Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:08:56 AM
713325 Posts in 53055 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  An Inconvenient Truth (2006) « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth (2006)  (Read 14899 times)
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 186
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« on: April 30, 2007, 09:13:43 PM »

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (2006) - This was actually an interesting film about Global Warming. Al Gore educates us on the issue of Global Warming. He was just as dull as he was when running for president, but he hits some very good points in the docu-movie. Two of the points that caught my attention were the before and after shots of many glaciers from around the world from 30 years ago and how the recent charts show that this isn't just a weather cycle, but rather their have never been these type increases in 65,000 years like we are seeing today. Al Gore covers all the bases on the subject. He leaves us with some hope that we can change things politically, but I personally can't see it happening without a one world government. Saw this film at a local community college for free.

 Thumbup (7 out of 10 Stars) I don't see anyone intelligently refuting the scientific data presented in the film.

« Last Edit: April 30, 2007, 09:33:59 PM by Scott » Logged

Ash
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 6775


23 Year Badmovies.org Veteran


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2007, 09:23:36 PM »

I don't see anyone intelligently refuting the scientific data presented in the film.


Roger Ebert agrees with you...
Read this

I've been wanting to see this for some time now.
I might have to rent it next time I'm at the video store.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2007, 11:43:30 PM by Ash » Logged
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2007, 09:28:32 PM »

Quote
He was just as dull as he was when running for president
What do you mean dull?
if you mean that he talks through this movie in a monotone PLEASE tell me because I'm going to be watching this in my environmental issues class very soon and I really don't want to inadvertently nap in my 4th hour.
Logged
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 186
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2007, 12:38:11 PM »

Al Gore almost seemed like a wax figure talking about Global Warming and it was rather amusing so don't let that hold you back from watching this film Flackbait. The film is very good. Most of it you've heard before, but the images of the glaciers and the charts he shows will blow you away. The rest about Al Gores story is on the wierd side and you may even enjoy those parts.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 12:50:34 PM by Scott » Logged

DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2007, 01:47:17 PM »

I don't see anyone intelligently refuting the scientific data presented in the film.

I respect Al Gore's composure and intentions, however his film doesn't actually present any scientific data in its original form; everything is manipulated into statistics and graphs.  Obviously there is no entertaining way to present the numerous data behind a statistic, but one must always take into account the subjectivity behind the processes of analysis.  As anyone could recognize from presidential campaign polls, deviation is inevitable and the result of the predisposition (or limitations) of the statistician.

The debate over global warming isn't over the actual "warming" part, but its catalyst(s).  Al Gore presented a myriad of figures showing that temperatures are unquestionably rising, but he was not in a position to prove the cause; his conclusions were merely speculation.  This is similar to the glass half-full/half-empty cliché.  The other side of the debate, which isn't adequately covered in An Inconvenient Truth, is that the data is caused by naturally occurring phenomena.  A paleoclimatologist would be quick to point to periods where most of the earth's surface was covered in desert (as in the Permian/Triassic), or periods where oxygen content was about 40% higher than it is today (as in the Carboniferous), or numerous periods of global cooling (pick your ice age).  In short, change is inevitable and constant.  In fact we are currently receding from a minor ice age.  Another potential non-human culprit lies in the vast amounts of carbon dioxide "trapped" in water molecules at the bottom of the ocean.  The unique binding properties of water allow for the encapsulation of various gases, however disruptions such as tremors can break the shackles and release massive quantities of the imprisoned gases into the atmosphere, altering, among other things, global temperatures.  Michael J. Benton cites this as a contributory cause of the end-Permian mass extinction event in his book When Life Nearly Died.

In short, all intelligent people *should* refute the conclusions of *any* source of information.  That is how progress is made.  If, however, said person arrives at the same conclusion, great!  That person will understand the issue far better for it!
Logged

++josh;
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 186
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2007, 02:02:00 PM »

DodgingGrunge,

Nice post. What did you think of that giant "spike" on the chart based on ice samples. I think they measured 65,000 years. It seems that this one isn't a simple cycle according to the film.

Scott
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 02:06:57 PM by Scott » Logged

DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2007, 02:38:59 PM »

Nice post.

Why thank you!  Haha.

What did you think of that giant "spike" on the chart based on ice samples. I think they measured 65,000 years. It seems that this one isn't a simple cycle according to the film.

As you may have guessed, I'm skeptical on blaming humans (industry) for global warming.  Quite frankly, I just don't think we are that clever or prominent.  When one takes into consideration the approximate age of our planet (4.5 billion years), 65,000 years doesn't account for much (.0014%).  The earth has cycles on all sorts of scales.  They range from hours (marking the passing of days) to tens of millions of years (things like extinction events, etc).  If we were to focus on a period of 65,000 years at the end of the Cretaceous period (directly following the K/T Event), we'd be justified in saying that dinosaurs polluted themselves to extinction.  But this statement is rendered moot if we expand the scope of our observational data.

Now I do not mean to say that scientists know everything there is to know about the evolution of our planet.  As Al Gore pointed out, continental drift wasn't widely acknowledged as recently as half a century ago.  In fact, the two leading branches of physics (the standard model and general relativity) are in conflict with each other!  I just felt it was important to raise an objection to blindly believing a conclusion opined in response to data.

If I were to say that the murder rate in Oakland, CA has increased X% over the past year, that, in and of itself, would be irrefutable.  However if I was to continue in citing the primary cause as violent video games, you'd be under no obligation to agree with me.  You may conclude that crime is rising due to perpetually mismanaged city financing.  We could argue the merits of our conclusions for all time and neither of us would be any "righter" or "wronger".

Science is not a democratic process.  The very existence of a debate (among actual scientists) means that no substantial experimental data exists to justify (or even disprove) the conclusions being drawn.  Our understanding will inevitably grow with time and eventually carefully orchestrated experiments will begin to narrow the list of potential factors.  And the final factor(s), however unfavorable (or inconvenient) they might be, will have to be accepted as truth. 
Logged

++josh;
Doc Daneeka
The Game is Finished?
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 168
Posts: 1849


It's neVer over!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2007, 04:14:07 PM »

Why is this in "Off topic" and not bad or good movies?
Logged


https://www.youtube.com/user/silverspherechannel
For the latest on the fifth installment in Don Coscarelli's Phantasm saga.
rebel_1812
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 22
Posts: 427



« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2007, 04:14:16 PM »

I just felt it was important to raise an objection to blindly believing a conclusion opined in response to data.

very good sentiment!
Logged

*********************
DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2007, 04:52:22 PM »

Why is this in "Off topic" and not bad or good movies?

I believe this is more on the topic of the environmental implications raised by An Inconvenient Truth than the film itself, so it doesn't really qualify as a good/bad movie thread.
Logged

++josh;
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2007, 07:14:15 PM »

Your right Scott Gore does seem like a wax figure and like you said this is a rather good documentary.
It sure beats hearing my teacher lecture all hour as usual.

To DodgingGrunge
Keep in mind it is a well known fact that cars, factories etc. emit Co2 and we have been using these things constantly worldwide for the last 100 years. Also keep in mind that we have cut down millions of acres of trees in the last 150 years. So this means there are less trees to absorb Co2 and convert it to oxygen. And as you know the greenhouse effect is caused by Co2 in our atmosphere. So wouldn't Co2 emissions from cars, factories etc. contribute to the greenhouse effect cycle or not?
Logged
DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2007, 08:23:15 PM »

To DodgingGrunge
...keep in mind that we have cut down millions of acres of trees in the last 150 years. So this means there are less trees to absorb Co2 and convert it to oxygen. And as you know the greenhouse effect is caused by Co2 in our atmosphere. So wouldn't Co2 emissions from cars, factories etc. contribute to the greenhouse effect cycle or not?


CO and CO2 are unleashed by many, many monsters of mankind, certainly!  Cars, factories, appliances, cigarettes.  Heck, every time you exhale you are contributing.  But the world is a very, very large place.  The best estimates we can make seem to suggest that we account for roughly 2.8 - 3.4% of CO2 annually released into the atmosphere.  There's a good visual of CO2 sources here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm .  But our CO2 generation in a discussion on world climates is moot for a number of reasons.  First of all, CO2 contributes less than half a percent (~0.38%) of the total gaseous material that collectively give us the "Greenhouse Effect" (90% is water, water vapor, etc).  Secondly, the warming properties of radiation absorbed by CO2 is logarithmically calculated, meaning the power of each part depreciates as more parts per volume (ppv) are added.  And significantly at that.  Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution are cited as being about 280 parts per million of volume (ppmv).  To give you some perspective, *half* of the heating properties of that gas were generated by the first 20ppmv!  The other 260ppmv were required to generate the second half.  In other words, it'll take a ridiculous amount of CO2 on top of that mixture to make any meaningful change to global temperatures.  If you wanted to, say, double the warmth generated by CO2 from pre-Industrial War levels, you'd need about 90,000ppmv in the atmosphere!  Of course, the level at which CO2 becomes toxic to humans is only 6,000ppmv so we'd never live to see it.  :)  OK, I'll drop it at a third point: CO2 is *essential* to the global food chain.  Because of moderately increased levels of CO2 (and subsequent aerial fertilization), crop yields have increased between 13-15% since 1950.  This is a *good* thing!

It is also worth pointing out that trees are a renewable resource.  In fact, just like potatoes and cows, we grow trees specifically to be used for things like paper.  Today we have 3x as many trees as we did in 1920.

Flackbait,
Isn't discussion fun?  How did your class respond to the film?
Logged

++josh;
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 186
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2007, 08:16:06 AM »

On the subject of global dimming I'd like to mention that on 9-11 with all the planes out of the air the skies cleared up remarkably for just one day.

Also that it is said that volcano's make more pollution than people.

Perhaps its the constant daily pollution that blocks sun light that effects the environment. It's not that we can't have cars, jets, and factories, but perhaps these things could be used in intervals instead of daily operations along with modifying technologies to clean it up. For instance I set my lawn sprinklers for every odd day instead of everyday.

Still I believe a One World Government can only do this.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2007, 08:21:32 AM by Scott » Logged

Derf
Crazy Rabbity Thingy
Proofreader
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 429
Posts: 2564


Lagomorphs: menace or underutilized resource?


« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2007, 08:51:50 AM »

Like DodgingGrunge, I'm something of a skeptic concerning the causes behind the current climate change "crisis." Gore quite obviously politicized his data to "prove" his conclusion that mankind is the cause. However, there is also significant climate change occurring currently on Mars. Are those little solar-powered rovers the cause of that?

I will have to go with my strengths (as an English instructor, I know how to argue) since I do not have the scientific background that DodgingGrunge seems to have (or at least the interest in physics that he seems to have). That said, the argument that humans are the main cause of climate change has too many holes to be taken at face value. The earth is very old. We have records of climate data going back only a very short time, relatively speaking. That data, in my mind is somewhat questionable: How accurate were the instruments used to measure temperature and other weather-related data 100 years ago? 200 years? 300 years? What time of day were the data recorded? Over what kind of surface (It will get much hotter over a paved or sandy surface than over a grassy one)? These questions begin to show some of my doubts. There are others.

I have learned to never take a one-sided argument at face value; particularly one that is presented by a politician, since by profession politicians take stances and try to persuade others to adopt that stance. I do believe that we should take care of our environment (as a comedian once said, "Even a dog knows not to go where it drinks," and a dog will eat cat dung and lick its own behind). We are responsible for taking care of the things around us, be they plant, animal, house, town, state or country. However, alarmist tactics such as Gore's "documentary" have to be taken with a grain of salt, whatever political ideals you might have.
Logged

"They tap dance not, neither do they fart." --Greensleeves, on the Fig Men of the Imagination, in "Twice Upon a Time."
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 186
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2007, 11:35:23 AM »

Generally I don't believe much of any news and info that we are fed by the networks, but for arguements sake we must have something to talk and exercise our opinions and beliefs about  Smile.

There are vast areas of this planet that appear untouched, but I do believe the parasite we call humanity is causing an effect on the planet. We are raping the planet. Yes, we can plant new trees and recycle, but there are just to many people living on the planet.

As for me politically I'm so far left that I often seem like a right-wing extremist and I have no problem voting Republican because they aren't as wishy-washy as the Democrats. Politics is nothing more than a pro wrestling arguement promoting their next big politcal match up and the outcome is already predetermined by big money. It's all for the consumption of the masses to make us believe we are making a difference. Truthfully there are no existing political parties that represent my views, nor do they come close, but it's a good excercise for the mind anyway. Their are many layers to everything including truth. When we speak we usually are speaking from only one layer at a time and truth is never found. Right now the gap is to far to bridge and people mis-understand.

Anyone remember the old Native American "Keep America Beautiful" commercials back in the 70's? Global warming is either the biggest hoax or we are in big trouble. It's kinda like an unbeliever thinking of the monotheistic God and salvation's "what if it's true" question and the only way to find out is to go to the other side. Time will tell.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2007, 01:44:15 PM by Scott » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  An Inconvenient Truth (2006) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.