I finally got to see An Inconvenient Truth yesterday; rather than run down the points made by pretty much every review I've seen (including the Roger Ebert review which Sharon mentioned several days back), I'll echo the general thrust. You need to see this movie. It's not a political tract; it's more like the first 20 minutes of a disaster movie, setting the stage for bad things to happen and sounding an alarm. Then you walk out of the theater, and you can act on the information or not.
Of course, if you're still debating the urgency of this issue, you may want to check out today's L.A. Times article, which suggests one of the main worries outlined in the movie may be getting worse even more quickly than expected. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-greenland25jun25,1,1483560.story
Or if you're thinking strictly in material terms -- Let the free market handle it! It takes care of everything else! -- you may be interested in the analysis produced by the tree-hugging radicals at Lloyd's of London. http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/360_risk_project/360_risk_project.htm
I believe in hearing out the devil's advocate, so I tried to find arguments against the ideas outlined in the film and these stories; about the closest thing I could find is this piece outlining the case made by Michael Crichton in his latest who's-watching-the-scientists novel, State of Fear. (While I haven't read the novel, I've read several other Crichtons; based on this, I may have to go back to his earlier works with even bigger grains of salt.) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
If you're aware of a real case to be made against global warming, I invite you to share the info with all of us here. (And no, animated Al Gore shouting "Manbearpig!" doesn't count.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment