Sunday, July 09, 2006

Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth

Appended comments from Andrew Tobias.

From Ebert's review of An Inconvenient Truth:
Global warming is real, and unless it is reversed, the planet will pass a "tipping point" in about 10 years and start a slide into the destruction of civilization. ... This documentary...[is] fascinating and relentless.
In 39 years I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.

And Andrew Tobias:
I’ve gotten a lot of very smart people emailing me to debunk the movie. To each, I always answer: have you seen it? And in each case the answer has been: no.

The feeling of many ... is that so long as there is some chance we are not doomed, we should not act. ...

But the feeling of most who go see the movie is that everybody else ought to see the movie.

6 comments:

Russ Steele said...

Anna:

I did not think much of Ebert's reviews before this one, and now his credibility has slipped even more. Gore has been breifing this tipping point nonsense for 30 years. It did not happen twenty years ago, it did not happen ten yeras a go and it not happening now, it is still ten years away.

Gore admitted on CNN that scientists "just do not know." Neither does Ebert!

Anna said...

Russ, I've approved your comment (thereby making an exception to my moratorium on movie criticisms from people who haven't seen it) because I want to ask you a question.

You have great respect for your colleague and co-SESF board member George Rebane. So far he's been silent on global warming, although I've asked him (and you) what his views are on this issue, numerous times.
(I believe you've said you don't know what he thinks; I really wish you would ask him.)

Russ, a thought experiment - if it were to come out that George Rebane did consider anthropogenic global warming to be a serious (and real) threat, would that shake your views on global warming, your respect for George, or both? (or neither?)
(At this point let's consider this scenario to be purely hypothetical)

Anna said...

(correction to background of the above Q. - Russ hadn't said he didn't know George's views, instead he'd said (here) that he thought they both were in agreement, but would let George answer for himself)

Russ Steele said...

Anna:

I have been clear, I will review the movie when it comes out in Netflix, I am not going to fatten Gores wallet. This will happen sooner rather than latter, the daily average per theater has droped below $500, and the number of threaters showing was growing, until last week when it peaked at 587, then it drop to 562 for the weekend. When the daily take is under $500 theater are not making enough to pay the staff. Sunday, 2 July, Avg was $1,098. Last Sunday Avg was $617. The move is tanking!

Anna said...

Russ, you submitted a comment on this post this morning but it didn't answer - or even reference - the "thought experiment" question I asked you here last night.

Still waiting/hoping for
a) an answer from you
and
b) a position from George.

Also,
c) I have an additional question for you - what will you say to your grandchildren, if it turns out that the climatologists were right and you were wrong?

(btw, even Frank Luntz now believes in anthropogenic global warming.)

Russ Steele said...

Anna:

I have enough confidence in my ability to investigate the circumstances of global warming and advise my grand kids accordingly. As they grow older, I will help them sharpen their BS filters as I did for my children. All the grandchildren are very sharp. They can spot a phony now, and they will only get better with more experience.

For the last two years, I have been carrying on a global warming dialog with my children , especially youngest and her boy friend in Boston. I have moved from no global warming to some warming, once the satellite data errors were fixed. They have move to understand that peer review does not assure science accuracy, that consensus is a political term which has nothing to do with the scientific process, and computer models do not make predictions or forecasts. They are only scenarios and anyone can craft a scenario.

We have been discussing the Hockey Stick, the global warming icon for two years, asking tough questions and presenting our cases. They now admit that there are some problems with the underlying science used to build the hockey stick. The 1000 year handle is now only 400 years long, according to the NAS Panel. The LIA and MWP are a reality. We will continue this discussion on our annual summer camping trip.

I am not going to answer your mind exercise. We will find out George’s position on global warming in a few weeks and then we can see if we agree, or if we need to do more research. This is not about feelings, it about science. We are both systems thinkers. All systems have components and all components interact. Those interactions determine systems performance.