Skip Nav

Climate Science Glossary

Blog Archive

❶Retrieved March 23,

Term Lookup

What can you say about my blog guys
Facebook Badge
Navigation menu

She concludes "Gore oversimplified certain points, made a few factual errors and, at times, chose the wrong poster child Mount Kilimanjaro should have been replaced by any number of Alaskan or Andean glaciers, for instance. It's unfortunate, but it remains the most comprehensive popular documentary on climate change science I have seen.

Update On 21 January , 'the skeptic argument' was revised to correct some formatting errors. I am astounded to see point 8 "that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming" included as an 'error'.

I'd suggest you could safely add that one to the list of what Al got right. Yes, there are other factors that cause corals to bleach, but mass coral bleaching is accepted to occur as a result of higher-than-normal sea temperatures resulting from global warming. Leaving it to the experts: At a local scale, many stressors including disease, sedimentation, cyanide fishing, pollutants and changes in salinity may cause corals to bleach. Mass bleaching, however, affects reefs at regional to global scales and cannot be explained solely by localised stressors operating at small scales.

Rather, a ontinuously expanding body of scientific evidence indicates that such mass bleaching events are closely associated with large-scale, anomalously high sea surface temperatures. There is a direct link between unusually warm seawater temperature and bleaching of reef-building corals around the world. But that alone does not necessarily mean that mankind has caused it. Please use the "arguments" menu item, "taxonomy" and look under the "its not us" section.

Further to 'foram' it's interesting in the wake of President Trumps withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement that a news bulleting about coral reefs dying worldwide has appeared on the Al Jazeera network in Australia this morning - complete with heart tugging segments of local fishermen.

Iocc 16 , on the contrary , a large conference of coral reef experts gathering in Hawaii in mid expressed grave concern about the fate of coral reefs worldwide. And individual reef experts have been pointing to the impending destruction of coral reefs, for many years now. All this was well before Mr Trump was anybody worth paying attention to. The by-now unavoidable death of coral reefs is merely a part but a spectacularly obvious part of the corner that we have painted ourselves into, regarding the slow-building crisis of global warming.

The most recent Al Jazeera article on coral I can find is from May 7th. Scott, you're getting it wrong. The scientific cause does not need any spokesman. There is no scientific "cause.

The weight of the evidence is what it is and anyone who can think who looks at the evidence will see the direction where it points. Attacks on the science are nothing but pitiful hogwash and that becomes evident after ony a few hours of researcing the subject.

We're talking scientific evidence here, not courthouse BS. Only those with unsolvable cognitive dissonance or an overwhelming emotional attachment to ideology can fail to see the reality. These people can not be convinced, no matter how hard reality will hit them on the head, because having their belief system fail is more threatening emotionally than any adverse consequence of holding said belief system.

There are powerful interests with no other preoccupation than monetary profit that are muddyying the water to obscure the public perception but they are not challenging the science in any convincing way. They use mind manpulation methods and boatloads of BS, which has now been brought to an art form, and benefit from means of dissemination unprecedented in human history.

When they do science, like Exxon did for a while, they find exactly the same stuff as the independent science. Every format was used to its best potential. Some of the footage of Katrina has this blown-out video, where the chroma is just blasted, and it looks real muddy, but that too has its own kind of powerful, impactful feeling.

The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused. Gore presents specific data that supports the thesis, including:. The Associated Press contacted more than climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or had read the homonymous book said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.

Schlesinger , dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University said "[Gore] got all the important material and got it right. After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong. I could find no error.

One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between hurricanes and global warming, which remains contentious in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view. Gore's use of long ice core records of CO 2 and temperature from oxygen isotope measurements in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two drew some scrutiny; Schmidt, Steig and Michael E. Mann back up Gore's data. Both of these statements are true," said Schmidt and Mann.

Moreover, our knowledge of why CO 2 is changing now fossil fuel burning is solid. We also know that CO 2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO 2 and CH 4 , implying that future changes in CO 2 will be larger than we might anticipate.

The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO 2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO 2 -temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO 2 on climate. Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act has had on ice cores in Antarctica.

Lonnie Thompson , Earth Science professor at Ohio State University , whose work on retreating glaciers was featured in the film, was pleased with how his research was presented. Here's another way to get this message out.

To me, it's an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university. What are the issues and what are the possible consequences of not doing anything about those changes? To me, it has tremendous value. It will reach people that scientists will never reach. At the Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three standing ovations. The film received a positive reaction from film critics and audiences.

At Metacritic , which assigns a weighted average score out of to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 75, based on 32 reviews.

Ebert said, "In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to," [56] calling the film "horrifying, enthralling and [having] the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the Earth.

New York Magazine critic David Edelstein called the film "One of the most realistic documentaries I've ever seen—and, dry as it is, one of the most devastating in its implications. Scott thought the film was "edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of C-SPAN and shaped to give Mr.

Gore's argument a real sense of drama," and "as unsettling as it can be," Scott continued, "it is also intellectually exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite for further study. Hansen said that "Gore has put together a coherent account of a complex topic that Americans desperately need to understand. The story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public, a public that is less and less drawn to science.

He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests. In "extensive exit polling" of An Inconvenient Truth in "conservative suburban markets like Plano and Irvine Orange County , as well as Dallas and Long Island", 92 percent rated "Truth" highly and 87 percent of the respondents said they'd recommend the film to a friend.

These explicit attempts to frame the issue as apolitical take on further gravitas when we consider how Gore infused the film with reflections of conservative values. Indeed, Gore reached deeply into the value structure of American conservatives to highlight ideals that suggested his cause was not liberal, but rather was beyond politics, beyond ideology.

Several reviews criticized the film on scientific and political grounds. Journalist Ronald Bailey argued in the libertarian magazine Reason that although "Gore gets [the science] more right than wrong," he exaggerates the risks. Lindzen was vocally critical of the film, writing in a June 26, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain.

Some other reviewers were also skeptical of Gore's intent, wondering whether he was setting himself for another Presidential run. Boston Globe writer Peter Canello criticized the "gauzy biographical material that seems to have been culled from old Gore campaign commercials. Others felt Gore didn't go far enough in depicting the threat Indigenous peoples faced with the dire consequences of climate change. An Inconvenient Truth has received many different awards worldwide. Gore then gave a brief speech, saying:.

My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act.

That's a renewable resource. The film won many other awards for Best Documentary: The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally.

Presently, the group has 3, presenters worldwide. The project was inspired by Mary Doerr, a year-old who trained as presenter for the organization. University of Scranton professor Jessica Nolan found in a study published for Environment and Behavior that people became more informed and concerned about climate change right after seeing the film but that these concerns didn't translate into changed behavior a month later.

Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: Gore responded that "The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he [Bush] has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true. Several United States Senators screened the film. Bingaman disputed this saying, "It seems to me we were having great difficulty recruiting Republican members of Congress to support a bill before Al Gore came up with this movie.

In September , Gore traveled to Sydney, Australia to promote the film. In the United Kingdom, Conservative party leader and future Prime Minister David Cameron urged people to watch the film in order to understand climate change. The Competitive Enterprise Institute released pro- carbon dioxide television ads in preparation for the film's release in May The ads featured a little girl blowing a dandelion with the tagline, "Carbon dioxide.

They call it pollution. We call it life. Several colleges and high schools have featured the film in science curricula. The film was placed into the science curriculum for fourth and sixth-year students in Scotland as a joint initiative between Learning and Teaching Scotland and ScottishPower. In May , Stewart Dimmock—a lorry HGV driver, school governor from Kent , England , and member of a right-wing group called the New Party —challenged the UK Government's distribution of the film in a lawsuit, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills , with help from political ally and New Party founder Viscount Monckton , [] [] who notably pointed out "35 serious scientific errors".

On October 10, , Justice Michael Burton, after explaining that the requirement for a balanced presentation does not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view, ruled that it was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science had been used, in the hands of a "talented politician and communicator", to make a political statement and to support a political program.

The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws. The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine "errors" , i. Each side declared victory. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up.

In January , the Federal Way Washington State School Board voted to require an approval by the principal and the superintendent for teachers to show the film to students and that the teachers must include the presentation of an approved "opposing view".

The NSTA also said that they had offered several other options for distributing the film but ultimately "[it] appears that these alternative distribution mechanisms were unsatisfactory. She also said that she rejected their subsequent offers because they were nothing more than offers to sell their "commercially available member mailing list" and advertising space in their magazine and newsletter, which are available to anyone.

NSTA indicated that they retained editorial control over the content, which David questioned based on the point of view portrayed in the global warming section of the video.

The petition was in response to concerned parents talked with Newman after An Inconvenient Truth was shown in schools in The parents were worried that teachers were not pointing out supposed inaccuracies in the film and were not explaining differing viewpoints. An Inconvenient Truth was scored by Michael Brook with an accompanying theme song played during the end credits by Melissa Etheridge.

Brook explained that he wanted to bring out the emotion expressed in the film: And the director, Guggenheim, wanted to have — sort of give people a little break every once in a while and say, okay, you don't have to absorb this information, you can just sort of — and it was more the personal side of Al Gore's life or how it connected to the theme of the film. And that's when there's music.

What am I going to say? Mostly I have to thank Al Gore, for inspiring us, for inspiring me, showing that caring about the Earth is not Republican or Democrat ; it's not red or blue, it's all green. When asked during a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" in October whether there were plans for a follow-up film, Guggenheim said, "I think about it a lot — I think we need one right now.

If we are going to make a movie, we want it to have an impact. At the time we did the movie, there was Hurricane Katrina ; now we have extreme weather events every other week. The update has to be incredible and shocking. The film was screened in the Climate section, a new section for films featuring climate and the environment. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see An Inconvenient Truth disambiguation. Bob Richman Davis Guggenheim. Jay Cassidy Dan Swietlik.

Lawrence Bender Productions Participant Productions. Environmental activism of Al Gore. Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved December 9, Retrieved March 7, Retrieved June 20, The New York Times. Retrieved November 23, Archived from the original on April 1, Retrieved March 13, Archived from the original on May 12, Retrieved November 2, Retrieved September 15, The film is presented by Al Gore former United States Vice President to expressly alert and warn the people regarding the phenomena brought about by global warming.

The film serves as a detailed explanation and presentation of inconvenient truths which are all gathered by Al Gore himself to bring it into a jampacked facts of presentation. The first time I heard the title itself An Inconvenient Truth , I have already had ideas formed in my mind to how this documentary film will flow.

Global warming is really an inconvenient truth which is happening in the world we live in. Not only the people who are living in certain countries are massively affected by this catastrophe but also, it is experienced severely by all living things on Earth. Maybe, global warming is a general term for the intense heat we feel but there is a deep meaning behind this term.

Popular Posts

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

An Inconvenient Truth Reaction Paper With more and more affects of global climate change happening worldwide, an effort had to be made to publicize the dilemma, so that the public could truly understand the seriousness of the problem.

Privacy FAQs

Reaction Paper: An Inconvenient Truth The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore is an eye opener and also a w ake up call. for me. I have heard about global warming before, probably back in g rade school but I knew a little about it or I only knew the meaning of the term global warming.5/5(2).

About Our Ads

Reaction Paper for "An Inconvenient Truth". The movie was composed of many documented events narrated and discussed by the former U.S Vice President Al Gore. The data gathered and the trends of different climatological graphs were well introduced to the public for better comprehension/5(2). An Inconvenient Truth Reaction Paper The award winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore is an eye opener and somehow it is a wake up call for me. I have heard about global warming way back high school and heard it often when I .

Cookie Info

Dec 28,  · Reaction Paper-An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore We people must take care of what we have, especially our only home, the planet which had the ability to grow and is capable of giving everything in existence, the one and only Earth. Feb 15,  · Reaction Paper: An Inconvenient Truth I have already seen the film An Inconvenient Truth seven years ago so our Professor’s requirement to watch it again is only a recap for me about what is really the main aim of the film.