Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth (Part II)

An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006 and shows Vice President Al Gore giving a slide show to an audience. The slide show is about global warming. Mr. Gore argues that global warming is the most important challenge we face today. The movie is split between Mr. Gore’s presentation and scenes of Mr. Gore working on his slide show on a Mac computer (displayed prominently many times) with a voice over of Mr. Gore.


Mr. Gore opens his presentation with the joke, “I use to be the next President of the United States.” While this line probably works great in a live presentation, it is a little confusing as an opening for his movie. This line, among other things, contributes to a bit of identity crisis for An Inconvenient Truth. The movie is part documentary, part biography of Mr. Gore, and part political commentary on President George Bush’s administration. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really pull off any of these plots.


There are numerous examples of a kind of “split personality” within the movie. For example, there is a “Simpsons” type cartoon early in the movie that tries to explain man-made global warming. While it is entertaining, and I enjoy Bart Simpson et al, the cartoon feels a little odd as part of a documentary. The constant breaks that stop talking about global warming and start recapping Mr. Gore’s life are also a little out of place in the overall context of the movie. There are a few shots at President Bush and his administration beginning very early in the movie. Since these shots seem to be attacks for the sake of attack, I don’t understand why a movie maker would include them in a documentary that claims to be scientific in nature.


During the “biography” portions of the movie, Mr. Gore’s career as a college student and senator are discussed, and his active role combating global warming since he left politics is covered. However, his actions as a Vice President for eight years are covered in one sentence about Kyoto. And that one sentence doesn’t discuss why Clinton and Gore didn’t get Kyoto ratified by the United States. I have always wondered why Mr. Gore didn’t do more about global warming as Vice President, and his movie doesn’t answer that question. About three quarters of the way through the movie, there is a quiet montage of events surrounding the 2000 Presidential race. Since Mr. Gore’s time as Vice President is barely discussed, why is this montage even in the movie?


While An Inconvenient Truth heavily covers the belief in man-made global warming, it only refers to the other side of the debate as the “So-called Deniers”. It fails as a documentary because it fails to spend any real time covering the other side of the debate. Much of the “science” in this movie has been questioned elsewhere. The only comment I will add to that is that many of the evidence presented in the movie is anecdotal at best. Showing a photo of a location and then another of the location years later doesn’t prove anything or disprove anything.


Overall An Inconvenient Truth is quite painful to watch. I was eager to see why this movie deserved the accolades it got and simply couldn’t discover a legitimate reason for them. I would rate this movie as a “D” at best. I would recommend this movie to someone who was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was man-made global warming and that it was the biggest threat of our time. Then I would only recommend the movie if that individual had two hours with nothing better to do.


There are many, many positive reviews of An Inconvenient Truth available on the net and the print news. Feel free to read them, but if you want my opinion, stay away from this movie; it just isn’t worth your time.

38 comments:

Jayne d'Arcy said...

I don't like Al Gore and I was hardly convinced of man-made global warming. However, I found Gore to be pleasant and articulate. There were "extras" to the film that weren't necessary, but it is a film I wouldn't mind seeing again.

Did I come away a fan of Gore's? I did feel he showed a more engaging personality than he did while he was VP.

Did I come away convinced of man-made global warming? No. I did come away with the knowledge that there is much more Mankind could do to make the Earth better; and we're not. Just as we seem to do with other blessings, we abuse what we have with no real concern about the consequences.

I like the awareness An Inconvenient Truth has brought about global warming in general. More power to him and to everyone else who wants to keep getting this message across the world.

Excellent review.

Kram said...

And the survey says... "Overall An Inconvenient Truth is quite painful to watch."

Accolades to you for following through with your end of the challenge.

Anonymous said...

Sorry you had to endure the "painful" experience of watching a movie on your couch, Andy. I'm sure that people who are right now dramatically affected by climate change feel really sorry for you.

And, yes, it's your electricity production that's contributing. Georgia's Scherer power plant pumps out more CO2 than any other power plant in the country.

Why don't you get off the couch and help
solve this thing?

Andy D said...

I think Mr. Gore's movie has very little to do with studying real climate change. Having said that, I will rehash the argument again: I am not convinced man-made global warming is the biggest threat to our civilization. I am not convinced man has a significant part in global warming. I am not sure we could do anything to change global warming even if we wanted to.

Anonymous said...

Andy, if my doctor *thought* I might have cancer, and took the same attitude you take ("maybe not a huge threat," "don't know if your smoking is causing it," and "maybe nothing we can do to stop it so let's not try"), he would be *fired* before he could finish his sentence.

So here's your pink slip.

Andy D said...

This is a silly comparison at best.


If you're doctor tells you that you might have cancer based on the same level of evidence for the theory of man-made global warming, you should fire him.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Andy, you're right.

Only wild guessing could diagnose this.

Oh, but you're the one who cites the doctor who says tobacco smoke doesn't cause cancer. Keep that doctor, Andy. And fire those ones who say cancer is caused by tobacco smoke. I'm sure you know good science when you see it.

familyman said...

You guys crack me up.

I don't KNOW if we humans are causing the current climate change. I'd be surprised if we're not having SOME effect on it. I mean you can't keep putting all these greenhouse gasses into the air and not expect some kind of consequence.

If we are, maybe it's nature's way of balancing the scales. We pump the climate full of chemicals, and nature responds by making our environment inhospitable and the human population dwindles to a point where we are no longer a threat.

Nature's checks and balances in action.

So let's just sit back and watch the action.

Anonymous said...

I actually may have more sympathy for Andy on this than for Familyman. You two represent the yin and yang of climate inaction. Andy denies that the science is there (either to diagnose or solve the problem). Familyman, like so many of my fellow liberals, seems ready to roll over and play dead.

At least with Andy there seems to be a possibility that science *could* convince him that the problem is serious and can be solved (though if he isn't convinced now, I don't know what will do it). But Familyman sees some of the data and simply gives up ("sit back and watch the action").

When somebody tries to destroy my home--whether they fly planes into buildings or turn farmland into desert--it's time to throw down.

While Andy apparently can't tell good science from bad, at least he has a sense of right and wrong. Familyman just shrugs and is ready to have us all go down with the ship. This liberal will take a junk-science conservative over a play-dead liberal anyday.

familyman said...

Anonymous -

Maybe my sarcasm was too subtle. :)

In previous posts I've said that I think we should be doing everything we can to be "green".

I think taking major environmentally friendly steps, from pumping money into renewable clean energy research to reducing greenhouse gasses would be good for the environment and for our economy.

familyman said...

And one more thing -

I do think though that Climate Change/Global Warming activists need to recognize that there is a possibility that it MAY be out of our hands and that some thought should be given to how we are going to cope if the environment changes despite our best efforts.

Geologic history is clear. There have been many periods on Earth when there was a climate that would not be ideal for humans. So there is always the possibility that those kinds of conditions could come around again no matter what we do.

Anonymous said...

Family: either your sarcasm was too subtle or my sense of humor too dull--most likely the latter.

Glad you were only "playing" at "playing dead."

Anonymous said...

Family: the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. We need to do both.

Farmers right now need to (and should) adapt to the changing growing conditions as the earth warms. This map shows how the hardiness zones have already shifted.

But if all we do is try to adapt--without trying to solve the problem--we'll eventually be trying to farm in the desert. There's only so much you can adapt to if you never actually solve the problem.

Global warming is already screwing a lot of things up and we need to adapt. But we're going to condemn ourselves and future generations to much worse problems if we don't work hard for solutions now (CO2 stays in the atmosphere for around 100 years). Much of the hurt we're experiencing now is a result of people like Andy fighting the scientists for decades.

And, frankly, you're simply wrong about this being possibly out of our hands. We know exactly where the carbon is coming from and we know exactly how to stop it. There are simply some very powerful forces (the ones paying the scientists that Andy listens to) who are in the way. But I'm hoping, now that a significant number of republicans have figured out that global warming could, for example, kill Florida, we may have a fighting chance with the next president, Repub or Democrat.

Andy D said...

You do understand that we cannot stop releasing CO2 without catastrophic results? There are many, many companies trying to do things more efficiently with the hopes of producing less pollutants. I support cleaner energies in the U.S. simply as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Wind and solar technology arn't at the point where they can replace our traditional energy plants. They may one day, but if we legislate them in now, it would do more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

Andy, I'm calling foul on that one.

People who don't believe there's a problem (like you) need to stay out of the solution discussion.

You need to stand up for your belief: that there's nothing to solve. Because *no* solution will make any sense unless there's an actual *problem* to solve.

A heart transplant can cost $250,000. It would be absurd to spend that money if you don't have heart disease. But if you need a new heart to stay alive, then it's a bargain.

It's like you're saying that your kids' heart transplant is too expensive--even though you actually don't believe their heart has anything wrong with it. Of course, if that's what you really believe, then having the operation at all is really stupid.

So if you don't believe the doctors who say there's a problem with our climate's health, then don't haggle with them about the cost. Stand up for what you really believe--that the climate's really healthy.

If you come to the point that you acknowledge that we've got a problem, then by all means join the conversation about solutions--we need lots of perspectives in that conversation.

Andy D said...

Anon, you have gotten to the point in this argument where you can't even see straight.


I am not convinced man made global warming is a problem. However, I do believe our dependence on foreign oil is a problem. If you really want to solve global warming, and I want our dependence on foreign oil reduced, why wouldn't you jump at this chance?

Anonymous said...

Because, Andy, you and your bunch of climate-change-deniers want to suck the last drop of oil out of places like Alaska and the oil tar sands, which still meets the test of avoiding "foreign" sources of oil but is utterly suicidal in terms of climate change. The atmosphere doesn't care whether the carbon comes from Iraq or Alaska--it still cooks the planet.

My point is entirely clear: don't give us your disingenuous calls for solutions to a problem that you don't believe exists.

I don't go around debating cures to homosexuality, b/c I don't think it's a disease or a problem. I own up to that. You, apparently, think the earth is just "born that way."

Andy D said...

Anon, read this very carefully:

"There are many, many companies trying to do things more efficiently with the hopes of producing less pollutants. I support cleaner energies in the U.S. simply as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Wind and solar technology arn't at the point where they can replace our traditional energy plants. They may one day, but if we legislate them in now, it would do more harm than good."

At no point in there do I call for drilling in Alaska. I would support it, but I don't even pretend to suggest that to someone who is wearing the mantle of a global warming believer.

While you're carefully reading that, check out this editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal. Not only does it question the "consensus" of global warming, it points out that NASA has been changing their global warming data quietly and behind the scenes. Does that really sound like good science to you?

Anonymous said...

Andy, this is silly.

I called you out for trying to talk "solutions" to a problem you don't believe exists.

Your response is odd: you point out that you never argued for something you do in fact agree with (drilling in Alaska).

And then you quote an *editorial* from a *Las Vegas* newspaper and apparently believe you've proved a scientific point. Can we cite bathroom graffiti on here?

All of this seems to underline my obvious point a few posts back: discussing global warming "solutions" with a global-warming-denier is like hiking to Boulder Glacier today.

romi_moondi said...

Yet again, what a rousing debate in the comments section! :-)

I know that everything has probably been said, considering it took me SO long to catch up on my reading ;-), but I kind of agree with the first comment: true as it is, true as it isn't, the movie brought awareness to A LOT of folks that we abuse the planet, rather than respect the fact that we're visitors.

If the movie gets some people to make some better choices (which should certainly have some positive effect, though we may not know how much), then aren't we all better off?

Not a bad way to spend two hours of your life, if you ask me :-)

Andy D said...

Anon, I will try one more time….

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend you and I are both policy makers in Washington D.C. We meet and begin discussing Global Warming. You tell me your views, and I tell you mine. We obviously disagree. However, you want less traditional fuel plants (coal and oil). I want the United States to be less dependent on foreign oil. Is there some middle ground we can meet on? Yes, we can agree to build more nuclear reactors. We can agree to look into other alternative fuels such as wind and solar power. That is what I was trying to illustrate. While you and I may disagree on the problem, there might be solutions to more than one problem that we can both tolerate.

While I do agree with drilling in Alaska, I haven’t brought that up in this discussion because it doesn’t fit with the discussion. You accused me of offering Alaska as a solution to global warming, which I didn’t do. I also never quoted from the editorial. I pointed it out because it does pertain to our discussion. The editorial talks about the lack of scientific consensus and points out another news source that is focusing on NASA. NASA is changing their global warming data and not telling anyone that they are. To me, it continues to illustrate how much we don’t know. If you are going to continue to use NASA temperature data as any sort of reliable information, it is a news story you may want to examine.

Romi, one of the things in MR. Gore’s movie I have to give him credit for is that he lists a series of ways that an individual can make a difference. Most of them are things you can do in your own home. If someone watches this movie and decides to change how they live, then good for them. My concern is if someone watches this movie and decides we need to change our laws in the United States based on this movie and this movie alone.

Anonymous said...

Andy, I agree with you on finding "overlapping" solutions. Wind and solar look like those to me. I would be happy to work with conservatives on that. I hope you'll find candidates who support that--I know I have.

I know some conservatives also support ending our massive subsidy of the oil industry by getting our military out of the oil-protection business. (The price of the Iraq war could have built the infrastructure to supply *all* of America's energy needs via wind power with existing technology. Think about that. We *could* have made that choice instead of chasing WMD's that didn't exist.)

As for nuclear power, until there is a safe-for-10,000-years solution to the storage of nuclear waste, I can't cooperate on nuclear power. If there's a real solution there someday, I'll be ready to talk.

So maybe the difference is slight: I'm happy to work on shared interests. However, I think it's counter-productive to waste time discussing *specifically* global warming solutions with people who don't believe it's a problem. Because when we get down to really tackling the problem, y'all actually aren't interested. That doesn't make for good conversation or good solutions.

As for NASA secretly changing things, I'm sure you got your information from FOX or some other right-wing bloviator--not a scientist. NASA is not "hiding" anything, and if you think the updated data is statistically significant, then you can't read a graph. NASA posts their minor adjustment to U.S. temperatures here--notice that global measurements are basically unaffected. What you're seeing there is good science at work.

I think this pattern is telling: a slight, basically insignificant downward adjustment in U.S. temperature records gets the right-wingers hyperventilating, but the massive, way-ahead-of-projection melting of the arctic doesn't get any reaction.

familyman said...

Quote from anon.:(The price of the Iraq war could have built the infrastructure to supply *all* of America's energy needs via wind power with existing technology. Think about that. We *could* have made that choice instead of chasing WMD's that didn't exist.)

AMEN!

Andy D said...

"The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 at top right (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later)."

That doesn't sound like an insignificant difference to me. You are correct that NASA says the global temperature change is insignificant. However, when the global temperature increase over 100 years may be .4 C or less, .15 in the U.S. appears significant to me.


A quick question for you and Familyman both: pretend we didn't go into Iraq, what makes you think the Congress would have spent any of the money we have spent in Iraq on infrastructure?

Anonymous said...

Andy, *global* temperature readings (the defining measure of global warming) are not statistically different given NASAs adjustment. (And what are you claiming about the adjusted U.S. records? That they don't show dramatic warming? Because they obviously do continue to show exactly that. Again: you're all worked up about a small downward adjustment of data, but you apparently aren't concerned about the much more significant uptick in warming! That's not scientifically or ethically honest.)

You asked: "pretend we didn't go into Iraq, what makes you think the Congress would have spent any of the money we have spent in Iraq on infrastructure?"

We sure wouldn't have spent it that way under Bush--and almost surely not under this (Democratic) Congress. As your nemesis Al Gore points out, what's missing is the political will to do the smart, right, thing. We apparently found the political will to do the incredibly expensive and *stupid* thing of the Iraq war. But we haven't yet found the will to do the expensive and *smart* thing of investing in clean, safe energy.

My point is that we have real choices. Bush choose Iraq. Gore *without question* would have chosen greater investment in wind power, and *almost certainly* would not have invaded Iraq. I don't think the current crop of Democrats or even Gore are going to get us where we need to go: I was simply pointing out that shifting our budget from (disastrous) oil-protection to (smart) wind power investment is a solution that conservatives and liberals alike could support. And it's no small solution: it's one that would change history and help solve one of our most pressing problems.

I'm looking for politicians who think like that. Are you?

Andy D said...

I am claiming that NASA is adjusting the overall temperatures in the United States down by .15 C. I am claiming that in a world where we are told a .4 degree increase over 100 years is the largest threat to mankind this is significant. I agree that NASA says this doesn’t affect the overall global temperature. I think they are downplaying the significance of the United States temperatures.

The “man-made global warming” faithful would have us believe that global warming is the fault of the United States. If the temperature data is wrong for the United States, then maybe that belief needs to be revisited.

If Al Gore would do so much for alternative energies, then why didn’t he do that for the eight years he was Vice President? I have asked this time and time again, if Kyoto is so important, why didn’t the United States ratify it while he and Clinton were in office? If wind and solar technology will usher in an oil free world, why aren’t more private investors getting involved in something that we are told will be so important? Wouldn’t they stand to make a tremendous amount of money?

Anonymous said...

You apparently don't understand the basic science of global warming: the fact that the U.S. is the largest per capita contributor of CO2 has *nothing* to do with the specific temperature rise *over the U.S.*. The atmosphere mixes CO2 so that CO2 levels are basically the same over the entire planet. But of course you dodged the basic question: are you suggesting that significant warming is not happening in the U.S.?

Your Kyoto question makes no sense in this context. You're asking why Congress made a dumb decision? We could ask the same thing about their war-authorizing vote: "if it's such a bad idea, why did they vote for it?" Just because Congress does something doesn't mean its smart. Of course, part of the reason the U.S. was one of two countries *in the world* to stay out of a global warming treaty is because of voters like you who ignore the world's scientists and pay attention to the ones on the payroll of oil and coal companies.

And: plenty of companies (mostly outside the U.S.) are making great money in alternative energy because of smart government policies. We're missing out in the U.S. because of dumb policies written by oil and coal companies.

familyman said...

Andy, I think it just makes the point that the 450 Billion (and climbing) dollars could have been put to better use.

Andy D said...

“But of course you dodged the basic question: are you suggesting that significant warming is not happening in the U.S.?” In a word, Yes.

I am sorry my question confused you. My biggest problem with Al Gore and Global warming is this: If global warming is as catastrophic as you and Mr. Gore says it is, then why didn’t Mr. Gore do more as a Vice President to combat global warming? Kyoto was created under Mr. Gore, however, the United States decided not to ratify it even though Mr. Gore was our Vice President. The Congress didn’t make a bad decision; Bill Clinton never sent the treat to Congress for their consideration.


I will agree that the money spent in Iraq could have been put to a different use. I am not willing to say that the U.S. Congress would have put it towards a better use.

Anonymous said...

Andy describes a .15 degree DECREASE as "significant," but calls a 1.33 degree INCREASE (nine times as large a shift) "insignificant." It appears the only time a number is significant is when it suits Andy's anti-scientific conspiracy theories.

Andy, your question about Gore is bizarre: "if global warming is so serious, why didn't Gore/congress do more...?" First of all, Gore *SIGNED THE KYOTO TREATY* on behalf of the United States of America! Congress--led by the coal and oil states--made it clear that they were not passing Kyoto. But that has nothing to do with whether global warming is real or not. That's a scientific question, not a question about congress, or Gore. I mean, that's just a weird suggestion... The reality of WMDs has nothing to do with what George W. Bush does or says about them.

That's what so much of the past years have been about both on global warming and Iraq: reality taking its revenge on those who choose to ignore or deny it.

I mostly agree with your last point. But I do think almost anything would be better than spending money on the Iraq fiasco. However, I'm under no illusions that the current congress is going to usher in the era of clean energy and energy independence. They won't do that until we vote for people who will get us there. My suspicion is that electing more people in bed with oil and coal won't help.

Anonymous said...

A short column posted today by Valclev Havel takes account of doubts that deniers like Andy have, and asks a moral question about how to act in the face of such uncertainty. I find the column to be a helpful reminder of what the big picture is--what's a stake in this argument about science, tenths of degrees, and treaties named for Japanese cities.

Andy D said...

Anonymous, sit back and take a deep breath. I am going to try and explain two points one more time. First, I don’t think .4 degrees over 100 years is a significant number in relation to the average global temperature. I do think .15 degrees is a significant number in relation to the .4 degrees number listed above. 0.15 is a little less than half of .4, so yes I consider it significant.


Gore didn’t sign Kyoto. President Clinton did. However, the United States cannot ratify a treaty without Congress. President Clinton did not send the Kyoto treaty to Congress. The reason I bring up Al Gore and his Vice Presidency is (I think) simple. In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore talks a lot about what he did for the environment as a Senator. He talks a lot about what he has done for the environment as a private citizen. The only thing he says about what he did as Vice President is that he went to Kyoto to help negotiate things. I would think the Vice President would have a certain amount of power. If the environment was important to Mr. Gore, why didn’t he do more as Vice President?

Andy D said...

I thought the column was a good piece. I don't agree with everything in it, but it does make some good points.

Anonymous said...

Andy, I don't know what you're inhaling in those deep breaths.

You're wrong about Clinton and Gore: "...former vice-president Al Gore signed the Kyoto accord on behalf of the US..."

You're wrong about NASA: you're comparing a few years of U.S. temperature to 100 years of global temperature, not to mention that you keep comparing celsius to fahrenheit stats which makes comparisons even more screwed up. This graph shows the adjustment you call "significant." That's right: it is *impossible* detect it. You've now posted 5 times on something *impossible* to detect even though that *adjustment* you obsess on is part of an undeniable, easily detectable trend--not just on graphs, but on the world's glaciers, on Greenland and Antarctica, and on Georgia's farmland and rivers.

You're apparently irrelevant on Gore. If you want to criticize him for not doing more to solve something you don't think is a problem, that's your own pathology. But if you want to question how serious global warming is because one vice president didn't do enough to solve it, then your logic has completely abandoned you. Just because another vice president shot a lawyer in the face instead of a quail does not mean that quail cannot or should not be shot. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here...

Andy D said...

For the sake of argument, I will accept that Gore signed Kyoto. Whether it was him or Clinton, it doesn’t matter as neither would have the power to ratify a foreign treaty.

I am going to try to explain my position on Gore one more time. If you still don’t understand after this, I don’t know what to tell you. If Mr. Gore claims that global warming is a problem, why didn’t he do something about it (other than sign Kyoto) as Vice President? My complaint isn’t that he didn’t do more; it is that he is telling me I should do something, when he wouldn’t do something as VP. His actions during the 1990’s don’t seem to match his dialogue today. My questioning of Global Warming has nothing to do with Mr. Gore. I am questioning how serious he believed the problem was in the 1990’s.


As far as the NASA data, James Hansen of NASA has said the temperature correction was 0.15 degrees centigrade cooler. If my memory serves, the 0.4 degrees over 100 years is also in centigrade. I am not sure where you are accusing me of mixing temperature scales up. Hansen also went on to say that the change is insignificant and only altered the “global mean temperatures” by one-one-thousandth (0.001) of a degree. My argument is, in a science that is supposedly settled, changing the recent temperature data by 0.15 degrees (only in the United States) isn’t something to simply pass over. If the most recent data is showing up as too hot, what does that say about data that is 100’s of years old?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the apology for being wrong about who signed Kyoto.

Thanks for the apology about being wrong on NASA. Global temperatures have risen around .74 degrees centigrade (1.33 degrees fahrenheit) over the past 100 years. Don't worry: you were only off by .34 degrees--that's just 340 times as significant as the NASA adjustment that you're so worked up about.

While you are right that there is some scientific uncertainty about temperature records, especially those in the distant past, scientists understand that. This graph shows both what scientists *theorize* that temperatures were for the past 1000 years (the black line) and their possible margin of error (the gray area). Even with the most extreme error margin, it is clear that something unprecedented is happening now (the red line). But you'd rather quibble over a .001 degree adjustment. That's like arguing about whether your car is hitting a telephone pole at 100 or at 99 mph.

Thanks for clearing up your critique of Gore. You wrote: "My questioning of Global Warming has nothing to do with Mr. Gore. I am questioning how serious he believed the problem was in the 1990’s." Don't be a hypocrite, Andy. Your Republican party lambasted Gore as VP for spending too much money on scientific research on global warming, for obsessing on declassifying research data on something that Repubs claimed wasn't a problem, and for a host of other climate change initiatives which your people fought at every step, etc., etc. But now you want to criticize Gore for not taking climate change seriously enough as VP? So who was right--were the Republicans right to criticize Gore for doing too much on global warming--or are you right to criticize him for doing too little?

Andy D said...

Let me be clearer on NASA. There was a discussion on my site in July discussing the different causes of global warming. From reading different articles from people who believe man-made global warming is occurring, they seem to think most of the “man-made portion” has occurred since the 1980’s. That change represents a little less than ½ “, I am approximating that value at .4 degrees centigrade. Most of the global warming prior to that appears to have been driven by the sun. I have assumed that you were part of that same discussion. If you are a different anonymous, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. We don’t have enough information about the past to say today’s global temperature is unprecedented. And can you post the search you did in Wikipedia for this graph? I can’t tell what the units of measurement are for the axis.


Why doesn’t Gore ever talk about this work? He constantly talks about the hearings he had as a Senator, but never any of these policies you have linked to.

Anonymous said...

Here's a perfect example of how your position plays out Andy. You right wingers have been calling for *more study* while scientists and others have been calling for action *for decades.* Now, however, the predicted excrement is hitting the air conditioning, and my prediction is that you all will now say: "it's too late to solve this."

The point is: your stupid protests against *action* (masquerading as calls for more redundant science) are *part of the reason* we're approaching a place where "there's nothing we can do!"

We can still solve this--it's just going to be much harder because of the intransigence of people like you. It's time, past time, for people like you to start helping us solve this.