The inevitable comments of Kent are shown in this color below.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5472

An Inconvenient Truth sounds a global warming warning
by Steve Carpenter
SojoMail 7-06-2006


An Inconvenient Truth may be the most important film to be released this century.

The most important for this whole century?  How could this nutty environmentalist know this?  We have barely begun this century!

It is also one of the best reviewed and most talked about films of the year. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert said this about An Inconvenient Truth, “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.” Surprisingly, he is referring to a documentary about global warming starring former Vice President Al Gore.

This doesn't necessarily prove that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great movie.  It might prove that Roger Ebert is loony.

This highly autobiographical film centers on a live audience slide show presentation which Gore has presented hundreds of times to audiences worldwide.

Everything today is supposedly demonstrated by "autobiography."  I will admit to skipping my chance to view this "most important film of the century."  However, a movie that centers on a live audience slide show by Al Gore does sound like it might rival "Gone With the Wind" - don't you think so too?

From this description it may sound like a video recording of a boring college science lecture. Just the opposite is true. Gore, often criticized for being stiff, is quite engaging here. He begins with a self-deprecating joke and proceeds to wow his audience with pictures from outer space, scientific charts, graphs, and personal stories.

For some people, self-deprecating jokes are more readily available.  Al is definitely one of those people.  But, if he has pictures from outer space, how could he fail to be engaging?

Gore is obviously an avid outdoorsman, well-informed about environmental issues. In very personal testimony he describes how an intellectual encounter with his college professor, and the tragic near death of his 6-year-old son, fueled and focused his environmental passion. He plays the role of teacher, scientist, politician, and prophet trying to convince a sometimes reluctant audience that carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions are causing global warming.

Gore probably emits enough hot air to cause significant global warming all by himself.  Yes, Al is "teacher, scientist, politician, and prophet."  Perhaps he is the new messiah!  And drat that "reluctant audience."

Gore, backed by mounds of scientific data, contends this warming will melt portions of Greenland and the Antarctic shelf, thus raising sea levels by as much as 20 feet, placing densely-populated low-lying coastal regions under water.

I hate to stop having fun with Al.  But I always wonder why the environment-AL types, apart from all the details, never seem to notice that the earth has cycled through times both much warmer and much cooler than the present.  Almost all of this happened long, long, before any industrial activity.  But I realize reasoning is usually wasted on environment-AL-ists.

Gore’s persuasive message is this: There is a price to pay for the industrial revolution’s excesses, and unless we dramatically change the amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere, catastrophe awaits. His time-lapse photographs of disappearing glaciers are mind boggling. Coupled with a 1,000-year record of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (which show recent spikes far in excess of the mild so-called Medieval Warm Period), the evidence is convincing. Gore reports, “If you look at the 21 hottest years measured [since the Civil War], 20 … have occurred within the last 25 years. The hottest year recorded during the entire period was 2005.” The data is conclusive. The debate has ended. Scientists agree the earth is in a period of global warming.

I know my mind is very boggled by most environmentalists.  Do these goofy people realize that the time since the Civil War is but a blip on the history of the earth?

What continues to be debated, however, is how much of that warming is due to human causes, like smokestack gases including CO2, as opposed to such things as periodic variations in the sun’s intensity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site says: “Scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases … are contributing to global warming … but [the] extent is difficult to determine. … As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain.”

So here a bit of truth cuts through wacky Al's babblings:  we don't really know.  Here is a bit of "inconvenient truth" for Al Gore:

More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.  [click here to view this source]

Why is it that the possible benefits of increased CO₂ almost never come up in this discussion?  We have seen here the environment-Al-ists argue that global warming might harm people.  Why do we never consider how the increased CO₂ might help people?

Before you go "all Al" you might want to consider the information found with the petition mentioned above.  It is located at:  http://www.oism.org/pproject/ - well worth a click.

The film’s moral persuasion is most effective when Gore tells of his family’s long history of growing tobacco. At the early age of 6, he worked in the tobacco fields. Even after the U.S. surgeon general issued reports in the 1960s linking smoking to cancer, the Gore family continued to raise tobacco. However, shortly after Al’s older sister Nancy died from lung cancer in 1984, his father decided to stop growing the offending crop. The parallels between the current debate, linking CO2 emissions and global warming, and the now-ended debate linking cigarette smoking and cancer are frightening. Sometimes it takes a personal tragedy to fully embrace what you have known to be true for many years. But when will it be too late to heed the warnings and take effective action? If we don’t believe the science, or don’t want to accept this inconvenient truth, can we afford to be wrong?

"The parallels between the current debate, linking CO2 emissions and global warming, and the now-ended debate linking cigarette smoking and cancer are frightening."  But "frightening" is not quite the right word here.  The correct term is "non-existent."  Can you say, "faulty analogy?"

After seeing the film, Joe Lapp, former president of Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, said, “It’s hard to separate the man from the message. On the one hand you have an important person delivering a critical message. However, some people won’t hear it because they dislike the messenger.” Regardless of what you think of Gore, or where you stand on this issue, see the film. If you’re not a moviegoer, read the book by the same name. Its presentation is almost as powerful as the film’s.

I will readily admit to disliking the screwed-up ideas of the prophet Al.  I've never met Al, so perhaps he is just one of those delightful individuals whose acquaintance I have not yet made.  But if a former president of a Mennonite university says so, who am I to question?

Al Gore, in partnership with director Davis Guggenheim, has heightened the environmental debate. This can only lead to a better understanding of the current situation and clearer direction for national policy.

Why is most environmentalism rightly said to be green on the outside, but red on the inside?  Here you can get a few hints.  The environment-Al-ists want a "national policy" about it.  They want more government controls on what people can do with their resources.  In essence, they want less freedom.  They want to force you to do what they demand with your life and your property, based on mere possibilities.

Socialist-environment-Al-ists of the Sojourner variety typically harp about wanting justice.  Would they consider it just to confiscate a person's automobile based on the mere possibility of wrong-doing?  Doesn't justice demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we deprive people of their property?

Where's the justice now, Steve, Al, and the Sojourner's crowd?  Where's the justice now?