An Inconvenient Truth Part 2

I hope my friend Carl, who commented on my last post, will not be offended that I am using his comment as the occasion for my next post. I do so not because I think his comments are foolish, but because I think he raises objections to An Inconvenient Truth that I believe many other conservatives would also raise. I think they're worth discussing, and so I am including them in a post in order to draw attention to the discussion, rather than having it hidden in the comments section.

Here is Carl's response:

I cannot make any judgments on Gore's politics, simply because I haven't had the time to keep up with them. But I do find a bit of irony (if I could even call it that) in the whole enterprise, which leads me to the question of: how much jet-fuel did Gore burn while promoting his endeavor to be more friendly to the environment? It seems to me that if you want to be a poster child for being more eco-friendly, then you should find other ways to market your ideas instead of using ones that only contribute to the problem.

On a completely different but slightly connected note: I also found it interesting this past weekend that, while watching the History Channel, some scientists were working out scenarios of how to cope with a possible mini Ice Age--much like the one that hit in the 14th century. Here's why it strikes me as interesting: these scientists are running predictions for such an event taking place this century. Yet, other scientists are running predictions for global warming for this century.

As I see it, Carl has raised two issues - I'll respond to each in turn.

First, Carl indicates that he sees Gore's actions as inconsistent with his message, in that he uses large amounts of fuel traversing the globe in order to spread his message of energy conservation and care for the earth. This observation may or may not be true, although I would argue that if Gore is successful in getting his message heard, what is gained is probably much more than the fuel he uses. However, I also feel compelled to say that I don't think it matters one way or another. This argument, in philisophical terms (for those of you who don't know Carl, he has a strong mind for philisophical arguments), commits the ad hominem logical fallacy. Essentially, he is making a personal attack on the bearer of the message (in this case, Al Gore's warnings regarding global warming), while not dealing with the argument itself.

My essential point is that, whether or not Gore's actions are problematic, this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his message. This is my fear regarding political conservatives' reactions to this movie - that they will reject the warnings about global warming without really considering them, simply because they don't like or agree with the bearer of the message. I was never a fan of Gore when it came to politics - nevertheless, I believe that his arguments regarding global warming should at least be given fair consideration.

Carl's second point is a significant objection. I will confess that I am a newcomer to this issue and at this time I do not understand the science behind the issue with a great deal of sophistication. However, my limited understanding is that some scientists who believe global warming is taking place fear that it could eventually lead to another ice age. If I understand correctly, and at the risk of over-simplifying complex scientific theories, they believe this could happen as a result of shifting ocean currents brought on by global warming. As the effects of global warming are felt, it is believe that this will affect the complex ocean currents which govern global weather and climate patterns. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone actually understands what will happen when these currents change, but an ice age is one of the possibilities that has been advanced. So, I am not sure that scientists who fear a future ice age contradict the arguments that global warming is occurring. (Here is one article, which is a few years old, which explains this idea).

My thinking about global warming is that if Gore's warnings are legitimate, our children and our children's children are the ones who will pay for our refusal to deal with the issue. For this reason it is worth considering. And whether global warning is ultimately a legitimate fear, reducing global energy consumption and pollution is a worthwhile goal. From a Christian perspective, it is astonishing to me how often we forget that God entrusted us with the care of the earth - for this reason Christians should be leaders in taking care of the world we live in. With this in mind, I want to draw my readers' attention to this .pdf document, which gives ten simple suggestions for cutting down on energy consumption. Americans should particularly pay attention to these suggestions, since we are by far the largest contributor, per person, of pollution in the world.

New Movies

Hmmm . . . so it's been a little while since I posted. And the long promised TV posts are still coming . . . but not yet. Instead I thought I'd get things started with a short post about two movies we've seen recently - one which was quite good, one not so much.

First, the not so good. "Music and Lyrics" looked promising, as romantic comedies go. Hugh Grant's movies often have a dry, quirky humor that can be quite enjoyable. Sometimes they are a little satirical, like last year's "American Dreamz," which, while you can argue about the sophistication and success of its satire, was a fairly enjoyable satire of American culture. I also will admit to having enjoyed "About a Boy" and "Love Actually." This movie, however, was a disappointment. It started out somewhat promising - the opening scene, which consists of a terrible 80's style music video, was pretty amusing. The majority of the movie was passable, but the ending was inexcusable. Not only was it completely cheesy, it lacked any internal coherence with the rest of the movie. I won't say anymore, since I might give away something for those of you who dare to see it.

So, on to the good. While some of my readers may be skeptical, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed "An Inconvenient Truth." I'll admit, I enjoy well-made documentaries, and this one qualifies. I'm not positive where I land on the global warming issue, although I do not find it nearly as easy to dismiss as some people do. Al Gore makes a convincing argument that it is a pressing danger - certainly enough to warrant further investigation. My one criticism of the documentary is that there are several sections that deal slightly with his political career, and I think these could have been left out. The sad truth is that many people will be turned off from this documentary because they don't agree with Gore on political grounds. However, I would challenge anyone to try to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" with an open mind, free of any disagreements with Gore's politics. The reality is that if Gore is right about global warming, we (meaning the entire human race) have a great deal to lose. If he is incorrect, curtailing pollution and conserving energy is still a very good thing. We have a great deal to gain, and very little to lose, by taking this issue seriously.