Describitive Analysis in an Inconvenient truth?

Answer 1

It is a fairly well-made documentary that is well-founded on scientific data. I wish some of the footage focused on Gore riding in cars or working on a laptop were cut and replaced by more from his slide show presentations or more from other people – scientists, etc., who are working on the issue. The excessive focus on Gore makes it seem too political, which is a shame because the message is important, and for the most part the movie does a good job of presenting it.

One important thing to notice: If you pay close attention you will find that virtually everyone who downplays the frightful problems of global warming fall into one of theses categories:

1) They've never seen the movie, and have never seriously studied the issues.

2) They've seen the movie, but they have no background in science and thus they just assume that it is all a bunch of baloney because they don't like Gore, or they just assume that all environmental problems are products of left-wing fanatics. Notice that this is a logical fallacy. Attacking the arguer does not refute the argument.

You will also notice that people who criticizes the movie, or Gore's position on global warming, seldom give specific examples of factual errors, nor do they ever give references to respectable scientific studies that support their skeptical view. The reason for this is simple: There are no respectable scientific studies contradicting any of the major claims in the movie. Most of the people offerin major criticism of Gore's position are people who do not have a background in climatology. A few credible scientists are very vocal in their opposition, but even they don’t deny global warming, they just say it is too soon to be sure that humans are the cause. Given the potentially horrible consequences, I would rather error on the side of caution and start moving quickly to cut global pollution. But I have to admit that I would be in favor of this even if there were no threat from global warming.

The effort to smear Gore and/or the movie is a primarily a political ploy, and unfortunately it seems to work fairly well because public influence depends more on political perception than on logic or scientific data.

Answer 2

An inconvenient truth is a sham, not a documentary.
It is a good example of how much attention you can get by pandering to the uninformed public hysteria about global warming.

I'm not saying that global warming is not a problem. I am saying that ultimately, pseudo documentaries about any subject are counterproductive. There are many factual errors on which the producers base their underlying premises. I will not give examples here but they are quite easy to find on the web.

Here is a quick rundown of the entire issue:

1. Contrary to everything you have been told, global warming has not been universally acknowledged by most reputable scientists to be a fact.

2. Even if there is global warming happening, we cannot know at this time if the cause is human activity.

3. If the cause is human activity, the solutions being proposed are impractical and ultimately unworkable.

4. Even if the cause is human activity and we do come up with solutions that greatly reduce our impact on the environment, we (and the Earth) are still in danger from natural processes like super volcanos, asteroid impacts, and loss of the Earth's magnetic field. Any one of these will cause a global catastrophe thousands of times worse that anything humans can do as a result of normal daily activity.

5. If we are "lucky" human civilization will be wiped out by one of those natural disasters (magnetic field, asteroid, supervolcano). I say if we are lucky because it may take thousands of years for any one of these things to happen (although, there is a non-zero probability that any one of these could happen today!).

But more likely, we will destroy our own civilization by virtue of our own utter stupidity: Terrorism, combined with nuclear technology, or biological technology, is probably our biggest threat.

Our capacity for waging war on a massive scale is another smodlering threat. As long as human beings maintain a civilization based on competition (an us v. them mentality), we are in grave danger that conflicts could escalate to horrifying proportions.

We need to transform the way human beings see other human beings. We have to get to the point where we understand that there is no "us" or "them". We are all one single and brilliant force in the Universe. We should be all working together to ensure our future and to provide a life of dignity and justice to every living person.

Answer 3

Hmm those answers aren't very helpful, and they aren't full of facts either. The movie is educational and you should watch it or read the book by the same title. The people who put so much energy into telling people not to believe in global warming will soon be silenced when they get an education, and this movie will help with that.

Answer 4

I will assume you meant to spell descriptive. Analysis: Inconvenient.