If you have not read Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, or if you have not seen Davis Guggenheim's film version of Gore's slide show (released in May 2006), you might want to read Roger Ebert's review (at rogerebert.com)—particularly if you are a reader of Ebert's film reviews. If you are a person like me, who has followed reports by science writers and is familiar with the consensus of opinion by climatologists the world over, you might wonder why you have to read Al Gore's book on climate.
For one, as a teacher in the field of adult education, I am struck by the economy and brilliance of Al Gore's presentation. It is clearly the result of some "one thousand presentations of the material" all over the globe. Each time, Gore tried to improve it until it became this great example of how to present complex data to converts and resisters alike. Anyone who has aspirations of being a teacher or communicator should watch the film or read the book.
Secondly, Gore did not "invent" the subject, and he takes no credit for the data he has amassed about this, his most important contribution. The material has been available to writers and readers, to teachers, and politicians. This is mainstream science, not "voodoo" science. Gore's slide presentation is succinct, disciplined, fully researched, and timely.
It is no use criticizing the messenger, for extraneous reasons. As Mr. Ebert advises: "You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to." The film is just 100 minutes of your time, and there is not a boring moment in it.
The subject of climate change is so important—as to what we as a nation can do to help our beloved planet—so vastly important that some clever people have spent their money and time on spoofing it in a film of their own. But fortunately, the rest of the world now has access to "An Inconvenient Truth" and can judge it for themselves without distortion and without self-serving mockery.
Seven years ago, I uprooted myself from a vibrant city to a semi-rural area because I became aware that the projected glacial melt and climate change might be sudden. At that time, people laughed at me. Now, after Katrina, fewer people are making fun of me. I mention this with no self-satisfaction, but with deeply felt grief.
Please look at An Inconvenient Truth and see once more the first "magical" pictures of our planet from outer space; see the graphs kept by scientist Roger Ravelle and team showing, as it were, the entire earth "breathing in and out" once a year, kept since the 1950s to see what's been happening; see the photo evidence of what's been happening with the rapidly shrinking glaciers, and see evidence from core drills of glaciers that show the carbon content of layers of ice going back over 650,000 years; study the effect of the gulf stream, the "Global Ocean Conveyor Belt."
Note the number of people who have died from heat waves in Europe, and the year 2005 as warmest. (According to a NASA scientist, it was the warmest in over a century). Note the link shown between the rising heat index and the apocalyptic coastal storms, tornadoes and hurricanes as has been predicted all along. See the connection between the twin problems of evaporation in some areas and flooding in other areas, and why the pipelines are in trouble from the melting permafrost. Care about the plight of people and polar bears, frogs, coral reefs, vanishing Pacific islands, and the shrinking ice caps—this is just a partial list from the first half of the book.
How can anyone spoof the scientific data in the book?
When a caller on C-Span said: "So what? Nature is unstable from time to time," another caller responded: "That is like saying there is cancer in nature, so let's accept the increasing numbers of people diagnosed with cancer." The second caller is the one I would like to emulate.
Feeds