A Little TOO "Inconvenient"?

After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I am now aware of how much our world has changed over the last century – whether it was natural or anthropogenic. Nonetheless, our world has increased in both temperature and carbon dioxide emissions. I concur with Al Gore that an immediate resolve must be met to ensure Earth’s survival, and therefore, human kind’s survival. The overall message is very important and everyone should hear it, as it affects everyone on Earth; however, there were a few parts I did not necessarily agree with. Some of the predictions presented in the movie seemed to be too drastic, and it would be impossible to see (with the naked eye) differences in atmospheric gases in the ice cores over a mere couple of years. Nevertheless, I agree with Al Gore that global warming is an imminent threat to our world and that we must set plans in motion to alleviate the effects of the last century of significant pollution. Whether the increase in temperature and carbon dioxide is nature or anthropogenic, reducing green house gas emissions leads to beneficial results.

The first website that supports An Inconvenient Truth is RealClimate at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/. There are eleven climate scientists that maintain this website. It provides a well-balanced critique of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it is a very effective and well-researched movie, while noting a few small errors as well. They try to be unbiased on their website, and I believe they are successful in doing so. They appear to be up-to-date on their knowledge and educated in the field. The author collaborates his ideas with his colleagues to get a wider view from the scientific community.

The second website is Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth. Wikipedia provides an overview of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as scientific research from external sources, such as the first website RealClimate. In addition to scientific proof, Wikipedia also provides clarification on some unclear points in the movie, such as the confusion between the drastic increase in ocean levels due to glacier’s breaking off and the less drastic increase in ocean levels due to gradual melting.

The first website that criticizes An Inconvenient Truth is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=. This website uses documents like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support his criticism. It is apparent that this Panel came to less drastic predictions of the expected increase in ocean levels. Furthermore, the author also uses a piece of literature to provide support that the Arctic’s recent acceleration in ice loss has been reversed.

The second website that criticizes the movie is http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php. It provides references to other scientific research that has refuted Gore’s predictions. They also refer to other websites, such as blogs, where it is evident that not everybody agrees with Gore’s claims. The website agrees with some of the facts that Gore uses, but claim these facts do not support his claims, as some these facts are irrelevant to his claims.

I believe that the “docuganda” line is a very thin one. I believe that this movie is a very educational and well-researched movie, and it provides scientific proof to support Gore’s claims, and is therefore a documentary. However, in some ways An Inconvenient Truth is a docuganda because the impression one gets from watching Gore talk is that you are either in agreement with him or look like a fool to some degree because of the “proof” he provides. It is my belief that this movie is indeed a docuganda to some degree because of some of the unsupported and misrepresented claims. However! I believe it is a very beneficial and educational docuganda. Even if it is a docuganda, does that make it so bad? I believe that this movie conveys the message that Gore wanted to send and at the same time grabs the attention of the viewer to invoke change. Therefore, if this movie is a docuganda to some degree, it is well warranted.