An Inconvenient Truth

While Kris was away at Disney with Olivia, Jeff and I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth", the new Al Gore movie about global warming.


I went into the movie understanding and believing that the world is warming. However, my doubts are around the human impact to this warming versus the natural cycle of things. Using the Antarctic ice core data, Gore presented the last 600,000 years of cyclic CO2 levels which directly corresponded to temperature levels. The natural cycles of hot and cold are obvious. Then he showed the current levels of CO2 in comparison, which are, literally, off the charts. This clearly illustrated human impact.

Fact checking exposes a few flaws in some assumptions made, but by and large, most scientist agree there is a larger amount of CO2 in the air than in the past. It appears what is in dispute is just how much equates to significant impact.

Another part of the show illustrated the degradation process of the Antarctic ice shelf and put this in direct contrast to the current conditions in Greenland. The introduction of the fresh water from the Greenland ice sheet would significantly alter the ocean and shutdown the great ocean conveyor belt. I did know this theory going in, but did not know of the comparative physiology of the Antarctic ice shelf and Greenland.

So! The movie did not do a whole lot other than inform us that we are warming up. In the ending credits, suggestions were made on how to reduce our carbon footprint. I glad to see I was doing several of them. I was disappointed not to see gardening as one way to do this.

One contrary opinion was put out by the CEI and was recently disputed by a posting to factcheck.org. You can go to that site to see the point / counterpoint. I actually learned about the movie through the CEI rebuttal ads being mentioned in the American Enterprise Magazine to which I subscribe.

I did walk away wanting to continue to be aware of my impact on the planet, including CO2 emissions. However, I am extremely concerned about CO2 emission regulations. I believe there are substantive reasons other than reduction of CO2 emissions for pursuing alternative energies, fuels and processes that would, in concert with several economic benefits, also result in a reduction of CO2 emission.

I also have concern over the reaction I received from my brother when I told him I was going to see the movie. He immediately bashed the theory and the likeliness of such a thing. He is a environmental scientist and a conservative, but does not seem to be able to be open to a different point of view. Perhaps it is more about the message being delivered by Al Gore. Either way, it seems arrogant to not consider an alternative. Unfortunately, he is not alone and many people, on many issues, tend to pick teams and not accept all possible information. I have done so myself.

I believe I learned something by watching the movie. And ultimately, that is why I went.