I was just going to leave well enough alone on the climate debate and An Inconvenient Truth's win at the Oscars, but after reading so many people praising the work, despite its flaws, and after hearing people run on in general conversation like experts, spawned by having seen the movie, I thought maybe I should say something. Then a buddy of mine sent me a link to this account of Al Gore's own energy consumption. True to political form, every coin has its flip side.
Now I really don't see much fault in the overall increase in consumption over a year, as 2006 was the warmest on record according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and even Mr. Gore needs some A/C in the summertime (although one has to wonder how often Tipper and Al are actually at ye old homestead). I do however find fault in that a figure like this has a consumption 20 times greater than the average household, and lets not forget all those other rich folk out there who similarly skew that average. Its been proven time and again that leading is best done from the front, not from behind, and yet there's still some hypocrisy to be found in someone who is self proclaimed as passionate about his work.
How could one forget those dramatic closeups and personal accounts of a concerned Al Gore interweaved within the actual documentary material. That said, its not even the not so subtle political commentary in those sequences that irked me most about the movie, but the fact that such a directed approach was presented in what has shown time and time again to be a much larger problem. The fact of the matter is that while carbon dioxide is infact an important greenhouse gas, so are a number of other things, including most dominantly water vapour. The media in general has a tendency to gloss over this fact.
In addition there are a number of feedback mechanisms that are not as well understood as they need be, and evidence exists for historical (that is in geologic context, not human) dramatic climate changes on the order of decades to a century that are entirely natural. The movie glosses over these ideas, and others in presenting our contribution of carbon dioxide in particular as the be all and end all in causing global warming. The warming concept in itself is shortsighted, as some evidence suggests that a small period of warming may infact lead to a strong subsequent cooling effect.
Now I don't fault Al Gore for getting the message out there. I do believe it is very important to stir common debate about the subject and for people to be more aware. I just wish it could have been done in a more level manner, and not glossed over, or outright misrepresented key concepts of the situation (for instance the claim that 'no scientist believes global warming isn't occurring') creating similar bias in the newfound experts.
I myself can't claim to be an expert in the matter either, just perhaps more familiar than most. And I'm certainly not saying that global warming or climate change definitively isn't occurring, and believe it is truly important to pursue alternative energies and improve efficiency, even if only from a health perspective, or a concern over global resource consumption (one need only begin to bitch about gas prices to see that much). Kyoto and similar agreements are important enough in those considerations alone, as well as somewhat leveling the global economic playing field. All I ask is for a less biased presentation to the general concerned public, before too many people are rushing around in a panic with their single perspective.