07-11-2006, 04:47 AM
Oh calm down, willya? Have some decaf... I think you're picking the wrong things to complain about.
From what I understand from his interviews (Leno, Stewart), Al Gore did not make the movie. He made the slide show. Some filmmakers (forgotten the names) saw the slide show, and thought they could make a movie of it, or more precisely, about Al Gore trying to spread the message within the slide show.
The movie is not a documentary about global warming. The movie is a documentary about Al Gore giving talks about global warming. So including Al Gore in a documentary about Al Gore was only natural. Now, most of us find the topic of global warming more interesting than Al Gore, so I can understand your disappointment. I found repeated shots of him <strike>typing</strike> keyboarding at his <strike>laptop</strike> notebook tiring.
But also remember this: if the movie had had unbroken coverage of global warming, for the entire movie, I can guarantee that every eye in the house will have glazed over within 20 minutes.
Also, you seem disappointed that the movie lets you connect the dots yourself rather than beating your head with them. But, don't we continually hear that environmental warnings are usually presented in "shrill chicken-little" style? Isn't using understatement better then? Or is this another "damned if you do" etc. that seemingly all liberals or Democrats get saddled with?*
I found that one little thing at the end of the film to be uplifting. One of the things the ordinary citizen can do is to promote truth. If someone says something you know to be false, challenge it. This requires that you learn the facts, and remember them so you can back yourself up rather than be just issuing opinion. (Opinions such as "I believe the earth will survive" or "I don't think this is anything humans are doing" IMO should be smacked down, but I need to get more facts.)
Occhi, you have the freedom to spout against warming without getting behind Gore at all. You can be your own master. Or maybe you can hitch your hybrid wagon to that skeptic guy from SciAm, mentioned elsewhere in this thread. So don't fret about the movie so much, just be glad that more people are paying attention. Maybe if people dismiss warming because of Gore you can set them straight. (I think you like trying to set people straight, no?)
I don't agree with Kandrathe about the one "crisis" at a time, if that's used as a justification for not taking action. If you do that, then you're always just handling one issue at a time, and yes, you'll only be dealing with crises. Deal with a crisis, but don't let that interfere with taking rational action on other issues, especially those that can or will become crises later if no action is taken.
On a side note, I agree with you that nuclear power should be part of the solution. The most shocking thing about Bush for me lately was that he said something I agreed with: that we should implement "recycle-fuel nuclear", something you're no doubt aware of (esp since Lissa was mentioning it I think), but of which I only learned about 6 months ago. I used to be against nuclear power, but I feel that the combination of the lesser-risk fuel with passive safeguards (smaller, pebble reactors) have made it "safe enough". (Note that my level of knowledge about it is only as deep as that of a Scientific American reader.) ... but I also have questions-- where does all the uranium come from?? Will demand for uranium ever become another energy crisis? Will it make some African nation too powerful in world affairs? I am ignorant about this. Thank you. Do I just leave the microphone right here? Okay.
-V
Emergency Response Coordinator
The Forsaken Inn
*e.g., if you might have done anything wrong you're "Slick" but if you haven't you're a "Boy Scout"; e.g., if you didn't go to Vietnam you're a draft dodger (Clinton but also Bush, Cheney, Rove) but if you did you either had it easy (Gore) or did not serve to the satisfaction of 100% of the other vets (Kerry)... oops, long digression for another thread
From what I understand from his interviews (Leno, Stewart), Al Gore did not make the movie. He made the slide show. Some filmmakers (forgotten the names) saw the slide show, and thought they could make a movie of it, or more precisely, about Al Gore trying to spread the message within the slide show.
The movie is not a documentary about global warming. The movie is a documentary about Al Gore giving talks about global warming. So including Al Gore in a documentary about Al Gore was only natural. Now, most of us find the topic of global warming more interesting than Al Gore, so I can understand your disappointment. I found repeated shots of him <strike>typing</strike> keyboarding at his <strike>laptop</strike> notebook tiring.
But also remember this: if the movie had had unbroken coverage of global warming, for the entire movie, I can guarantee that every eye in the house will have glazed over within 20 minutes.
Also, you seem disappointed that the movie lets you connect the dots yourself rather than beating your head with them. But, don't we continually hear that environmental warnings are usually presented in "shrill chicken-little" style? Isn't using understatement better then? Or is this another "damned if you do" etc. that seemingly all liberals or Democrats get saddled with?*
I found that one little thing at the end of the film to be uplifting. One of the things the ordinary citizen can do is to promote truth. If someone says something you know to be false, challenge it. This requires that you learn the facts, and remember them so you can back yourself up rather than be just issuing opinion. (Opinions such as "I believe the earth will survive" or "I don't think this is anything humans are doing" IMO should be smacked down, but I need to get more facts.)
Occhi, you have the freedom to spout against warming without getting behind Gore at all. You can be your own master. Or maybe you can hitch your hybrid wagon to that skeptic guy from SciAm, mentioned elsewhere in this thread. So don't fret about the movie so much, just be glad that more people are paying attention. Maybe if people dismiss warming because of Gore you can set them straight. (I think you like trying to set people straight, no?)
I don't agree with Kandrathe about the one "crisis" at a time, if that's used as a justification for not taking action. If you do that, then you're always just handling one issue at a time, and yes, you'll only be dealing with crises. Deal with a crisis, but don't let that interfere with taking rational action on other issues, especially those that can or will become crises later if no action is taken.
On a side note, I agree with you that nuclear power should be part of the solution. The most shocking thing about Bush for me lately was that he said something I agreed with: that we should implement "recycle-fuel nuclear", something you're no doubt aware of (esp since Lissa was mentioning it I think), but of which I only learned about 6 months ago. I used to be against nuclear power, but I feel that the combination of the lesser-risk fuel with passive safeguards (smaller, pebble reactors) have made it "safe enough". (Note that my level of knowledge about it is only as deep as that of a Scientific American reader.) ... but I also have questions-- where does all the uranium come from?? Will demand for uranium ever become another energy crisis? Will it make some African nation too powerful in world affairs? I am ignorant about this. Thank you. Do I just leave the microphone right here? Okay.
-V
Emergency Response Coordinator
The Forsaken Inn
*e.g., if you might have done anything wrong you're "Slick" but if you haven't you're a "Boy Scout"; e.g., if you didn't go to Vietnam you're a draft dodger (Clinton but also Bush, Cheney, Rove) but if you did you either had it easy (Gore) or did not serve to the satisfaction of 100% of the other vets (Kerry)... oops, long digression for another thread