars, still travel in gas-guzzling vehicles and private jets.

Valentine talks with several individuals who boast degrees in scientific study, meteorology, and other accolades that deem them worthy to comment on the issue of global warming from a scientific standpoint. Dr. Ken Green, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, along with Dr. John Christy, a man who studies meteorology and weather patterns, state how Americans have been sold climate change in a way that makes them feel like they've been a part of the problem when they haven't done anything wrong. Case and point CO2, which we learn has been criminally misrepresented and shortened to "carbon." CO2 is something plants need to thrive and humans release when they breath, and yet, we've been mislead to think it's a harmful, environmentally-threatening chemical that need be regulated and greatly diminished.

On the topic of man-made climate change, Dr. Roy Spencer offers probably the freshest and most insightful takeaway point in the entire documentary. Spencer, a recipient of the NASA Exceptional Science medal, questions why trees, something that has a great effect on its environment, absorbing sunlight and sometimes detracting it from smaller plants, are allowed to have such a pivotal effect on their environment but people cannot.

Valentine does a nice job at getting his group of interviewees to touch on each sub-area of climate change, from the man-made debate, to the issue's potential impact on storms, to CO2 emissions, to the polar ice caps, etc. More time could be made for some issues (IE: the potential that warmer weather's impact on the severity of storms definitely needed more time put to it), but Valentine's well-roundedness on the subject is commendable.

Furthermore, Valentine has the benefit of clearly not being bought and paid for by an anti-climate change committee or organization. He makes multiple attempts to talk to the opposing side, but is either denied or forced out by security. One hilarious scene comes when Valentine attempts to talk with Al Gore at a local booksigning, but can't get a word in edgewise. When director Shayne Edwards tries to get Gore on camera, he finds himself barricaded and blocked by his entourage and repeatedly denied answers to questions and requests for interviews.

Aside from the onslaught of credible people, An Inconsistent Truth largely gets by thanks to Valentine's personality. The man has a voice for radio and TV, and resembles liberal pundit Bill Maher facially. In terms of facts, I still believe that the only way to prove whether Gore or Valentine is right is to see what happens in forthcoming years. I have no clue what to make of global warming as a whole. To compare it to religion, such questions are too big to answer with complete certainty.

The movie is entertaining as well as very informative. Lot of information in the film so better plan to see it a couple of times. Should be a requirement for all students grade school thru college age. Hope everyone gets behind this film and take to all of the masses. Love you Phil!!! Specifically the scenes in front of Gore's house. The film has very credible interviews. Everything was done with real FACTS. The movie never lagged. Very factual. Scenery is beautiful and the cinematography is very well done. Music is really great too and very appropriate for the movie scenes. Nice to see a movie that presents facts instead of fiction.

If you wanted to torture a liberal, forget water-boarding. Tie them up and make them watch an listen to this movie and their head will explode. They will be a sobbing limp mess when then finish watching and will do whatever you want them to. A small percentage may have their eyes open and be able to weigh the information and come to an informed conclusion concerning the myth and junk science of so-called "global warming" and how it is merely a ploy to gain control over socio-economic elements of the global governments. Dirt people and tree-huggers BEWARE! This movie will befuddle you with facts. Take a conservative friend with you so they can explain the difficult parts. Actually, that's not true. This movie presents the truth so simply that even a 7 year-old can understand it. Do yourself a favor, go and see this movie and you will come out with your mind cleansed.

This isn't a documentary, this is a propaganda piece done much in the style of Michael Moore. Al Gore does stand to benefit financially from global warming, he has invested heavily in alternative energy sources which he candidly discloses pretty much any time he gives a talk on climate change. The strategy of the anti-climate change people is straight out of the tobacco playbook of deny, deny, deny. If you can't beat the facts attack the man presenting the facts. Claim the science isn't there yet. When smokers were stupid enough to believe smoking caused no ill health effects they were only killing themselves, and possibly their families with second hand smoke. The idiots that believe pumping several metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere has no effect on climate are hurting us all. Climate Change should not be a political issue, how we try to solve the problem is definitely political, but to just stick your head in the sand is dangerous.