Inconvenient Truth: Movie Review
I saw the movie. I saw Al Gore's slide show at a conference on philanthropy and climate change in February. I've been to the website. I have been deluged with newspaper columns on the film. I have heard two separate features on NPR about Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. Suffice it to say I've been satiated with the topic lately.
I won't say much but my recommendation is as follows: See An Inconvenient Truth. It's nothing like Fahrenheit 9/11. It treats the watcher like a thinking person and provides information in a way that is both respectful of the audience's emotional state and intelligence. I think that whether or not you know or care anything about the issue the movie is interesting to watch.
Interesting facts abound; perspectives abound. Al Gore gives a non-angry, non-partisan explanation as to how our democracy got itself to a place where the US is only one of two advanced countries that do not acknowledge that global warming is caused by man and that humanity can do something about it. (The other country is Australia). Although there are parts of the movie that are a bit like an Al Gore autobiography, it is mainly done within the context of how he became interested in climate change. If you don't like him (I do) you might find 5 - 8 minutes annoying. But those self indulgent minutes do not take away from the interesting and thoughtful main body of this documentary.
You will not be depressed walking out. The problem is solvable. The message is frightening but hopeful.
Categories: Markets Trades Economics,Reviews,NeubieNews
Gore is a baffoon!
31 years ago Newsweek carried a story that predicted a rapidly cooling world that would result in a "drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."
Hmmmm? It's the same doom and gloom scenario we hear today except turned on its ear -- now, however, it's not about devastation caused by cooling but rather by global warming.
The Newsweek piece about cooling it states: "In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."
Predicting the weather for the next two weeks, let alone the climate for the next 100 years or so, is impossible. What he can safely predict is the Earth will cool again one day and it will warm again, too. Ask Greenland!
Remember what they used to call "climate change"? "Global warming." And what did they call it before that? "Global cooling." That was the big worry in the '70s: the forthcoming ice age. Back then, Lowell Ponte had a huge best seller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
The answer to the first question was: Yes, it had begun. From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. That's why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.
And yet, amazingly, we've survived. Why? Because in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming. So in the '80s, the doom-mongers cast off their thermal underwear, climbed into the leopardskin thongs, slathered themselves in sun cream and wired their publishers to change all references to "cooling" to "warming" for the paperback edition. That's why, if you notice, the global-warming crowd begin their scare statistics with "since 1970," an unlikely Year Zero which would not otherwise merit the significance the eco-crowd invest in it.
But then in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, "Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let's just call it 'climate change.' That pretty much covers it."
Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1970?
Beats me. Hitler? Hiroshima? Maybe we need to nuke someone every couple of decades.
Even on the first Earth Day in 1970, biologist George Wald predicted that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken” while the New York Times warned that “man must stop pollution and conserve his resources…to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” Fortunately, such apocalyptic forecasts have repeatedly proven to be wrong.
to be followed...
Reply to this
Gore is a baffoon! Part II
Take biologist Paul Ehrlich’s popular Malthusian broadside, “The Population Bomb.” Farsighted Ehrlich predicted that a “population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” causing world-wide famine and the death of “hundreds of millions of people” annually from starvation. Oops—in the subsequent 35 years, increased agricultural productivity exceeded population growth and the total amount of cultivated land barely increased.
Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. environment is getting healthier. The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970, yet forest coverage has increased. Measurements of major air pollutants—sulfur, suspended particulates, and carbon monoxide—have registered declines of 15 to 75 percent. Likewise, the number of healthy rivers and lakes has roughly doubled since the first Earth Day, and Lake Erie, declared “dead” in the 1970s, now supports a healthy fishing industry. There are exceptions to this positive trend, but the overall direction is unmistakable: The U.S. natural environment is improving.
And BTW, I am still missing the record hurricane season that was announced earlier this year, just six months ago... Wanna take any bet on the number of hurricanes in 2082?
Reply to this