Jan 16

An Inconvenient Truth, by Rev. Algore ?

This film is labeled a documentary, but its entire format is really that of a sermon by Rev. Algore. There is very little documentary here. Included are also occasional testimonials by supposedly notable figures. There is much political jabbing, some of which is justified, but most of which is not. Approximately 95% of the entire film has at least 40% of the screen filled with Rev. Algore’s face. There are multiple clips that just don’t relate to the thesis of global warming, such as a complaint about how the votes were tallied in Florida, with the subsequent Supreme Court ruling, and no explanation as to what this had to do with the “inconvenient truth” of this film. The film is entirely about global warming, but unknowingly shows how Rev. Algore is particularly skilled at depleting carbon units, although he is exempt since he alone is allowed to consume mass quantities of energy. I can’t imagine the energy required to run Rev. Algore under the North Pole in a nuclear submarine and surface through the ice, just to add a 2 minute episode to the sermon. I could go on and on. Rev. Algore sanctimoniously suggests that the family farm quit growing tobacco because of the concern over lung cancer, yet it almost certainly was a result of declining reimbursements from tobacco. Rev. Algore’s tone of voice, inflections, and speaking style were much more like a sermon than a documentary. The fools who gave this film an Academy Award fail to offer how this film stood out in quality and credible research. The entire thesis of the film is based on supposed rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, while Rev. Algore maintains a schoolboy belief in the accuracy and significance of the data and its extrapolations, without any questioning of the data. It shows the absurd fallacy of having a lawyer/politician pretend to be doing credible science. There is no doubt that there is some truth to what Rev. Algore is saying. There is a retreat of glaciers in the last few decades. There are certain interesting climate changes. Yet, Rev. Algore fails to substantiate the exact causal nature of these events, and chooses instead to promote emotionalism and extreme reactions, exactly what he accuses the Republican party of doing, though on other issues. If Rev. Algore didn’t make so many hard jabs at his political opponents, he might have gained a few more sympathetic ears. Making the weather a political rather than a pure environmental issue makes Rev. Algore ineffective and suspect as to his true intentions for making this film. It is thus hard for me to give this film even one star. It is not worth purchasing, though a single viewing is of value only to see the many gorgous faces of Rev. Algore. Global warming supporters may have a credible argument, but it certainly is not given in this film.

Add comments

Leave a Reply

*

preload preload preload