MovieChat Forums > An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Discussion > Not exactly a documentary about global w...

Not exactly a documentary about global warming

posted 7 years ago by grybop
10 replies | jump to latest

More like a documentary about someone signalling the alarm about global warming. What I mean is, you wanna get the message out there, fine. Just don't use it as a vehicle for your own political gain.
I'd rather see the same facts presented to me by a scientist. Please spare me your lectures about your personal life, because I don't care. I don't doubt Al Gore's intentions of communicating his message, but he could have been a faceless narrator in this film, with his personal involvement as a side note at the end or something. And to think that he accepted the Academy Award instead of the producer or the director...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting global warming, it's just that this docu looks more like an opportunistic "hey, look at me trying to do stuff about this thing" than an honest effort. But hey, if it gets the message across, why complain.

[–] harpon-1 7 years ago

skinhead something or other,,,

[–] marka99-1 7 years ago

Please spare me your lectures about your personal life, because I don't care.

Gotta agree with this. Interviews with celebrities or athletes are such a waste of time. Softball questions and whatnot about things I don't care about either. Do I like your performance? That's all I care about. These things rarely tell the truth about the person anyways.

[–] greg-233 7 years ago

"I'd rather see the same facts presented to me by a scientist. Please spare me your lectures about your personal life, because I don't care."

To be honest, I don't think it would make much difference WHO made a documentary about global warming. Even if the documentary had been made by an actual climate scientist, the deniers out there would still accuse the climate scientist of having a "political agenda". Never mind the fact that 98% of climate scientists have reached the consensus that climate change is real and humans are causing it, the deniers will insist that those climate scientists are part of a big socialist conspiracy to wreck the economy and that the other 2% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus are being intimidated into silence.

You can't reason with conspiracy theorists. They're a bit like creationists. No matter how much evidence for evolution a biologist provides, the creationists insist that Richard Dawkins is the Antichrist and evolution by natural selection is a trick designed to turn people away from God. Trying to get through to these people is largely a waste of time, which is why Richard Dawkins doesn't bother debating with creationists.

[–] grybop 7 years ago

I'm with you on all that, besides I stated clearly enough that I'm not doubting the facts presented in the documentary. It's Al Gore's motives I'm doubting, don't get mixed up.

[–] greg-233 7 years ago

"It's Al Gore's motives I'm doubting, don't get mixed up."

Yes, I know.

While politicians are supposed to be good at public speaking, they're inevitably going to be perceived as biased, especially as climate change was turned into a political issue before An Inconvenient Truth had been made. In a country like the United States a person's view on climate change tends to depend on which political party they side with. The thing is, getting a climate scientist to communicate something as complicated as climate change to the general public can be problematic. Scientists who are used to thinking in the specialised technical terminology of their field generally aren't good public speakers, and would probably have trouble making their work intelligible to the masses. The fact that climate change had already been turned into a political issue would work against them too. It seems to me a lot of people deny climate change simply because they associate it with the Democrats. This is unfortunate.

[–] grybop 7 years ago

There are some strictly green parties in Europe, where I live, but in general, environmental issues here tend to supercede any political orientations and are addressed and dealt with by most parties, sometimes even in co-operation.
It is sad to associate ecological consciousness with a certain political party indeed.

[–] theunbeholden 7 years ago

Sad? 70% of the US is clustered in big cities people brainwashed by socialist programs, of course thy are going to be bending over backwards to believe the media, hollywood (yes Al Gore is part of hollywood since he brainwashed a new generation of dunder heads) & the democratic party regardless of whether its based on evidence or not, hence all the *beep* about climate change & govts attempt to start a trillion dollar carbon trading scheme using doomsday prophecies of a melting earth (even it was a cooling earth or Ice Age threat back in the 60s and 70s according to climate change models back then).

[–] greg-233 7 years ago

"It is sad to associate ecological consciousness with a certain political party indeed."

It's also very immature. 

[–] mlaughlin22 7 years ago

Mostly its very boring

Fix the error reports on this site

[–] cartesianthought 7 years ago

this is a persuasion piece and not a lecture. gore was presenting this to the average american and not a group of college students.

it was a good idea to have variety. most would've found pure lecture to be boring, so added personal bits to break up the monotony.

if you want to persuade, you need both logic and emotion. he delivered well on the logical front, and while maybe it could've been less personal, i don't think the personal elements detract too much from the movie.