Former Vice President Al Gore presents an eye-opening and
compelling view of the future of our planet and our civilisation.
This is a wake-up call that cuts through myths and misconceptions
to deliver the message that global warming is a real and present
danger. This DVD brings home Gore's persuasive argument that
we must act now to save the earth. Each and every one of us
can make changes in the way in which we live our lives and
become part of the solution...
Inconvenient Truth is
a documentary based on former Vice President Al Gore's slide
show presentation about the effects of global warming on our
planet. However, unlike most documentaries, this is a pretty
one sided view with no attempt to show any view other than
the fact that we are causing a catastrophic change to the
climate of our planet's environment.
I know that scientists the world over have differing views
on this, and that the majority are in agreement that things
are bad. But I am always rather sceptical of experts claims.
Why? Well, reports and statistics can always be bent to fit
an individuals arguments. Remember the Millennium Bug? Remember
the way that the establishment paraded expert after expert
to tell us that on New Year's Day in the year 2000 computers
would grind to a halt and the world would stop turning etc.?
something like this should have been simple to prove - it
was a "scientific fact" we were told would definitely
happen. Unless industry and individuals paid a fortune (and
some did) to have computer systems upgraded then their businesses
would be unworkable over night. And what happened? Nothing.
On reflection the whole thing looks like a huge con cooked
up by IT experts to make more money - they even got the UK
government to produce fact sheets and guides on how to help
overcome the problem. And all for nothing.
Inconvenient Truth examines another theoretical horror
- that unless we change the way we live, our planet will become
unliveable for the human race. While this is an interesting
and thought proving movie, I had a few issues with it.
to give you a bit of background of where I am coming from
I think it's important to give you a brief explanation of
my professional career. I've been a journalist for industry
trade publications for years, and for a number of years I
was the features editor of Electronics Times. Whilst
there one of my main areas of expertise was the impending
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive.
As a consequence of this I travelled all over Europe attending
numerous conferences on what the directive would mean for
businesses; how companies could prepare for the directive;
and what the environmental benefits were of implementing the
directive. Because of this, I think it's fair to say that
I know the difference between a good and a poor presentation.
problem with Gore's show is that he quotes scientific papers
and research without actually stating who did the work, for
what purpose and what their final conclusion was.
Gore constantly refers to his "facts" as "scientists
believe" or "the experts predict". This means
nothing unless you explain who these scientists are and what
the report was for. Slide after slide is presented with hardly
any of them stating the source of the data. Now, far from
it from me to suggest that Gore simply made all these facts
up, but I think that some sort of context would have been
problem is further compounded when you listen to one of the
audio commentaries. The movie's director, Davis Guggenheim,
states that Gore found all the information for his presentation
on the Internet. Everyone knows that the Internet is rife
with incorrect information and this makes it even more important
that Gore lists his sources.
the end of the DVD lists loads of scientific organisations
it's not really clear how they contributed. Guggenheim states
that Gore's original slide show presentation wasn't usable
as all of his images where too poor quality to be used on
the big screen. Therefore they tracked down new images for
the DVD. So when they thank a source it could just be for
providing a picture of an ice cap, not for the research.
am assuming that Gore makes most of his money these days from
touring the world and giving his lecture to packed out theatres.
And possibly the main reason that a lot of people go to listen
to him is because of his infamousy - everyone knows that he
cruelly missed being elected president of the United States
of America because of some very dubious accounting in Florida
(a debate I won't even go into here, but I think everyone
has their own views on that). Would he play to packed out
theatres if he was just an unknown scientist? I doubt it.
This is also mentioned on Guggenheim's commentary when he
talks about his initial reluctance to direct this movie. He
states that he thought that the idea of the presentation was
compelling in person "when you have a former Vice President
and historical icon" but is not a good idea for a film.
include an audio commentary with the director; an audio commentary
with the producers; an update interview with Al Gore (32 mins);
The Making of An Inconvenient Truth featurette (11
mins); and a music video of the theme song I Need to Wake
Up by Melissa Etheridge.
the end of the day, this movie does make us think seriously
about the potential damage we are doing to our environment,
but whether or not this film will make many people change
their habits is debatable - we are a lazy species. Gore himself
is constantly shown flying all over the world with his lecture
which surely goes against his policy of polluting the environment.
A bit churlish on my part to bring this up, I know, but it
is, sad to say, an inconvenient truth.