Last Saturday I went out with my folks to see An Inconvenient Truth. Since some people passing through here might be wondering if it's worth their time, I figured I'd give my personal review of it here.
First of all, I'll note that if you've been fortunate enough to have attended one of Al Gore's presentations on the issue of Global Warming, this movie likely won't tell you anything you didn't learn there. The primary thread of the movie is precisely one of these presentations. It's also intermixed with relavent stories of Gore's childhood, political career, and scenes from a recent visit to China.
Technically, the movie is very well-made. The pacing is good, and it's intermixed with moments of humor to keep it from becoming too heavy. Gore's narration isn't quite the quality you'd get in most documentaries, but if you keep in mind that the actual presentation was done in entirely one take, it's actually quite amazing (though the voice-over parts seemed like they could have been better, still).
Content-wise, the movie is superb. Its intent isn't focused on what we can do to solve the problem so much as it is on shocking people into realizing we have a problem (which is the part of the issue that needs work in the US). And shock it does. I thought that I was already pretty educated on the issue of Global Warming, but some of the evidence presented still surprised me. The movie also had very good subplots, including one which showed how Gore lost his faith in the government (guess what moment it was).
So, should you see this movie? If you're anything less than sure that we have a serious problem, then definitely yes. Unfortunately, it's not playing everywhere, making it not only an inconvenient truth but an inconvenient movie. It's still worth it.
I had a couple minor quibbles with it, though. One was something I noticed on almost every graph he used: The scale didn't start at zero, giving a possibly distorted picture to those who didn't notice this. Of course, this is done all the time nowadays, so it's not that big of a deal.
"The scale didn't start at zero, giving a possibly distorted picture to those who didn't notice this. Of course, this is done all the time nowadays, so it's not that big of a deal."
ReplyDeleteIt's still a big deal - this is bad, bad, bad! When I mark lab reports for a 3rd-year genetics class, any graph with an improper scale loses mucho marks.
Common doesn't mean acceptable. Bullshit little errors like this give the reality-deniers an excuse to ignore the relevant (and undiluted by poor figure construction) message.
True, but sometimes it would simply be unreasonable to start a graph at zero (or like with temperatures, when there's no particular relevance to zero). In these cases, though, you should use a symbol on the line to indicate it's broken (usually just a short zig-zag). Not all graphing programs allow you to do this, though.
ReplyDeletesometimes it would simply be unreasonable to start a graph at zero (or like with temperatures, when there's no particular relevance to zero).
ReplyDeleteAllright, I'll give you that one. Temperature is an Interval Measurement, so the position of zero is arbitrary.
The fact that not all graphing programs allow you to do the squiggly line is not a sufficient excuse - if you're plastering your graph into a PowerPoint presentation, you can make a little squiggly graphic and stick it onto the graph. Likewise for most other presentation software. As for motion pictures, this has to repressent the most basal level of "special effects" possible.
This will probably become the subject of a rant.
And my main point remains: common doesn't mean acceptable.
Common doesn't mean acceptable.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree whole-heartedly there.
In the end, I just wish Gore hadn't done this. His point would have been just as strong without this little bit of under-handedness, and doing it just gives his opponents a cheap way to attack his credibility.