An Inconvenient Truth

[Occhidiangela]

No. The *reality* of one world disappears as soon as competition and greed enter the picture. People adopt the totally insane notion that the biosphere, somehow, cares about our borders, our sense of right and wrong, our desire to live the good life.

We only have one of these planets. If we destroy its ability to maintain us, colour televisions will seem scant consolation, as will petty arguments about whose economies it would have wrecked.

-Jester

The problem, and my initial barb about teaching my kids about propaganda with this film, is the messenger, not the message. A number of reviews I read at Rottentomatoes hit the words I was looking for, even though most reviewers gushed like an oil well in the East Texas fields of the 1920's. (That's all to the good, until one considers Hollywood, and the entertainment industry, has a significant liberal slant.)

The fact of global warming is not in dispute with me. Trust me on this, I live in South Texas. It impact is felt here. The clmiate patterns now and 20 years ago, when I was a young flight instructor, are significantly different, and significantly drier, not to mention warmer. The cause and effect relationship is where the scientists are still trying to find answers -- may their efforts not be in vain.

The critical question to ask, in my view, is why Al Gore? How is it that he is the front man for this "documentary," unless it is a film whose aim is propaganda? There are many very outspoken environmentalists, scientists, and Green advocates who would be more credible witnesses if one were to presume an objective look. (I saw Blue Water, White Death as a teenager. That was a documentary.)

Is it because no one else would make it? Probably not.

It is because only Al Gore could call in enough favors in liberal Hollywood to get the distro and spin machines there to support it, to get it massive press, and to get it to a wide audience? More likely.

Is it therefore reasonable to suspect, as cynical old me does, that there is more to this than an objective documentary? Yes, particularly given Al's unclean hands, his emotions regarding the party politics in the US over the past 20 years.

From a complimentary review:

Even with gas prices it's still winning, which is why "An Inconvenient Truth," for all its limitations as cinematic agitprop, deserves an audience

From one of the reviews that was less than complimentary:

What is missing from “An Inconvenient Truth” is the inconvenient truth that global warming actually accelerated during the 1990s, when Gore was the number two man in the Clinton White House. The film also omits that the U.S. auto industry (including the auto workers union) have repeatedly and successfully fought against energy standards during the 1990s – and that Clinton and Gore never forced them to acquiesce since they were profiting from their financial campaign contributions.

While the last sentence smells to me like an overstatement, and a secondary effect of the return to the Republicans to a majority in Congress during that decade, the more critical question is this:

How is he credible when his efforts, when in a position of influence, were so etched with political opportunism and Green failure?

I am going with my son tonight.

Maybe the message is: Don't wait for a politician to do something, people, take the initiative on your own, and take the initiative for political change on energy policies on your own.

All that politicans, like Al Gore and others, are interested in is their own exercise of power and influence.

Occhi