Publish at Scribd or explore others:
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Problem & solution
Global warming is widely perceived today, worldwide, as a major problem facing mankind. Simply defined, it is the heating up of the earth's atmosphere due to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The fear is that increased temperatures will lead to melting polar ice-caps and rising sea levels, which could cause flooding affecting millions in densely-poulated low-lying areas of the world, and an increase in the occurrence of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
The film An Inconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott Nash & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.The class average for CRB was 3.778.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations. I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit assumption in some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint. In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue.'
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
Scott Nash & Eric http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
The film An Inconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott Nash & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.The class average for CRB was 3.778.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations. I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit assumption in some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint. In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue.'
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
Scott Nash & Eric http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A load of hot air
A load of hot air
Wednesday, 29th April 2009
A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity
Nicholas Stern
Bodley Head, 246pp, £16.99
As a general rule, I do not believe in reviewing bad books. Review space is limited, and the many good books that are published deserve first claim on it. But climate change is such an important subject, and — thanks to heavy promotion by that great publicist, Tony Blair — the Stern Review of the economics of climate change has become so well known (not least to the vast majority who have never read it, among whom in all probability is Mr Blair), that anything from Lord Stern deserves some attention.However, anyone looking for anything new in this rather arrogant book — all those who dissent from Stern’s analysis, his predictions, or his prescriptions are dismissed as ‘both ignorant and reckless’ (the word ‘ignorant’ recurs frequently) — will be disappointed.
The first half of the book is a rehash of the original Stern Review, and the second half a rehash of his lengthy 2008 LSE study Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change. This last is an exercise in political naivety which does not improve on its second outing; and the European Union leadership trumpeted by Stern (‘We can expect the EU and its member countries to continue to drive forward action on climate change’) has already collapsed with the back-tracking at the EU climate summit last December, after this book went to press.
The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. For example, Professor Helm of Oxford, probably Britain’s most eminent energy economist, has recently observed that Stern’s implausibly low ‘cost numbers … [are] all but useless for the purposes of policy design and implementation’.
So far from seriously addressing the substantial objections Stern’s critics have made, this book essentially just reiterates the original (non-peer reviewed, incidentally) analysis. The only significant economic support for Stern’s prescription has come from Professor Weitzman, of Harvard, who accepts that Stern’s cost-benefit analysis is all wrong, but maintains that this is an issue where cost benefit analysis is inapplicable: there is an outside chance of a disaster so great that it needs to be averted irrespective of cost. One obvious problem with this approach, however, is that there is an outside chance of all manner of disasters, and we cannot spend unlimited resources on seeking to avert them all. Moreover, one of them is a new ice age, which would be very much worse; and indeed the formidably eminent scientist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, believes that any warming that might occur might well be helpful in forestalling a new ice age. Not that there has been any global warming lately.
The recorded global temperature trend so far this century (2001-2008 inclusive) has been completely flat, despite the predicted warming of all the computer models in which Stern places uncritical faith and despite (until the onset of the current world recession) a much faster than predicted growth in carbon emissions. This unexpected development, which at the very least demonstrates that the whole issue is both more complex and less certain than he would have us believe, is blithely ignored by Stern, who assures us that ‘the [temperature] trend is clearly upwards’, and that ‘rapid climate change’ is on the way — although he subsequently defines ‘rapid’ as ‘within the next century or two’. His ability to foretell the distant future is remarkable.
But then respect for the evidence is not a strong point of this book. To take just one example (and there are many), as part of his alarmist narrative he tells us that ‘low-lying island states such as Tuvalu are submerging’. This canard, which I believe was first launched by the climate change propagandist Al Gore, is wholly unfounded. In 1993, scientists from Flinders University in Australia, believing that the old float-type tide gauges used in the South Pacific (which were registering an annual sea-level rise of a negligible 0.7 millimetres a year) must be inaccurate, placed new modern ones around a dozen Pacific islands, including Tuvalu. After more than a decade of finding no sign of any significant sea-level rise (in 2006 Tuvalu actually recorded a fall) the project was abandoned.Clearly concerned that there is still less than total acceptance of his message, Stern warmly commends direct action by Greenpeace and the like, and warns, mafia style, that ‘there are fewer and fewer hiding places for firms wanting to conceal dubious, unsafe or irresponsible practices’.
Even the media are blamed for giving ‘similar time to scientists and deniers of the science, when the balance of argument in logic and evidence is 99 (or more) to 1, not 50-50’.In fact, the media give far from equal time to the two sides in this debate. As I know from my own experience, it is virtually impossible for a dissenting voice to be given a hearing on any flagship BBC programme, either on radio or on television. But what is truly mind-boggling is Stern’s assertion, without adducing a scrap of supporting evidence, that informed opinion is 99 per cent (or more) on his side.
The most thorough survey of the views of climate scientists was conducted by Dr Dennis Bray, a social scientist, and Professor Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, and published in 2007. Asked whether they agreed with the proposition that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [ie man-made] causes’, 66 per cent agreed, of whom 38 per cent ‘strongly agreed’. In other words, a majority well short of Stern’s 99 per cent agreed, and only a minority ‘strongly agreed’.Moreover, when they were asked what they felt to be ‘the most pressing issue facing humanity today’, which Stern asserts is climate change caused by global warming, only 8 per cent of them placed this first. So it would be closer to the truth to say that probably at least 90 per cent of informed opinion disagrees, one way or another, with Stern’s crude alarmism. If there is one silver lining to the current world recession, it is that it might bring about a dose of realism which will help us to escape from the highly damaging global warming madness which this book epitomises.
Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, is now available, with a new afterword, in paperback (Duckworth Overlook, £6.99).
Wednesday, 29th April 2009
A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity
Nicholas Stern
Bodley Head, 246pp, £16.99
As a general rule, I do not believe in reviewing bad books. Review space is limited, and the many good books that are published deserve first claim on it. But climate change is such an important subject, and — thanks to heavy promotion by that great publicist, Tony Blair — the Stern Review of the economics of climate change has become so well known (not least to the vast majority who have never read it, among whom in all probability is Mr Blair), that anything from Lord Stern deserves some attention.However, anyone looking for anything new in this rather arrogant book — all those who dissent from Stern’s analysis, his predictions, or his prescriptions are dismissed as ‘both ignorant and reckless’ (the word ‘ignorant’ recurs frequently) — will be disappointed.
The first half of the book is a rehash of the original Stern Review, and the second half a rehash of his lengthy 2008 LSE study Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change. This last is an exercise in political naivety which does not improve on its second outing; and the European Union leadership trumpeted by Stern (‘We can expect the EU and its member countries to continue to drive forward action on climate change’) has already collapsed with the back-tracking at the EU climate summit last December, after this book went to press.
The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. For example, Professor Helm of Oxford, probably Britain’s most eminent energy economist, has recently observed that Stern’s implausibly low ‘cost numbers … [are] all but useless for the purposes of policy design and implementation’.
So far from seriously addressing the substantial objections Stern’s critics have made, this book essentially just reiterates the original (non-peer reviewed, incidentally) analysis. The only significant economic support for Stern’s prescription has come from Professor Weitzman, of Harvard, who accepts that Stern’s cost-benefit analysis is all wrong, but maintains that this is an issue where cost benefit analysis is inapplicable: there is an outside chance of a disaster so great that it needs to be averted irrespective of cost. One obvious problem with this approach, however, is that there is an outside chance of all manner of disasters, and we cannot spend unlimited resources on seeking to avert them all. Moreover, one of them is a new ice age, which would be very much worse; and indeed the formidably eminent scientist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, believes that any warming that might occur might well be helpful in forestalling a new ice age. Not that there has been any global warming lately.
The recorded global temperature trend so far this century (2001-2008 inclusive) has been completely flat, despite the predicted warming of all the computer models in which Stern places uncritical faith and despite (until the onset of the current world recession) a much faster than predicted growth in carbon emissions. This unexpected development, which at the very least demonstrates that the whole issue is both more complex and less certain than he would have us believe, is blithely ignored by Stern, who assures us that ‘the [temperature] trend is clearly upwards’, and that ‘rapid climate change’ is on the way — although he subsequently defines ‘rapid’ as ‘within the next century or two’. His ability to foretell the distant future is remarkable.
But then respect for the evidence is not a strong point of this book. To take just one example (and there are many), as part of his alarmist narrative he tells us that ‘low-lying island states such as Tuvalu are submerging’. This canard, which I believe was first launched by the climate change propagandist Al Gore, is wholly unfounded. In 1993, scientists from Flinders University in Australia, believing that the old float-type tide gauges used in the South Pacific (which were registering an annual sea-level rise of a negligible 0.7 millimetres a year) must be inaccurate, placed new modern ones around a dozen Pacific islands, including Tuvalu. After more than a decade of finding no sign of any significant sea-level rise (in 2006 Tuvalu actually recorded a fall) the project was abandoned.Clearly concerned that there is still less than total acceptance of his message, Stern warmly commends direct action by Greenpeace and the like, and warns, mafia style, that ‘there are fewer and fewer hiding places for firms wanting to conceal dubious, unsafe or irresponsible practices’.
Even the media are blamed for giving ‘similar time to scientists and deniers of the science, when the balance of argument in logic and evidence is 99 (or more) to 1, not 50-50’.In fact, the media give far from equal time to the two sides in this debate. As I know from my own experience, it is virtually impossible for a dissenting voice to be given a hearing on any flagship BBC programme, either on radio or on television. But what is truly mind-boggling is Stern’s assertion, without adducing a scrap of supporting evidence, that informed opinion is 99 per cent (or more) on his side.
The most thorough survey of the views of climate scientists was conducted by Dr Dennis Bray, a social scientist, and Professor Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, and published in 2007. Asked whether they agreed with the proposition that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [ie man-made] causes’, 66 per cent agreed, of whom 38 per cent ‘strongly agreed’. In other words, a majority well short of Stern’s 99 per cent agreed, and only a minority ‘strongly agreed’.Moreover, when they were asked what they felt to be ‘the most pressing issue facing humanity today’, which Stern asserts is climate change caused by global warming, only 8 per cent of them placed this first. So it would be closer to the truth to say that probably at least 90 per cent of informed opinion disagrees, one way or another, with Stern’s crude alarmism. If there is one silver lining to the current world recession, it is that it might bring about a dose of realism which will help us to escape from the highly damaging global warming madness which this book epitomises.
Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, is now available, with a new afterword, in paperback (Duckworth Overlook, £6.99).
Monday, May 4, 2009
Cool City
We watched the Cool City video.
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
Sunday, April 26, 2009
European initiative
Summary:
Will Hutton, in How Europe can save the world, The Observer 11.03.07, says that the EU has committed itself to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% from their 1990 level, by 2020. This will be achieved, he says, mainly through the use of renewable energy such as water, air & biofuels. Although France is heavily dependent on nuclear power, this will now be classified as clean. There will be strict limits on carbon emissions, with every new power station in Europe after 2010 having to have 'carbon capture and storage capacity'.
There are, however, problems. Renewable energy is expensive and European business will complain that Indian, Chinese and American competitors will continue to use cheaper fossil fuels.
But Hutton says that there is growing worldwide conviction that action must be taken to prevent global warming and climate change. Clearly pro-European, he praises Europe's politicians, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by Tony Blair, for taking the lead over carbon emissions. With forthcoming UN talks over a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Hutton says that the European initiative is of worldwide significance and he's optimistic it will be successful.
189 words
Main idea:
Will Hutton, a committed pro-European, says that Europe has taken the lead in the battle to reduce global GHG emissions and he praises European politicians for this. He is optimistic that their efforts will prove successful because he believes there is a growing worldwide awareness of the need for government action to prevent climate change.
Comment:
While I believe that the reduction of carbon emissions is of global importance, I think the article is wildly optimistic. It was written before the current global recession and I feel that many countries will struggle to implement the changes they have promised. The UK's economy, for example, is currently in an awful mess and using renewable fuels is more expensive than using fossil fuels. Can the UK afford to meet the targets it has set? Shell has recently announced the abandonment of much of its research budget re. renewable energy, saying that existing fossil fuels make more economic sense. Hutton is clearly more in awe of the politicians he names than I am.
Will Hutton, in How Europe can save the world, The Observer 11.03.07, says that the EU has committed itself to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% from their 1990 level, by 2020. This will be achieved, he says, mainly through the use of renewable energy such as water, air & biofuels. Although France is heavily dependent on nuclear power, this will now be classified as clean. There will be strict limits on carbon emissions, with every new power station in Europe after 2010 having to have 'carbon capture and storage capacity'.
There are, however, problems. Renewable energy is expensive and European business will complain that Indian, Chinese and American competitors will continue to use cheaper fossil fuels.
But Hutton says that there is growing worldwide conviction that action must be taken to prevent global warming and climate change. Clearly pro-European, he praises Europe's politicians, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by Tony Blair, for taking the lead over carbon emissions. With forthcoming UN talks over a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Hutton says that the European initiative is of worldwide significance and he's optimistic it will be successful.
189 words
Main idea:
Will Hutton, a committed pro-European, says that Europe has taken the lead in the battle to reduce global GHG emissions and he praises European politicians for this. He is optimistic that their efforts will prove successful because he believes there is a growing worldwide awareness of the need for government action to prevent climate change.
Comment:
While I believe that the reduction of carbon emissions is of global importance, I think the article is wildly optimistic. It was written before the current global recession and I feel that many countries will struggle to implement the changes they have promised. The UK's economy, for example, is currently in an awful mess and using renewable fuels is more expensive than using fossil fuels. Can the UK afford to meet the targets it has set? Shell has recently announced the abandonment of much of its research budget re. renewable energy, saying that existing fossil fuels make more economic sense. Hutton is clearly more in awe of the politicians he names than I am.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Carbon footprint
My carbon footprint
I measured my carbon footprint at http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/& it was 4.10.Most of the students had similar figures. The actual average for CRB was 3.778.
The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints.
The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to my home, in England I have loft insulation, double glazing etc, but here in Abu Dhabi, I live in a rented flat and can do little to improve my footprint domestically, apart from turning off appliances, which I already do.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, according to the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, usually eat only once daily during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
329 words
I measured my carbon footprint at http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/& it was 4.10.Most of the students had similar figures. The actual average for CRB was 3.778.
The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints.
The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to my home, in England I have loft insulation, double glazing etc, but here in Abu Dhabi, I live in a rented flat and can do little to improve my footprint domestically, apart from turning off appliances, which I already do.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, according to the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, usually eat only once daily during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
329 words
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Reviews of 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/ , in a favourable review, points out that Al Gore is right and the climate debate is effectively over. Scientific opinion overwhelmingly supports the view that global warming is principally man-made and time is running out for us to find solutions. He says that Gore has a mass of scientific data, charts, diagrams & photographic evidence, enough to convince even the most hardened sceptic. What he finds most alarming is the time-lapse photos of Patagonia, Kilimanjaro, etc. He ends his review by praising the fact that the movie is not pessimistic but rather closes with practical advice as to how we can get emissions back to the levels of 1950.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)