Hey all,
As you know Al Gore has been criticized for overstating the case for climate change in his film “An inconvenient truth”. Do you agree with this critique? Can you pinpoint an area in the film where he did? Is it possible that overstating is simply necessary or can it be it counterproductive? Curious to hear what you have to say.
Also, on another note - what is your view on using genetically modified products in agriculture? Should we?
posted by Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir @ Thursday, October 11, 2007
17 Comments:
I thought that Al Gore was a very good lecturer and keept my intrest all the time. I couldn´t pinpoint any overstatement but was aware that the could be. One intresting point was when he was talking about that the scienctis agreed on global warming and it was just a myth that somebody was on the opposite side.. I mean is it really just a myth?
I think it's ok that he overstates - as long as the viewers area aware of it. The problem is that the largest part of the audience has no clue about his overstatements. But fear is a useful tool, and that's what he's playing on.
I was really bothered, however, by his political agenda, and found it interesting how he plays both to emotionally driven people as well as those who are more rational, by jumping from hard facts, graphs etc., to all of his sad family stories. Something for everyone, I guess.
Well it's very obvious the way he uses the scary red line to show the CO2 concentrations, and the shameless use of his own experience, but no doubt that it works. And, as Brynhildur said, no one really knows what will happen, so there ARE wide ranges of what you can say, and still have a significant part of the scientific community behind you.
Found mention of the high court decision about the nine inaccuracies.
BBC with list of inaccuracies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
and an opinion colomn about why the American right hate Al Gore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
(you probably need a login)
I agree that he´s using fear and emotions as a tool, and I think it is necessary for the purpose of the film. About the graphs, I didn´t really notice that they were stretched or deformed during the film (maybe because I was so shocked) but afterwards when I started thinking about the graphs he used, there might have been some over statements there...
I did not like the personal/political stories at all; maybe they were used to hold people captive that are not interested in facts (or don´t understand them, even though this was all very simplified there are some people that just don´t get it). But personally I think that there could have been an even greater success if he would have come up with solutions for people so they could personally reduce their ecological footprint (reduce their carbon emissions, recycle etc.). At the end of the film there are 3-4 suggestions like that but I only saw them because I was looking for them, he could maybe have emphasized them more, just a thought...
On the issue of GM products in agriculture, I think we have to be very careful about that matter. I think it could be very dangerous if we would e.g. create a plant that could become an exotic species (as discussed in class). But on the other hand GM can be a good tool to make agriculture more efficient and there for I think we should at least look into it.
just to add a bit - I thought the personal story when he was saying when and why he got intrested was important. Because one of my first thoughts was why is he doing this and what does he know about this. Like politicians are just politicians and don´t know a thing :)
Hey hey,
In general, I feel it is wrong to overstate, or misstate, the truth. Particularly in this case: if you are going to take the significant amount of time & effort required to make a movie and a companion book, you should be sure the facts you state are true and accurate.
However, one must also consider if the overstatements were made in order to deceive the viewers. It appears to me that the overstatements are quite minor and weren't made with malicious intent; the overstatements don't significantly detract from the overall message of the film, and it is debatable whether the overstatements were intentional or are merely matters of interpretation. If the latter case is true, one cannot be faulted for stating things as he or she may see them.
Finally, the amount of attention this film has attracted indicates the power of the message it conveys. The debate and controversy the film has created demonstrate the profundity of Gore's message and the issue of global warming. In regards to both the film/book and global warming, you can't simply ignore them and hope they will go away...
Oh yeah,
Regarding GMOs: the use of GMOs poses a number of potential dangers to the environment, and it would be foolish to use these organisms without fully understanding and alleviating the dangers they pose. However, just as it would be foolish to proceed without adequately understanding the risks, I feel it would be equally foolish, or perhaps more foolish, to not proceed to use these organisms because of their potential risks.
Debating the use of GMOs without considering the environmental costs and environmental damage that result from using traditional crops misplaces the focus of the debate to the potential harm that may result from widespread use of GMOs without adequately representing their benefits.
Consider that the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico due to the record algal bloom, brought on by excessive fertilizer use, reached record proportions this past summer. Consider also that aluminum contamination in soil causes stunted growth & widespread crop failures in the developing world. Finally, consider the benefits of "golden rice," a strain of genetically modified rice that produces or sequesters necessary vitamins and minerals to combat blindness caused by undernourishment in the world's "rice belt." These, and many other issues, represent areas where GMOs may be applied to the benefit of humanity and not necessarily to the detriment of nature.
Finally, the green revolution begun in the 1950's appears to have plateaued. Arguably, new and creative technologies are essential to implementing sustainable use of resources. A second green revolution through using GMOs represents one area of great potential in making sustainable development a reality.
I sort of liked the movie...Gore is not just rambling about the issue but also backing them up with facts and figures. I do think though that his graphics were a bit dramatic and the way he portrays and conveys the issue is like its just around the corner....
But maybe that was the underlying point of the movie, to change the mindset of people, that this issue should not be taken lightly, it can have devastating consequences.
I failed to understand his sudden emotional "outbursts"....but my good guess would be that he was trying to tell people indirectly that sometimes we tend to take our life and everything around us for granted and we don't realise the their importance until we are about to lose them...
But, he totally fails to acknowledge the group that have already started dealing with this issue and he only mentions Kyoto Protocol once, and very quickly, in the entire movie. He really does not give the Protocol any significance...
and...maybe he could have talked about how to make the Kyoto Protocol work !!
I think that up to a point it may be ok to overstate for the sake of the cause, for the agenda in the film... however it can get negative critising, like it obviously has, and maybe it isn´t really nessessary. But the film was ofcourse meant to get to everybody and then it might be crucial to overstate to get the message through.
The graphs, not showing the axis and so on did bother me a little bit, and also the personal stories... just a little too corny for my personal taste. I still agree with Linda about telling why he has this interest in the subject.
About GMO´s I think it´s ok to use them in agriculture, it just needs to be under a good supervision and control. Also it varies between GMO´s wether they actually have the potential to become invasive if the escape from the culture, or can possibly cause some harm to natural species. A GMO is not the same as a GMO so I think it toatlly depends on what kind we are talking about and where.
Gore uses fear as a tool through the movie and that’s just the American way. It is how politicians get to the public and it is even Bush’s strategy in promoting the war.
I don’t agree that the “fear tool” is necessary for the movies purpose. I just think people need (or needed), what we Icelanders say "A wet cloth in the face" to be woken up and to get aware of the fact that there are some environmental problems due to our living standards. We cannot keep on living as "freebies" on the planet, we are a threat to the environment and we need to know about it (even though many don't want to face it) so we can act on it.
With this movie Gore is reminding people of this and makes people at least think about the issue and it gets more people to act on their conscience than if there were no movie at all. But I also agree that if this movie is used in class lessons then the overstatements need to be pointed out. It would still be an impact on people and get them to think – and we shouldn’t state something in such public grounds without being able to back it up.
About GM products then I support that matter as long as it is under certain supervision. It can be a big threat to the environment if it is not under the sufficient supervision, but we also wouldn’t be able to feed the worlds population without them.
very good stuff here guys. theo i agree heartily with just about all you say on both matters. my feeling is that all this talk about the false statements the film makes are somewhat overstated and i really don't feel they detract from what the man is trying to say or do. i must admit that the film aroused all my worst conspiracy theory leanings, all i could think was: "this seems like a rather decent bloke trying to do his bit for the greater good and he lost to Bush!" i couldn't help thinking that oil money would not want a guy like this in power and that made me think about the whole florida controversy. so i would like to see him run for president again but it looks like the clintons have got their paws all over the throne already.
GM. very touchy on this issue. it does hold great promise but man does it feel iffy though. tread carefullly is all i can say. and when are we sure it doesnt have any averse effects on humans, animals etc.? ie. how long do we need? how often haven't we seen products rushed out into the marketplace only to reap the horrid consequences...
It bothers me a lot that Al Gore is the man putting all of this in the spotlight. He just doesn´t represent a good role model in my opinion. And I think being a good role model is really important in this context because it´s so easy being pinpointed as a hypocrite. He flies all over the world to give his lectures and he´s responsible for the live earth concert series.
To have such a big concert (held in many places over the world) means flying all the musicians to the concert, trucks coming in line to move all the gear for the bands. People flocking to get to the show, and many of them on their own cars, stuck in traffic in neutral for hours to get there. And then there´s a big accumulation of junk after a huge concert like this.
Maybe causing awareness is the most important issue here, but couldn´t it be done in a more nature friendly way? Does Al Gore have to fly all over the world to give his lecture? Can´t he just be online from his home? Maybe thats not powerfull enough, I don´t know. I just got the feeling the whole time watching the movie that he was trying to make himself visible with personal stories and struggles he´s dealt with and I think that´s really inappropriate.
i'm not a Mr. Gore fan. and sure, i found all the drama, corniness and self-celebratory accents in his movie sappy at best, plainly irritating at worst... but that's not the point, i believe. the product does its job, and it actually does it terrificly well. global warming has been a documented (and largely overlooked) issue for decades - Gore and his campaign have contributed to peremptorily bring it on the map and turn it into an award-winning topic. it is no little feat. evidently, everything in the movie is designed and thought as to produce a certain effect, the message tailored for a certain audience (for example, i can see how it may result appealing to an american rather than european public). and in spite of the title (truth isn't the main character here), i think that remains the measure against which the film has to be judged: does it manage to convey that message, to solicit those responses? i would really say it does.
there may be scientific imperfections, or even actual manipulations of facts... personally, during the projection, i did not notice them. i rather felt the sense of urge, of imminence, of call-to-arms, which - i believe - are the real purpose and message of the whole thing. and also now, at a distance, the thought that there are overstatements and stuff doesn't really bother me. the goal of the movie is not to reassess a unique scientific truth, which in fact is still questioned and debated... its goal is to shake people into awareness, and in that sense overstatements are just a mens to an end.
"but overstatements and imperfections are open to criticism and scientific deconstruction" is objected. but what is not? and history reveals that whatever president can hire a bunch of pay-for experts to produce a counter-thesis, still under the blessing of the word "science". which one you want to embrace, i believe, is not matter of only accuracy and exactness. really: are we so-called environmentalists because we are better informed and keepers of a scientific truth that the silent majority ignores? i personally doubt it. i rather think that it also has largely to do with personal values, beliefs, education, perhaps even predisposition... Gore's movie aptly leaves absolute veracity aside, to better aim at the viewers' emotionality, with the declared intent to win new adepts to a cause which is deemed just.
"the movie is not suitable to be employed in classrooms or similar, unless under strict and objective supervision"... probably true, but i think this is none of Mr. Gore's business, nothing he should be blamed for... as far as i know, he did not propose himself as a leading figure in the field of school education, coming out with a new revolutionary package "for all the classroom". he (quite loudly) put a medium on the table, and then it'll be up to others - in this case, educators and their deontological sense - to decide what use to make of it.
which would gladly lead me to spend some words about the gordian knot of science, society and the interface between the two... but i realize how over-verbous i am being, so i will rather spare it.
as it comes to GMOs, i must confess that my reaction is purely epidermic and irrational... but the whole discourse scares the hell out of me! and i am really ready to give that in a humanized world nature as such does not exist, that it is all socialized nature, that borders are just fictitious or culturally determined, and blah blah blah... nonetheless, when those boundaries that we still take for granted get to appear too blurred and ambiguous, well, then a sense of strange uneasiness is what comes to prevail within.
It is hard to have a definite view on using genetically modified products in agriculture, as it has its benefits like:
-For crops there is increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance and improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides.
-Food security is increased for growing populations.
But there are many controversies like:
-Potential health impact on humans: allergens and transfer of antibiotic resistance markers.
-Loss of biodiversity of many flora and fauna.
-Few companies could dominate the worlds food production.
-Developing countries could become more dependent on Industrialized nations.
-It is not mandatory to label these products in some countries (e.g. USA).
"In 2006, a total of 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa".
I think using genetically modified products in agriculture should be done very carefully and under strict supervision as this is tampering with nature and the future consequents can not be foreseen.
Marketing strategies for Europe and the USA are usually quite different and I think marketing plays a great role in how you approach the public, especially in the US. Sentimentality and graphics are very important and I think this is not an incorrect marketing approach for the public it was originally intended for, whatever my personal opinion of Al Gore’s thoughts and feelings presented in the film might be and how annoyed was watching it.
I like to think of Al Gore as a marketing salesman of the theory of global warming and in this he is good. I do not want to call The Inconvenient Truth a propaganda film for it is too negative, usually associated with crazy ideas, but the film can hardly be called a documentary . To my opinion it is difficult to see great errors in the scientific data he presents, although the data is sometimes overestimated. The drying up of Lake Chad, snow melt on Kilimanjaro are perhaps as the UK judge ruled, not established consequences of global warming, but if we would ignore all the tendencies we see to support the theory of global warming we would never pay any attention to any of these things. And it is not hard to make people ignore the facts, as it seems to be an inconvenient truth.
I think Al Gores intention with this film was not to post hard core facts, but to get people to focus on the problem, perhaps because of the irreversibility of global warming. The response to the movie in terms of raised awareness would not have been so large if he could only put in hard core facts. If were to demand only hard facts could we have something other than direct measurements on temperature? A few degrees don’t really seem a lot.
Each time I’m thinking about this movie I can not avoid to compare it with Michael Moore’s movies. The way it is presented by a central character, making a kind of show of himself and dealing both with feelings and true facts. And Michael Moore is also criticized for showing facts in a way that deserved his own point of view. I guess that the way people make documentary movie in USA.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t have the feeling Icelanders recycle their empty cans, plastic and glass bottles because they are especially environmentally friendly; but more because they can get money from those.
If US citizens lower their CO2 emissions or whatever kind of pollutions because they have been frightened by Al Gore's movie, that’s ok for me.
As we learned it during lectures, environmental sensibility is not enough to act with efficiency toward environment protection. So let’s use every means we can find, that includes money for companies, explanations for those who listen and fear for those who don’t…
Post a Comment
<< Home