An Inconvenient Thread

Has anybody seen the flick yet? It doesn't hit our town for another week.

here's my photos from when Al came to Portland last September to give his presentation, a week after Katrina. Several thousand folks showed up for a venue that held only 1300, so Al agreed to give it again that night, so we got back in line for two more hours.

for some fun, read the NY Post review trashing the flick, which has this interesting bit:

He assesses the tradeoff between the economy and the environment with the kind of buffoonery you'd expect in a Marxist comic book, displaying a cartoon of a scale with Earth on one side and bars of gold on the other. "OK, on one side we have gold bars," he says. "Mmm, mmm, don't they look good!"

not really catching the fact that the slide in question(shown here) was a graphic generated by the Bush I Admin about 16 years ago.

Whilst I have no problems with reviews trashing anyone and no particular political leaning one way or the other (at least not where America is concerned, being from Scotland!), doesn't it worry you that a newspaper can spout such crap as "Does this hint that pollution isn't the cause?" (of global warming)... and bases this on the fact that we "got the lead out of our gasoline".

I got the impression, over on this side of the Atlantic, that it was merely the administration that was disputing the fact that it is, mainly, man's actions which are causing and advancing climate change.

So is it the administration and the media, or America in general?

its good tho. go see it.

as a note to all future reviewers:

the best source for contesting a political point in a film really is just reposting large sections of shit from a wikipedia entry.

RT (yeah! michael chricton is the ultimate authority on global warming! all published scientists who agree with Al are untrustworthy leftists!)

and IMDB:

Proof That Al Gore Is The Anti-Christ!
by - hijackers22222 4 days ago (Tue May 30 2006 01:37:42)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
in ascii code, "al gore" = 97 + 108 + 32 + 103 + 111 + 114 + 101 = 666

say what?

Yeah, all the welfare queens advocating use of more efficient, better-engineered machines and processes are welfare queens. Because sticking with crappy technology that spews carbon filth is so American, and embracing change and ingenuity aren't.

This film and the American legacy... 	Sugiyama_IS_MY_GOD 	1	14 minutes ago 	
Global warming is not fact yet! 	okcomputer69 	38	19 minutes ago 	
Gamble 	Cabrone 	12	44 minutes ago 	
Conservatives more worried about gay people than Global Warming 	BC829 	12	1 hour ago 	
Al Gore went to the Earth Day celebration in a fleet of SUVs. 	grundle-2 	2	1 hour ago 	
MIT Prof. of Atmospheric Science calls Warming 'junk science' 	blue_state_conservatives 	2	1 hour ago 	
AL GORE IS INSANE 	ethicalone504 	0	1 hour ago 	
I dont need to care about global warming 	OnlyFireFox 	28	2 hours ago 	
I'm more worried about Peak Oil than Global Warming 	montella09 	3	2 hours ago 	
Yeah, next Gore will want to let Gays vote. Forget this film. 	baloney_muncher 	4	2 hours ago

keyth, why would anybody even bother reading the rest of your post when you begin with a such an obviously stupid assertion? katrina was a category 5 hurricane, and a category 5 hurricane is by definition the most powerful kind of hurricane.

look at this graph of the most intense hurricanes in the past 150 years to make landfall in the US. it was compiled before katrina, but notice the pressure readings of the top three: 892, 909 and 922. hurricane katrina's pressure reading at landfall was 922.

i'm going to go see this because michael brook did the soundtrack.

I'm kinda curious how the success of previous docus(e.g. Supersize This, March of the Penguins) will help the distribution of this one, since they've shown that you can rake in the cash with non-narrative flicks(e.g. docus, M.Moore-style polemics, etc).

RT still has this at 88%/91%, and Metacritic at about 75%/72%.

how much of the criticism of the flick will be attacking the man, rather than the message? is it even possible to separate the two, seeing as how you kinda need a figurehead to deliver the message?

our original plans for the release of this were to get loaded up before hitting Da The Vinci Code, then head into this one when we'd sobered up.

i'm still puzzling over this. Can we make our own parameters, then?

okay, I vote for:

1) Smurfs per hectare
2) # of Blockbuster Video outlets in Wyoming since June 2005
3) awesomeness of the music in Mega Man 2 vs Contra
4) utility of the available weapons in Mega Man 2, in Contra, and Mega Man 2 vs Contra

any others we've overlooked?

I am already hearing this discredited as "Gore's campaign flick," one way or another: ie., one sentence saying the film is good and then an extensive discussion about his chances or intentions for 2008, or one sentence dismissing the film and then the same discussion of 2008. Only occasionally are people seeming to get into the film itself.

Sort of frustrating, in that people say the only reason he would come out and take such a clear position is because he's not playing "I'll say what's necessary to get elected" and then go on to talk about him only taking this clear position as a way to get himself on the playing field again. Pick a position, people, and stick to it.

I remember a talking head on Newshour last week(or before) going on about how Gore saying he pretty much won't run would be the perfect stance for a Presidential contender to take. So it didn't matter shit what Al actually said, there's enough media folks needing yakking fodder.

And, as always, count on the College Republicans to have the most nuanced response.

At least this explains why Tom thought Munich was Capraesque.

Ebert MEANT for his pullquote to be "In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: Al Gore is a STAR."

Republicans have been pooh-pooing peak oil for years. 50 years from now, some Republican will write, "I'm more worried about Global Warming than Mutating Microbots."

Shouldn't it resist rising worldwide prices easier because of this, despite the (semi) fixed cost added to it?

interesting thing is that putting this into your car may or may not void your warranty.

ethanol still costs a lot to produce (despite whatever end-user incentives are out there), and california has most of it shipped in from the midwest (there are a couple of small producers in california, but apparently they can't handle the demand yet).

silver lake -- you're my brother in eastsideness. i'm only gonna be in SL until late august though. this is just a sublet.

And all the bullshit about his personal life, especially where he literally says "back then, I didn't know the difference between work and fun!" just come off as so god damned annoying. Al, let me give you a bit of a hint, people who actually work on farms, not just staying there 4 months of the year and the rest in DC, the type who say "tobacca" without having to force it, know the difference between work and fun. Trust me.

That said, if you're debating the facts presented in this movie you've actively positioned yourself as my mortal enemy at this point. And even as someone who was aware of global warming, I took a lot from this movie, especially the end where he showed exactly what we could do to get Co2 levels below 1975 levels.

Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7-uR_Ibe3w
Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pf5o2HKRfs

The graphs in the film with shock you. The lack of attention or concern people have toward this film is starting to trouble me. Researching online, it seems ignorant people are simply hung up on Al Gore, completely disinterested in the subject of global warming. I don't know what's more shocking: the CO2 graphics in the film or the SUV-loving American indifference toward this very immediate life-threatening issue. I think the problem is just SO bad that people have trouble believing anything could be SO bad if nobody seems to be doing anything about it. And these people are in congress, too!

I seem to recall some debate about global warming on ILE a few years ago, too. Maybe that's why this thread seems to be practically dead in the water. You people are having children, right? And you probably plan to live another 50 years, yes?

The Jon Stewart appearance bothered me because it's almost like he has to play along with the jaded, cynical, jokey bullshit for anyone to take him seriously enough to listen to for a minute or two... then, we can all go back to joking around as if the world isn't about to fall apart.

my eco-footprint is very tiny. don't lecture me.

my eco-footprint is very tiny. don't lecture me.

I don't know, but it seems like people have a lot to say about wars they're not fighting, etc.

I'll lecture you if I want. In fact, I might just track you down and follow you with a bullhorn to lecture you. You can get a restraining order, but I'll just print my lectures on Goodyear balloons or text message you, spam you or pay kids to stand outside your house and shout at you about your eco-footprint.

I mean, I'll chime in with the, "What's the difference? It'll all only be around for another couple of decades before humanity is dead forever?"

this is bullshit. our opinions on the Artic Monkeys have obviously FAR greater import than any attitude about the world going to pot soon. Jeezus, you've been trolling on & off here for years, haven't you figured that out by now?

1. on a scale of 1-10 how much do you like graphs? let answer = x

if x > 5, see An Inconvenient Truth
if x =< 5, see Space is the Place

There's something hilariously tragic about the results of poor or negligent science/empiric instruction immediately turning around and inflicting the same neglect upon the following generation.

well, that's not the worst factual error here, but it's one of them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm?ls

actually, "climate change" is more accurate, and "climate crisis" is far better. Global Warming is going to fuck up a lot of things, one of which might result in Europe getting colder.

so "Climate Crisis" is a better, more accurate way to refer to it.

This really does scream 'we will pursue economic growth in the same old unsustainable way until the place becomes totally uninhabitable and then science will bail us all out and we can carry on as normal'. But at least there is some acknowledgement of the damage being done to the environment there.

http://www.memorygongs.com/spacemirror.jpg

I never saw the first one, kinda cuz fearing 'excessive adulation'

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power