Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, in 2005 it was the hottest year on record. There was a 100% increase in the intensity and duration of hurricanes since the 1970’s. Hurricanes in 2005 caused 100 billion dollars in damages alone in the U.S. By 2030, Glacier National Park will no longer have glaciers. In the last 30 years, 400,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice have melted and by 2050, 15-37% of plant and animal species could be wiped out due to global warming (Environmental Defense Fund). In Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, his main argument is that the world does not care enough about global warming and it is time to make some changes to help prevent it. Gore is very persuasive and enticing in his film and lectures and seems to know what he is talking about. He gathered many credible statistics and facts to help prove his claims and to help make his audience believe in his ideas and solutions. Gore may be well known politically, but can he make himself known in the scientific world as well? In order to figure out this question, we must look deeper into the film and break apart the facts and how Gore communicates with his audience to decide if this is possible.

I believe Gore’s argument to be very successful. Global warming is a mainstream topic that is constantly being discussed in the media and it is a topic that draws people’s attention. This film helps elaborate on this topic and make people really think about their actions. Gore uses tons of statistical data and graphs to help grab people’s attention. For example, he used charts of the CO2 levels and environmental temperatures from the past millions of years to really effect the emotions of the audience. This information was taken from glaciers and recorded. It showed how in the past two hundred years or so, CO2 levels have sky rocketed and have more than doubled due to humans; this is surely to grasp the audience’s attention. He also showed projected CO2 levels in fifty years, which would be double what it is now unless we make a change. To help give Gore some credit, according to realclimate.org, “Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer’s eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn’t actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot” (Realclimate.org). Gore also used digital satellite-like scenarios in which it showed detailed videos of world renowned cities being flooded by the ocean waters due to Antarctica or Greenland melting. Gore claims that in as little as 50 years, the Arctic Sea would no longer have ice. Mark Serrize, in an article for National Geographic argued that “new research shows it could take as little as 20 years for the sea ice to disappear” (National Geographic). According to Dr. Jim Hansen of NASA, Gore is correct in his ideas that the sea levels could rise to cover many heavily populated cities due to Antarctica or Greenland melting, proving Gore is at least right in that fact (Washington Post). Out of everything Gore showed this was sure to shock people. Gore uses straight scientific facts that come with credibility to show his audience he is telling the truth and that what he is saying is scientifically proven.

The strengths of the documentary are the scientific facts, graphs, scenarios, and pictures. The people will believe Gore more because he used these things to get a reaction from the audience. Gore has a good structure with his presentation; starting off with explaining what global warming is and its causes by using a video clip from the popular animated TV show, Futurama. He then continued on to his main argument that we need to make some changes to stop global warming from becoming worse and that the government and the people of the world need to start paying more attention to the environment and how certain lifestyle choices effect the environment. Gore’s voice and tone grips the audience’s attention and makes them want to hold on to the words he says. He is a great public speaker and really knows how to entrance his audience. The facts were well put together and the presentation was in an orderly fashion.



The film had very few weaknesses, but one of them is the fact that it was Al Gore giving this presentation. He is a politician and is greatly one sided in a lot of his arguments about politics so what is to say he isn’t about global warming as well? Someone with a little bit more credibility in science such as a scientist or someone from an environmental agency would have been better to discuss a topic such as global warming, not a politician. The information is there, but the informant isn’t. Many would disagree with my opinion as Jurgen Fauth states in an article she has written, “If we focus on Al Gore's personality or spend time speculating on his Presidential aspirations, perhaps we won't take notice of the film's carefully elaborated argument. Maybe we'll even forget about global warming” (About.com). The film is well put together and the fact they videotaped Gore’s actual lectures was a good idea. However, the mini Gore stories should have been left out. It is a play for pathos. They had nothing to do with global warming and he used them merely to make his audience sympathetic and trust him more. They made you feel more for Gore, but they made you feel nothing towards the actual reason this film existed, global warming. I believe Gore highly appeals to the ethos aspect as he is a very likable well rounded person. He is also famous and come with high credibility and because he is so well known I feel he can contend to his audience well.

I believe all the facts, charts, and presentations presented by Gore make this film a strong documentary and something that can be presented as highly credible. The fact that he uses such strong information in his presentation and clearly knows what he is talking about greatly enhances the films appeal. I also believe the fact that it is Al Gore, a previous well known candidate in a presidential election giving this presentation makes the film more interesting and more enticing to watch. I feel that the film would not be as strong if this argument was presented from someone with a lower celebrity and status. The facts and information that Gore gathered did the job they needed to do in supporting his argument on global warming. They were strong, credible, and interesting, and greatly enhanced his argument. With all that he presented, it would be hard for someone or anyone to put up a good offense against his argument. Gore greatly appeals to his audience in every way possible. He is a political man of interest and many would watch this film just to see how Gore handles the topic and to see where he stands. He also knows how to play on his audience’s emotions by using shocking facts to scare the audience and home stories that make the audience feel sympathetic towards him and towards his idea. The stories help develop a level of trust between Gore and the audience.

I believe Gore’s argument to be a very successful one, but I also disagree with the director deciding to use Gore to relay this serious message to the people. I feel a more scientific approach and using someone who has more credibility in science would have been a better choice. Global warming is an important topic that needs to be shared with the world. People need to be educated about this topic and learn what they can do to slow it down, otherwise global warming may begin to increase at a faster rate and the whole world will be in turmoil. This film overall does a successful job in educating its audience and to really grasp people’s attention to what is going on in the world around them. I feel if more people were to watch this film, they would get a better idea as to what they can do to help the environment and the earth fight this impending destruction.

An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds - Fact Checker." Blog Directory (washingtonpost.com). 18 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. .

Eric. "The Lag between Temperature and CO2. (Gore’s Got It Right.)." RealClimate. 27 Apr. 2007. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. .

Fauth, Jurgen. "An Inconvenient Truth - Review." World/Independent Film. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. .

"Global Warming by the Numbers - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund." Environmental Defense Fund - Finding the Ways That Work. 24 Jan. 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. .

Lovgran, Stephen. "Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie: Fact or Hype?" Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News. National Geographic News, 25 May 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

Formal Response - An Inconvenient Truth

In the beginning of "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore, he shows satellite pictures taken of the Earth to show you how beautiful Earth really is. He also explains what global warming is by using a clip from the popular cartoon tv show called Futurama. Al Gore starts discussing glaciers and shows pictures of glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Glacier National Park, Italian Alps, Switzerland, and Peru. He shows pictures from years ago when the glaciers were larger and fuller and now, where they have melted and depleted by at least half of what they used to be. Gore discusses how we can use glaciers to measure past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and past environmental temperatures. Ocean temperatures become the next topic and how ocean temperatures effect nature and weather. He also discusses factors causing global warming.

The central claim Al Gore is trying to voice is that global warming IS bad and we need to start making changes to fight against it or prevent it before it is too late. Gore uses pictures of the glaciers and the Earth to draw peoples attention. He also uses graphs showing how CO2 levels have progressed over millions of years and how recently CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been amd climbing. Also discussed is ocean temperatures and how the higher the temperature, the greater the winds which equals more storms. There was a greater amount of storms in 2004 and 2005 than ever before. An all time record was set of tornados and typhoons in 2004. Al Gore also showed maps and pictures of what would happen if Greenland or Antarctica melted; sea levels would flood cities.

When Al Gore showed the graph of the CO2 levels I was shocked. The levels are so high and have greatly increased and it is scary to think that CO2 levels are going to be three times that much in 50 years. I feel like this was meant to scare the people into action. The main data shown that affected me the most and got my attention was the computer demo of important cities and regions around the world being flooded and submerged under the ocean due to Greenland and Antarctica melting. This grasps your attention and I was extremely interested in this as it is a huge deal and if were to happen, would be a monumental catastrophe.

Al Gore throughout this film shows himself in a sympathetic, relatable way. He talks about his son and the accident he had when he was six. This made me sympathetic and be more trustful in Al Gore as a person. He uses mini stories of his sons accident, his life growing up on the farm, and his presidential campaign to make you relate to him and trust him and to see him as a normal man. Al Gore is a famous politician so he tries to get the audience to be sympathetic and trust him so they will better believe his argument about global warming.