comment #1

Doug says ...

Which will do more business? [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i] or [i]United 93[/i]? I'll guess that most people who see one will at least try to see the other.

comment #2

JD says ...

I'll say this: I haven't seen The Da Vinci Code, but I have seen (and admired) An Inconvenient Truth and I don't know anyone who has seen both. Obviously, with the number of people who have seen The Da Vinci Code, some are bound to see An Inconvenient Truth, but I agree that they're polar opposites in a significant way. The Da Vinci Code is 100% escapism and An Inconvenient Truth is 100% confrontationalism (if that's even a word). The sad thing is, people watch the news for all their information about the world because it doesn't challenge their complacent worldview or suggest that they have any control over their destiny. This movie is important because it does both of those things.

comment #3

Colin says ...

*** Da Vinci Code spoliers ***

In a way, this dovetails perfectly with the ending to the movie version of The Da Vinci Code. Langdon and Sophie have just discovered that Mary Magdalene was not in fact a prostitute, but instead the mother of Jesus’ child. Jesus was seen as a nice enough chap until some guys decided to rewrite history so as to make him the savior and to eradicate the concept of the sacred feminine.

So, Sophie, of course, would want to expose this, right? Heck, this is what Ian McKellan’s Sir Leigh Teabing was attempting to do, albeit through some Magneto-esque moral flexibility. But no, Langdon instead essentially asks her, what would Jesus do? Would he have us destroy the faith that has built upon this lie to end all lies? Why not just be ostriches and bury our heads in the sand, keeping our patriarchal ducks in a row? And I’ll be damned if that isn’t exactly what Langdon does at the Louvre in the film’s concluding shot as he finally discovers the ultimate grail and bows his head in prayer.

Some have called Langdon an Indiana Jones redux, but in Howard’s film he’s really the government spooks burying the ark of the covenant at the end of Raiders. But dammit, if global warming is down there, too, wouldn’t we want to see that exposed, rather than burying our heads in the sand?

comment #4

Anonymous says ...

makes me think of this Onion bit

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48972

comment #5

J. Huff says ...

Hmmm...Doug, I'm not so sure I agree with you. My wife and I went to see United 93 and thought it was amazing. Not the kind of film you enjoy, per se, but thought it was excellent filmmaking and an amazingly realistic look at 9/11. On the other hand, I have no plans to see An Inconvenient Truth. I lean to the right, but I've leaned to the left in the past and continue to follow my faith (Christian, though not fundamentalist) rather than a political party. I read sections of Earth in the Balance many years ago and found it interesting but not scientifically convincing. I'm not sure that Gore has come up with anything more convincing in the meantime. He's been on this particular warpath for so long that I am not sure he is clearheaded on the issue, or even can be. I would be much more inclined to see An Inconvenient Truth if it didn't have Gore attached to it. Sad, but the politics of it will get in the way of any truth it might contain...

comment #6

Dennis O'Bell says ...

An eloquent, polite post, Mr. Huff.

Eloquent and wrong. Sorry your "faith" (and, no doubt, your current politics) blind you to incontrovertible scientific fact, Mr. Huff.

[Rolls eyes, sighs at the soft, well-intentioned idiocy of the masses]

comment #7

Nicol D says ...

And for once no one can blame the Red Staters.

DaVinci is as Blue a Blue State movie can be...just like An Inconvenient Truth.

Go figure.

comment #8

Steve Rhodes says ...

You should see it.

Gore is more clearheaded in it than he has ever been. He isn't the Al Gore you remember.

I saw AIT and I'll see the TDC because a friend is a fan of the book (which I've started reading).

comment #9

Matt says ...

Flying with Wells sounds like a hoot. He's should start his own airline, where instead of In-Flight, passengers can be treated to copies of Denby and Lane reviews. That way, people who fly Pretentious Air know how stupid they truly are.

comment #10

JD says ...

Why is the survival of our species such a divisive issue? I don't get it. The only "scientific evidence" I've seen that opposes Gore's conclusions has come from people and businesses with a clear-cut financial stake in this issue. If you're getting your environmental statistics from companies like Exxon or one of the politicians/news organizations they're in bed with, something's clearly amiss. And what is Gore's ulterior motive supposed to be? Travelling around the world giving slide-shows isn't a very profitable "lie." Hell, making it into a (potentially profitable) movie wasn't even his idea.

comment #11

Scotter says ...

People who choose not to see it do so because they choose not to subject themselves to someone who has come off as a condescending prig in the past. Perhaps his delivery has been cleaned up so he comes off as more "clearheaded", but if every one of his advocates takes up the slack by, you know, refering to potential audience members as "hee-haws" and such, then it won't really make any difference.

comment #12

JS says ...

It's funny how people who complain about being called names start off their posts by calling the subject of this movie a name, namely "prig." Sorry, you confuse Al Gore with the man he ran against in 2000, the current Commander in Chief. Seriously though, Al Gore was never a "prig" and I'll even venture to say that he was never even as condescending as people have accused him of being. Al Gore's a thoughtful, intelligent man who has been the Vice President of the US, a world reknowned author and an Ivy League professor--I think he's earned the right to sound authoratative on the subject that he's spent his life championing. Here, here to JD's post. It boggles the mind to think that a lot of this country praised W for sounding like a regular guy, while they villified Gore for sounding too smart. I'll take the "too smart" man's message any day of the week, even if he speaks in a monotone.

comment #13

JD says ...

Believe me, most of the people going to see this movie aren't going to see it for Al Gore's virtuoso oratory skills or his winning personality. The issues involved are way more important than that. If you choose not to be informed because Al Gore bugs you, I think you're making a mistake and overlooking an important, vitally informative film. Hundreds of scientific essays have presented the same evidence as Gore, but the breadth of this material and the clarity of the presentation is extremely useful for non-scientists who hope to get a grasp on these concepts. Of course, there's no accounting for those who DON'T want to get a grasp on these concepts. It's not like the survival of the human race is at stake, right guys?

comment #14

delbomber says ...

Mr. Wells...By your logic and established track record, red-staters are dribbling, mouth-breathing, Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer watchers and probably wouldn't know if they were holding a book upside-down unless there's a cross on the front by which to set their bearings.

Who then does this leave as the subject of your ire? The failure to riff on red-staters is quite conspicuous and leads one to the innevitable conclusion that, gasp, you are chastising "blue-staters".

...But I thought all blue-staters were progressive and contemporary thinkers...how can this be?? Well despite your logical fallacy, I'm
sure you're still jabbing those 'ole hayseed reds.

One thing I find particularly ironic is that the past three years have been filled with cries from the left that dissention is right and necessary. Just as none of us were qualified to make the call on Iraq, 99% of us armchair scientists are not qualified to make the call on global warming--Al Gore included. Yet those who were most adament about the patriotic virtues of dissent are now calling dissenters of an alternative subject affecting national welfare stupid and ignorant.

Saving the environment, and ourselves as a side-effect, is undoubtedly a noble cause, and level-headedness leans towards cleaning up our acts. But until a scientist can prove and demonstrate causality--that is prove that an exact amount of atmospheric CO2 (or any other gas for that matter) contributes a precise amount to rising ocean temperatures, just as we can precisely define a calorie, prove the heliocentric model or accurately predict the gravitational force between two bodies--shouldn't we as dutiful and rational Americans demand a certain contingent fight for proof that policy-altering evidence is more than just incidental??

comment #15

Roddy Reta says ...

Liberalism would be a lot more popular in this country if it wasn't so gentrified and arrogant. They just don't make them like Harry Truman anymore.

comment #16

Nicol D says ...

JD,

Because you ask...

THe environmentalist industry is also a multi-million dollar industry with money being made from donors.

Fear mongering stops...so do donations...and a lot of people who work at places like Greenpeace and WWF have to seek new jobs.

Again, much os the 'science' is driven by ideology and has been contested for its Marxist roots. Which is to say it is not science but driven by an anti-corporate agenda.

Read some Patrick Moore if this subject interests you. He is the co-founder of Greenpeace who left the movement because he saw it being hijacked and the science being played with.

I am sure Al Gore is sincere and I do not think him a bad guy. But when he says we only have 10 years left...I shake my head.

comment #17

JD says ...

Nicol, Al Gore is not working in collaboration with Greenpeace or WWF, nor does he cite either organization -- to the best of my memory -- in An Inconvenient Truth. Dragging those organizations into this argument has a smokescreen effect, as does the use of big, scary labels like "Marxist." And to compare the "multi-million dollar" environemtalist industry to the multi-billion dollar petroleum industry is kind of ridiculous. When was the last time wars were fought over the environmentalist industry?

"But when he says we only have 10 years left...I shake my head."

Why do you shake your head? Because it's an unpleasant thought or because of the massive pile of scientific evidence you've read to the contrary. And anyway, I don't think Gore's arguing that the world will just suddenly implode in 10 years. He's arguing that we will have passed a tipping point and irreversible changes will have taken place. Is this completely unbelievable to you?

comment #18

J. Huff says ...

Mr. O'Bell -

At least I will admit to my faith upfront. For you to say I am wrong based on that item makes you appear to be the less tolerant one here.

But really, this is the whole point of Jeff's post as well. It's just stereotyping based on a single individual -- much as you have stereotyped me, Mr. O'Bell, based on others you may have observed calling themselves "Christians." The ill-informed exist on every side, red and blue, religious and atheistic, both readers of Code and not.

I respected Al Gore a lot, at one point in time, and I even donated money to his election campaign in 1992 when I was a senior in high school. I thought he had a lot going for him. However, he continues to slip over into the left fringe, which makes me distrust him. Are there real environmental issues? Yes, and they are acknowledged both on the right and the left. So get somebody from the right to talk about it...there's nothing like getting your "enemy" to agree on what, if it is true, is a most important issue.

comment #19

Nicol D says ...

JD,

"When was the last time wars were fought over the environmentalist industry?"

This too is a smokescreen JD.

But, millions have died and starved in Africa because environmentalist groups who hold sway over the UN will not allow DDT's to be sprayed to kill malaria. They also influence the food industry and will not allow certain foods (that are safe for human consumtion) to be produced and given to starving nations because they do not conform to their extremist standards.

Look, I know we need to protect the environment. I respect that and do not think corporations should be exonerated.

I also have quite a few few friends in the environmentalist industry and they know nothing about science but have a very hardcore Marxist anti-corporate agenda. They then go on to influence the 'science'.

WWF and Greenpeace are major players in the environmental industry...whether it is millions or billions is irrelevant. They have major sway over research financing and the results they produce. Results that Gore most certainly would quote in his movie.

You should question any 'science' that comes from a party with a stake in its result. That means the oil industry; and also the environmentalist industry which, over the past 2-3 decades has morphed into something resembling a New Age religion with extremists at many ends.

Take comfort...the environment will not be destroyed in 10 years and we are not at a tipping point. Remember, the 'coming ice age' from the 70's scare and the peanut butter can give you cancer scare...they had science on their side too.

comment #20

JD says ...

Nicol, you make some valid points, but they have nothing to do with this argument. Why do you keep aligning me (and, more importantly, Al Gore) with Greenpeace and WWF? I'm not a Marxist and, as far as I know, neither is Al Gore. I'm not even an environemntalist, just a concerned citizen with a desire to keep his species alive. I certainly don't know how you dismiss An Inconvenient Truth as an exercise in twisting truth to destroy corporations. Many of Gore's recommendations would benefit corporations, a fact that has been demonstrated by similar changes in other countries.

In any case, Gore attributes his science to peer-reviewed science journals, not Greenpeace pamphlets. By your logic, all science should be dismissed because, invariably, Greenpeace tampered with it. The reason An Inconvenient Truth is relevant is because it represents a scientific perspective on global warming, not an ideological (right or left, Marxist or capitalist), extremist perspective. The USA is one of only two countries in the world that hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol. Is that Greenpeace's doing or have those other countries accepted scientific facts that the American media has gone out its way to blur and confuse?

Are you unable to believe Gore simply because you don't want to believe him? Your only evidence for claiming that we haven't reached a tipping point is that we didn't reach one thirty years ago. By any definition, that's not science.

comment #21

delbomber says ...

But if people like JD could only see through Al Gore's smokescreen...

…some points, of many, for consideration. Let me qualify these points by saying I saw '...Truth' this past weekend and was moved by certain parts, persuaded by others, yet ultimately disappointed by its overt political subtext. As far as internet message boards go I understand my opinion carries little credence, but here goes anyway…

I will start by saying I was stunned by the ostensive progression and advancement of warming to date. Despite being well read on this topic, I fear words on black-and-white pages and computer screens inherently dampen this aspect. While a complete picture of areas unaffected or “whiter” than before was not explored, the point is taken, and I acknowledge the problem is more pressing than I originally concluded.

Without going into too much detail, I want to emphasize my opinion that I do not think anyone can leave their darkened theater disagreeing with the premise that there is a strong correlation between human industrial activity and global warming. On this issue there is no debate.

I also believe Al Gore genuinely cares about saving the planet. Like the premise, however, I think it is hard to disagree that he wishes to do so from the Oval Office, not on the college circuit. Sadly, Gore gets in the way of his own proximate mission and degrades his baby to a partisan commercial that renders it disposable and susceptible to flippant dismissal by opponents. Here are the problems…

Gore is a man of faith. Unless he was whoring himself to the American public seven years ago, his own words support this. Inherent in this belief is that of a creator. The Al Gore who is now being deified for his scientifically sound call to save the planet is the same Al Gore who personally rejects the scientific consensus regarding evolution. Hence, we know Al Gore is a man whose allegiance to science and its virtues is parochial in every sense of the word. For a discerning viewer this revelation and realization should immediately prompt a discriminating, if not cynical, eye towards the man and his message.

Gore is a political animal, and this is an affront to his earth-saving altruism. Lest he lose a few of his unqualified anti-nuclear constituents, he forsakes environmental salvation and exposes his political ambition by egregiously omitting nuclear energy as an alternative to burning coal. Nuclear energy, long smeared by activists and utterly buried by one accident experienced by our old hammer and sickle wielding friends to the east, could light all the bulbs that Al asks us to dim with *relative* emissions approaching zero.

Al Gore is imploring us to make a difference, to send a message to our leaders that things need to change. But by his very own simplistic and linear approach, the problem reached a critical phase while HE was one of our leaders in position to assert change. His avoidance of this reality and transference of blame is severely damaging to his integrity. This is troubling in its own right and even more damaging to his credibility in the context of his personal habits as they relate to oil and his insistence on finger-pointing...

Beyond the deceptive toying with scales and percentages and his repeated paradoxical and Freudian shots of his own addiction to combustion powered conveyance, perhaps the most incredible and discrediting scene in the entire movie contains compulsory images of hanging chads and George Bush, underlining and put an exclamation point on the political motives behind this movie. Spreading blame won't save any polar bears and trying to discredit Bush, and Republicans by association, for joining the Aussies in opposition to the Kyoto Accord is underhanded and deceitful. If Bush has done ANYTHING right, and god knows it's hard to find much, it is having the mettle to reject this discriminatory and spiteful call for emissions standards that would leave us impotent in a world of Levitra-popping industrial nations. I guess the fact that 95 US Senators under Clinton and Gore effectively rejected this treaty isn’t worthy of mentioning?? As Mike Wallace would say, “come on.”

There you have it. Gore shows off blatant political ambition and silently contradicts his eco-saving objective by disregarding green power solutions, uses statistical trickery to mislead his audience (and creates one of the most oft mis-quoted 'factoids' from the movie), is indignant about his responsibility for this problem dating to his days in office, is a hypocrite for his gluttonous consumption of oil, and is shameless in his rallying and misdirection regarding the disastrous Kyoto agreement.

In a separate conversation I would be happy to expand on my anecdotal notions surrounding Kyoto's content, Gore's use of scales and, to borrow different but poignant words from Mark Twain, lies, damn lies, and statistics, but this is not the point of this posting. I simply wish to provide an objective review of this 'fact-based' movie, from someone who has voted both red and blue as recently as the last election. I am not running for office, I am not selling a movie, I have no allegiance to a particular party, nor is the roof over my head funded by a wage from an energy company. Peering through the smoke any impartial individual will surely find inconvenient ethical dilemmas and ulterior motives that belie the claim that this is the pinnacle of enlightened activism and that Al Gore is the environmental messiah.

comment #22

JD says ...

Nobody's calling Al Gore the messiah. I'm simply arguing that this is an important issue, the film is worth seeing, and Gore's evidence is worth considering. Is it the final word on global warming? No. But it's better than ignoring the issue outright. A lot of people just want this issue to go away and I think that's irresponsible.

Anyway, good for you, delbomber. I'm glad you saw it, thought about it, and formed your own opinions. That's all I'd expect from anyone, but ignoring the issue altogether is an unacceptable alternative.

comment #23

delbomber says ...

Wow JD, gotta hand it to ya...making it all the way through my long-winded post is a feat in itself. I didn't realize how long it was until it was submitted, up and formatted.

You may not be selling Gore as the messiah, but Wells is seemingly standing in line. It's an important movie but one that loses itself in its own over-arching ambition. Gore can not at once focus on the environment and his political career without both alienating those Wells implies are meek and riling those who naturally oppose AG. I would have walked away with the highest recommendation, willing to overlook the statistical license he took, instead of being mezzo-mezzo had he shunned his urge for politicking.

Anyway...cheers. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement.

comment #24

Anonymous says ...

D-Bomb:

"The Al Gore who is now being deified for his scientifically sound call to save the planet is the same Al Gore who personally rejects the scientific consensus regarding evolution."

So big Al is an 'Intelligent Design' afficianado?
Or are you calling 'ID' the scientific consensus...inquiring minds want to know.

"Nuclear energy...could light all the bulbs that Al asks us to dim with *relative* emissions approaching zero."

Extremely doubtful conclusion, expensive, "fuel" is rare, & waste product is problematic from environmental/security standpoint.

ps. JD, do some research before you award any 'valid points' to Nicol D, I recommend a little research, most if not all ND's statements are at variance with the facts/public record.

TTFN

comment #25

delbomber says ...

to whom it may concern --

...The scientific consensus being that life arose organically and spontaneously. Gore may subscribe to elements of evolution, but the foundation for life is not one of those elements...abiogenic origin of life is a concept Gore automatically rejects by being a theist, which entails believing in an omnipotent creator. That said, I am not implying he is a strict Creationist, I'm sure he believes dinosaurs were real and agrees the universe is more than 5000 years old, hell even John Paul II waivered on this point, but his allegiance to science is selective, convenient, and as I said earlier, parochial...

As for nuclear energy, its harmful by-products are local in nature and would never threaten global civilization. It IS cheaper than wind generation and burning fossil fuels, and arguments about security are endemic to our current climate of fear-mongering. In the years since Three-Mile and Chernobyl, technologies have advanced even further to make it safer and more viable. It is the only source of power for which disposal and waste containment costs are explicit. Even if it WAS more expensive than traditional means of power generation, which it is not, I think proponents of green emissions such as Gore would consider those added costs--relative to the fate of the world--necessary and trivial. Of course Gore doesn't, the reason why being explained in my last post.

comment #26

brer rabbit says ...

"abiogenic origin of life is a concept Gore automatically rejects by being a theist"

So Al believes in God and thus precludes the possibility of evolution?

"Even if it WAS more expensive than traditional means of power generation, which it is not"

AFAIK, the reactors built in the US were all underbid/under-reported by nuclear energy contractors - even so, I believe kilowatt hr rates were substantially above coal, etc. Most of the right wing nuke scuttlebutt I hear is that expences will be eased by cutting back on regulatory requirements...

ApplePollywoggies for last stealth mode, accidental

comment #27

delbomber says ...

Why do you insist on selectively interpreting what I write? I wrote "Gore may subscribe to elements of evolution...,' hell he may even subscribe to the whole damn theory with the exception of life's origin. Most rational people believe at least that much. Regardless, it proves that he rejects the scientific consensus when it suits his religious or political inclinations.

Studies have shown nuclear energy to be as low or lower than burning coal. But that's not really the benefit, is it? We're talking green, but we're not talking economics. CO2 emissions are negligible...and if your argument were true, we should be willing to pay a $.0002 premium per kwh if it means saving the planet and its hitchhikers, no?

Are you trying to save money or the planet? Choose one. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on every issue and expect to get away with it. Do you ever tire of being contrarian, even when you know you are doubling back on your ideals? It's funny...when a solution offers ecological benefit, the economics are attacked. When a solution offers economic benefit, suddenly we're back to ecology...

bah, why bother...

comment #28

brer rabbit says ...

D-Bomb:

Relax. I am not challenging you...I see your meaning, but, I must say, I prefer the company of those Christians who have selectively rejected scientific consensus regarding evolution to those that embrace literal Creationism. I've said before that I'm not a big Al Gore fan but it seems to me that your rhetoric is a little harsh on a guy whose beliefs may coincide with what most 'rational people believe'. My initial question was to find out, since I have not read EITB or any of Big Al's literary endeavors, what he may have said on the subject.

Sincerely

comment #29

delbomber says ...

...and now Al Gore's name has been dropped ENTIRELY from the marketing campaign.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/new-controversy-an-inconvenient-al-gore/

Let us promote him no further.

Cheers, Mr. Mathers.

comment #30

brer rabbit says ...

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on every issue and expect to get away with it.

D-Bomb:

No one is talking out of both sides of their mouth. The 'expensive' statement above was not about vs. cost of clean environment, but expensive relative to other forms of energy. Or even not having energy...meaning the costs associated with nukes (plant construction, security, waste disposal, etc) may exceed what society is willing to pay. I am not saying your estimate of costs vs. fossil fuels, wind, etc. are wrong but others disagree with your assessment.

comment #31

Hydrocodone says ...

Hello all really cool blog
buy ativan buy adipex buy didrex buy levitra buy cialis buy phentermine buy soma buy tramadol buy diazepam buy carisoprodol buy meridia buy paxil buy valium buy xanax buy ultram buy fioricet tooth whitening online pharmacy alprazolam flower online car insurance payday loan web directory business directory carisoprodol hydrocodone buy vicodin alprazolam fioricet hydrocodone vicodin tramadol xanax valium ultram soma carisoprodol ambien ativan lorazepam propecia adipex didrex cialis levitra paxil meridia viagra wellbutrin clonazepam xenical prozac butalbital phentermine