Al Gore and the Inconvient Truth

Al Gore (and the IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (BBC 2007) largely for the production of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'
The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change".



To what extent do you think this was deserved? Having watched this film in class did you feel that your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of others) to the issue of climate change could be positively influenced? What did you think of this film? Was it effective?





Firstly I would like to introduce you to Al Gore:-






A man who I have a lot of respect for, and who I believe would have made a better president of the United States than George Bush, but then again anyone would have!!!


Here is a factfile I found on the BBC website about him - just to give a little background knowledge.




Fact File
Date of Birth:31st March 1948
Famous For: Making thousands think 'What if?' when Dubya beat him to the presidency by just 547 votes
Infamous For: His immodest - but arguably correct - boast that he helped create the internet
Soundbite: "You know the old saying: you win some, you lose some... and then there's that little-known third category"
Useless Fact: He was Tommy Lee Jones' roommate at Harvard

I noticed that he cannot be a fool as he went to Harvard, and I have questioned his efforts in the creation of the internet, but my research didn't make me anymore the wiser as to whether or not this was a myth or the truth.

All the same I personally praise all his efforts (in relation to climate change awareness) and believe his worthy of the Nobel Piece Prize. To what extent he can make a difference is questionnable, however he has done all he can within his capability to draw attention (even if it be through the media) to the realities and severity of climate change.

Some would argue Al Gore is an unlikely film star, however I don't think he would regard himself as a film star, I just think that it was a very ingenious way to promote an extremely important message to the people of today and is probably the most efective way to communicate. Personally, the success of the film (An Inconvienient Truth) for me is the fact it takes climate science out of the textbook and moulds it into something which we can see, rather than bore us with lists of facts and statistics, the film uses real life realities to display the severity of the situation. For example, Kilimanjaro. This photo should scare people:

‘Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro."

I think that the views of climate change could be positively influenced after watching the film. It has definately caught the attention of the US, as it became the third highest grossing documentary of all time, returning more than $23m (£12m) and to some extent it has clearly captured the attention of the wider US, where 2.3 million people have seen it.

It has recieved numerous positive comments and Al Gore was praised as "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted", through his lectures, films and books.

Al Gore's motives behind his research are very personal and touching, to me this illustrates the 'human-side' of Al Gore, after all he is an individual, like you and I, I think he is deserving of the award and some people are only against him due to past publicity. From his personal perspective Al Gore hoped the award would bring a "greater awareness and a sense of urgency" to the fight against global warming and he said he would donate his half of the $1.5m prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, who he praises non-stop.

The award can only be seen as a positive thing as Al Gore claims "I will be doing everything I can to try to understand how to best use the honour and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness, and the change in urgency." Even President George W Bush, who defeated Mr Gore for the presidency in 2000, was "happy" at the "important recognition" for his rival and the IPCC, however he has not fully supported Gore's attempt to raise public awareness and educate the world's people about climate change as he has refused to adopt a more "Gore-style" approach to the global warming issue.

All the same, a few flaws have been identified in the film. There have been several claims that it leaves out some of the uncertainties in projections of climate change, and could be accused of concentrating on worst-case scenarios - although as Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey has pointed out, worst-case scenarios can turn out to be the ones that happen. Other's argue that pitifully small screentime has been given to the solutions.

Richard Black, the BBC Environment correspondent believes, 'The main aim, I think, was to scare viewers - to wake people, particularly Americans, from a coal-fuelled comfort zone and demand action from political leaders.
And in a congenial, user-friendly, understated way, he has perhaps created the most terrifying movie of all time'

Post not finisihed - To be continued