Post by Spirit Bomb on Dec 16, 2021 0:11:56 GMT
Because it was 67 degrees F here in the northern US today, I thought of An Inconvenient Truth and remembered that I never posted my personal thoughts on the film. It's definitely time!
Believe it or not, I never actually saw this one back in the day, because my parents were super-emitting climate-change offenders and didn't want me to see the truth. What a god-damn shame. I remember other kids at my school talking about it neutrally, several of whom weren't even democrats, so I feel especially embarrassed that I never saw it back when it was new.
It's true that the documentary is little more than a filmed lecture, so it definitely didn't have the same amount of work/editing put into it as Who Killed the Electric Car, which came out just a couple years afterwards. But this is redeemed by the fact that the information presented by Gore was the film equivalent of water in the desert for americans at the time. The Bush administration garnered international notoriety for aggressively and extensively covering up & suppressing scientific data about climate change to americans, so outside of government-run schools there was very little in the way of climate change awareness for americans during that time. Even our government-run schools were doing bugger-all to lecture kids about climate change because half of the teaching staff were ignorant, car-loving global conservatives, just like the norwegian teacher above.
If you don't believe me, then just re-watch Who Killed the Electric Car or this ASAP science video on the issue to refresh your memory:
Anyway, in regards to the content of the documentary, I actually have two minor complaints. Firstly, there was at least one inaccuracy, probably not intentionally, and maybe just because of an outdated scientific reference. At one point rather late in the film as I recall (I haven't watched the film in over a year now, so bare with me) the doc states that several pest animals will benefit from the effects of climate change, and bats were included in the list. Bats are not pests nor do they benefit from the effects of climate change. As I am writing this most if not all of america's bat species are declining for various reasons, and they feed on pest species like invasive moths so they certainly are not a detriment to mankind. As for why the documentary denounced bats as pests, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that bats are more usually likely to carry & transmit diseases compared to others kinds of mammals.
My second complaint is that the documentary didn't talk about veganism at all; neither the science of veganism or the importance of veganism as a sustainable resource was discussed. Very disappointing. My hunch is that the vegan movement was still in its primitive beginnings at the time this documentary was being made, and there was simply not enough scientific evidence to support veganism as being a sustainable alternative to meat & dairy back then. That's my only guess. I really hope these were just honest mistakes and not made out of some personal bias by Gore, but I can't know for sure at this time.
Regardless, the film overall is outstanding and still relevant today. It's interesting to look back at america during the Bush Administration and here what the leading democrats had to say about the issue of climate change. I'm glad that Gore was this concerned about it. I just wish I had seen this film sooner.
So, even though An Inconvenient Truth isn't as entertaining a watch as Who Killed the Electric Car, it's more emotional and every bit as informative. I give it a 5/5. Still relevant and worth a watch. I just wish it had been the real game changer it aspired to be.
Believe it or not, I never actually saw this one back in the day, because my parents were super-emitting climate-change offenders and didn't want me to see the truth. What a god-damn shame. I remember other kids at my school talking about it neutrally, several of whom weren't even democrats, so I feel especially embarrassed that I never saw it back when it was new.
It's true that the documentary is little more than a filmed lecture, so it definitely didn't have the same amount of work/editing put into it as Who Killed the Electric Car, which came out just a couple years afterwards. But this is redeemed by the fact that the information presented by Gore was the film equivalent of water in the desert for americans at the time. The Bush administration garnered international notoriety for aggressively and extensively covering up & suppressing scientific data about climate change to americans, so outside of government-run schools there was very little in the way of climate change awareness for americans during that time. Even our government-run schools were doing bugger-all to lecture kids about climate change because half of the teaching staff were ignorant, car-loving global conservatives, just like the norwegian teacher above.
If you don't believe me, then just re-watch Who Killed the Electric Car or this ASAP science video on the issue to refresh your memory:
Anyway, in regards to the content of the documentary, I actually have two minor complaints. Firstly, there was at least one inaccuracy, probably not intentionally, and maybe just because of an outdated scientific reference. At one point rather late in the film as I recall (I haven't watched the film in over a year now, so bare with me) the doc states that several pest animals will benefit from the effects of climate change, and bats were included in the list. Bats are not pests nor do they benefit from the effects of climate change. As I am writing this most if not all of america's bat species are declining for various reasons, and they feed on pest species like invasive moths so they certainly are not a detriment to mankind. As for why the documentary denounced bats as pests, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that bats are more usually likely to carry & transmit diseases compared to others kinds of mammals.
My second complaint is that the documentary didn't talk about veganism at all; neither the science of veganism or the importance of veganism as a sustainable resource was discussed. Very disappointing. My hunch is that the vegan movement was still in its primitive beginnings at the time this documentary was being made, and there was simply not enough scientific evidence to support veganism as being a sustainable alternative to meat & dairy back then. That's my only guess. I really hope these were just honest mistakes and not made out of some personal bias by Gore, but I can't know for sure at this time.
Regardless, the film overall is outstanding and still relevant today. It's interesting to look back at america during the Bush Administration and here what the leading democrats had to say about the issue of climate change. I'm glad that Gore was this concerned about it. I just wish I had seen this film sooner.
So, even though An Inconvenient Truth isn't as entertaining a watch as Who Killed the Electric Car, it's more emotional and every bit as informative. I give it a 5/5. Still relevant and worth a watch. I just wish it had been the real game changer it aspired to be.