today, i went and saw al gore's movie, an inconvenient truth. another website had pointed me to a place to get free tickets. all i had to do was agree to a few statements and right a review. sorry, adam, you can't get free tickets unless you're willing to lie. one of the statements is, yes, i am a committed Bible believing Christian. i know you're an ethical guy so you wouldn't lie to just see a movie.
here's my review:
"I had been dragging my feet on seeing this movie. I figured it would be informative but boring.
I was right. Don't get me wrong, not every movie should be a "blow 'em up" type movie. But if you want people to buy the message, sometimes you have to spice up the presentation.
Don't go to this movie if you already don't believe in global warming. You will dismiss this information as you always have. And, don't go if you already do believe in global warming. There's no new information, although you may see how much worse off we really are. If there is any doubt in your mind, go and hear the presentation.
The main problem I had with this movie was that it offered hope, but little solutions. You don't have to tell every solution, but at least give the five easiest, or most effective. There were some solutions offered, in the closing credits, but why not include more and earlier? Why not show companies that are making a differnce and should be supported? Give us more than just a website to visit later.
Finally, I realized very early in the film that I agreed and needed to look at my life and make some changes. Just like being confronted with the truth of Jesus and having to respond, the world needs to respond to what is happening all around us."
not in my review: would i recommend the movie? i'm still not sure. probably not. just go to the website. climatecrisis.org
15 comments:
That site is interesting. I did not like what I found when I plugged in my numbers. Do you know if its a legit organization to contribute to? I would imagine so, but do you have any thoughts before I try to offset my negative contribution through this site?
as far as i know it's legit. but, i'd say you would be better off changing your lifestyle than giving money. or heck, do both.
I recommend watching the Global Warming Threat Sunday night @ 9:00 on the discovery channel. From what I've seen so far it will be consistent with the Al Gore movie and offer similar solutions
hopefully it will offer more solutions.
Goodness Ed, someone wants solutions badly.
Considering a large proportion of our population still feels the need to deny that we're contributing to global warming, as well as our executive branch, movies like this won't be any more powerful if they offer more or better solutions.
We still have to convince the people that claim it's not even going on. You can't reconcile the Holocaust if you won't even accept that it happened.
i disagree. i would assert that most of the american populus does recognize that we are contributing to the problem. it is true that others, including those in the administration cast doubt on this fact, but are they are large segment? it may be more accurate to say that a powerful portion chooses not to believe, or at least that their wallets are more important.
yes, some people don't believe that we're part of the problem. but, i would say that more people do accept our part but either feel defeated or that there is little that we can do. so, to present practical, simple solutions would make a movie like this extremely powerful.
and, i keep asking these programs to offer solutions because most of them are ridiculously easy. change your light bulbs to high efficiency ones. turn off the air when you leave the house. turn off the tv when you're not watching it. if you can, buy a more fuel efficient, or less poluting car. walk or ride a bike. fly less.
those are easy solutions that add up. so why not include them, and how much of a difference they make? why force me to a website to give me that info?
I would again, much to your dismay, generalize that the simple solutions you've just offered are well known and pretty common sense. Shoot, I remember in sixth grade being hammered with limiting aerosols and CFCs usage.
It's interesting that you assume a majority of our population is completely capable of grasping and accepting the fact that we contribute to global warming (a fairly obtuse concept to understand) but you don't assume that they can figure out that their light bulbs and other electrical appliances are connected to a power plant that pumps pollution into the air/water/ground/whatever day and night and that by reducing the usage of those things, they reduce the output of said powerplant (a fairly easy concept to grasp).
So, if they gave you a list of things you already knew, your review would have been positive? I think the movie assumed that most of the viewers were adults andwere familiar with those basics (not that they consistently do those things, of course). Personally, I found the movie very interesting and engaging, especially for a, you know, documentary about the temperature. I'm not sure it could be done in a much more interesting way. As far as being Gore-centric, I didn't have a problem with that because I'm interested in knowing how a leader became interested in a topic that they think is important.
Here's what I've never been able to figure out: what do people who think climate change is a hoax think is the motivation behind it? Obviously there is a huge financial motivation to deny climate change, but who would be getting rich by telling us to live more modestly?
SOme kids in my class were talking about the movie Ice Age 2 this spring (the animated one that apparently mentions global warming), and one of my kids (from a very indignantly right wing Christian family) said, "I'm not gonna see that because it's about global warming and it's not true." Try to imagine the conversation she'd had with her parents- the things they must tell her about politics (she's been known to wear a "future republican voter" shirt and was not enthused about the idea of H. Clinton running when we discussedthe idea of a woman president).
since you admit that it's such an easy concept, why don't you make the changes adam?
steve,
if they gave me a list i already knew i would have at least thought they were giving solutions for people that didn't know those solutions. i would have been much happier if they had offered other solutions. but, i didn't know all of the ideas on the website, and would like to learn more about offsetting emissions, something they could have talked about more without plugging a certain company.
i never mentioned anything about it being gore centric. frankly, i agree and found it interesting that he had been studying and working at the problem for quite some time. i felt that this added to his credibility.
btw, i'm not enthused about the prospect of h.clinton running. i don't think she could win the next election, probably wouldn't vote for her, and feel the dems would be conceding the following four years. then again, if mc cain runs the dems may have to run jesus for me to vote against him.
Why are you so excited about McCain?
Please give a reason other than "he's a maverick". Not that I've heard you say that, but I'm tired of hearing people say that. In fact, I'm tired of politics as a personality contest.
I read an article about McCain where he was asked what he would do to solve the Iraq problems, and he said he'd tell the Sunni and Shia leaders to "cut the bullshit". While this has great value as a Reaganesque macho man thing, what does it actually mean? Does he really think it's just a matter of stepping in and slapping everyone around? Why do these guys insult my intelligence by talking like that? Why can't we have a serious intelligent discussion about anything?
My feelings about H. Clinton are mixed. On the one hand, I resent some of the positions she has taken which seem to be calculated to innoculate her from "she's too liberal" criticism. On the other hand, I agree with her about more things than I disagree with, and I really resent the right wing rumor mongering and innuendo. My preference would be Gore, as it was in 2000. I never understood the Nader voters in 2000.
well, i'm riding my mccain wagon from pre-bush. so, i actually could find that he's changed a bit since i was interested in him, and not really support what he's about now.
i think a lot of it comes down to he has war experience, which would hopefully lead him to getting out of ones we shouldn't be in, as well as keep us out of future ones. and, i remember liking some of his economic ideas, but it's hazy now.
and, i think he does have a track record of standing up for principles, which helped his maverick status. i don't think he'd just toe the party line, but would still be attractive enough to gain repub votes.
I'm not trying to hate on the guy, and I waaaay prefer him to Bush. In fact, one of the reasons I'm annoyed by him now is that he stood by the Bush people in 2004 even after they slandered him in 2000, which made it seem to me that his "core value" was the GOP and his future presidential ambitions. Eff party loyalty, if someone beat me in the South Carolina primary by having pollsters call voters and ask if they'd be less likely to vote for me if they knew I had an illegitimate black baby, I wouldn't work for that guy. This, along with his recent courting of Pat Robertson and backtracking from his previous comments, lead me to believe that the "maverick" thing was all a schtick.
Ed, grasping a concept because it's easy to understand and implementing solutions to an easy to grasp concept are two completely different things.
And yes, I do implement some concientious things, but I can do more.
Post a Comment