Doing as he says

William Connelly has a self confessed "grumpy" review of An Inconvenient Truth. Not much new about the movie, but he did trot out the old "yeah but how much CO2 did Gore emit running around the world for this film?" bit.

It is common fodder for the anti-Gore attack dogs, but why is William bringing it up? I don't know, but here is what's wrong with such a criticism:

• it is an ad homenim, having nothing to do with the quality of his movie or the accuracy of his message. I know William was not using it in this way, but the usual implication is if Gore is such a hypocrite then why should we even listen to what he is saying, maybe he doesn't even believe it himself.
• it ignores the fact that all emissions from travel and from the production of this film were offset by purchasing carbon credits. In theory this means that all CO2 produced in this endeavor was compensated for in other ways and places. One can argue about the efficacy of carbon credits and offsets in general, but it is nevertheless an indication that more than lip service has been paid to Gore's individual responsibilities.
• it ignores the fact that the potential impact of such a high profile messenger getting the mitigation word out there far out balances a few airplane rides. You may as well criticize your doctor for puncturing your skin with a needle in the course of curing a serious disease. And seriously, is there any doubt that the turning of the tide last year in the climate change issue was greatly aided by the success and noteriety of An Inconvenient Truth? Surely that is worth ten thousand flights.

But let's not be too hard on Stoat, we all get to have our own opinions!

Al Gore on the Tonight Show

No scientific content, but some good humour. Check it out on Gristmill or Treehugger.

(I tried to upload it to Youtube, but it may be more than 10 minutes because it did not stay.)

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth": How True? How Inconvenient?

An Inconvenient Truth

How True?

According to the climate scientists at Real Climate, Gore gets it right.

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity.

How Inconvenient?

Pretty much so, judging by the reaction of the Right Wing spin machine. Since they are all pretty much the same, let's pick one because he shares my last name (but no relation as far as I know!), Glenn Beck.

His reaction to the films description of the threat of rising sea levels?

This is what would happen to Shanghai. Does anybody really care? I mean, come on. Shanghai is under water. Oh, no! Who's gonna make those little umbrellas for those tropical drinks?

So much for morals. How about his take on the science?

Now, if Al Gore's projection is right about the CO2 level going as high as he says it will, then the temperature here on planet Earth will be about 400,000 degrees. We'll be the sun; we'll be the frickin sun. But that's a huge "if."

(It's huge alright, but I have another idea of just what it is...)

Since he proves to be no match for the message, what does he think of the messenger?

See, when you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. You know? It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in "and it's the Jews' fault." That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening.

Too bad the beltway pundits don't respect Godwin's Law, think of all the extra-strength aspirin we could save.

Of course, RC's endorsement is swamped by crap like Glenn Beck's, but for myself, until I can get to see it, I will take the vapidity and ad hominem nature of the attacks as evidence that this film does a good job.

How to Talk to a Climate ScepticGuide and Guides, by Category