Sac City Council hosts “An Inconvenient Truth”
I managed to come across the news that the Sacramento City Council is hosting a screening of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Here’s the flyer that they are passing out:
As can be seen, not only are they hosting this screening, but it is during their evening session. Of course, “an inconvenient truth” is a greater priority to the council than Sacramento gang violence, crime, flooding, and other growing problems.
But even if global warming was the most pressing problem to Sacramento, why the use of “An Inconvenient Truth”? Surely, a more informative and professional way of dealing with this topic would be to have a hearing on the subject, with various experts sharing their opinion on how it pertains to Sacramento itself. Yet, instead, Sacramento’s mayor and city council have decided to show what results to be a documentary about Al Gore, with a few “facts” thrown in for good measure.
The reason I say this is because when I viewed “An Inconvenient Truth”, I noticed that, for some reason, global warming is very connected with Al Gore’s life story. We learn about Al’s childhood, his speaking tour, and how he became such a global warming expert in the first place.
In fact, Al is so committed to the environment and reducing human excess that he is the proud owner of a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, along with two other houses.
And, one of those “scientific facts” that I mentioned was that sea levels will possibly rise by approximately 20 feet! flooding coastal areas! and producing 100 million refugees!!! Nope, no scare tactics here, only scientific facts. Never mind that the UN’s IPCC fourth report on global warming estimates the maximum sea level rise at 23 inches; Al Gore knows what he’s doing!
But seriously, showing this movie as an activity of the City Council is a waste of time and resources. Surely, the council can either objectively and scientifically look at global warming, or find a more pressing topic altogether.
1skepticalcatholic
wrote on 4 March 2007 at 21:34
After years of the Bush administration paying oil-industry lobbyists to scrub references to global warming from government reports and denying the existence of global warming, you’ll have to forgive people for wanting to see an Academy Award winning documentary on the subject.
2DZ
wrote on 4 March 2007 at 23:16
Read this; http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009657.php
Also: “The IPCC estimates an increase between 0.09 to 0.88 meters in the next century”
Also: “Gore discusses the possibility of a sudden rise in sea level of 6 meters (20 ft) if a major polar ice sheet collapsed. This should not be confused with the more certain, gradual and moderate rise due to non-catastrophic ice melting and the thermal expansion of water. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Summary estimates the latter as between 0.1 to 0.85 meters (0.3 to 2.8 feet) by the year 2100, but notes that “this range does not allow for uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet.” The Antarctic as a whole contains enough ice to raise sea level by an estimated 60 m (200 ft) if it were to melt entirely and the collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise sea level by 5-6 m (16-20 ft).”
3Katelyn Sills
wrote on 4 March 2007 at 23:22
I can see you haven’t changed, Skeptical Catholic. Just a couple questions: Have you seen the movie yourself? Do you think the Academy Award was given simply for the political and environmental message? Also, where is the Bush administration getting the funds to pay these lobbyists, and how are they getting access to the government offices? A strange phenomenon indeed. But, I suppose you know best, as always given your superior age.
4Jay Stewart
wrote on 4 March 2007 at 23:50
Katelyn,
Here is the council agenda for Tuesday. This is under special presentations, all the way near the bottom of the page:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=2
“Global Warming- Putting Local Ideas and Actions Into Context Film: “An Inconvenient Truth” In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.”
SC,
The big issue for me is not that Americans want or don’t want to see the film. The issue is taking time out of city business to show a Hollywood movie, especially when crime, gang activity, and other issues that the city can have a direct effect upon are so serious.
Even if global warming were a city issue, it should be dealth with by inviting experts from both sides to testify, not viewing a movie. That’s a waste of city time and money.
5Katelyn Sills
wrote on 5 March 2007 at 0:06
DZ,
I read the article. First, talking about sea levels, it states that the sea levels are rising now at a faster rate than for the 20th century. Yet, in the next sentence, it says that the system of measuring has changed to satellites. Now, perhaps this has already been factored in, but any intellectually curious person would wonder how one is able to notice a change in a trend when the method has also changed. If you use two different methods, how can you be sure the differences are not being caused by the methods themselves? Therefore, the lack of such an explanation makes me question whether they are writing for scientific purposes, or simply to support Gore’s film. But, maybe I’m looking into this too much.
Also, your quote from the IPCC was from 2001 (third assessment), and they have adjusted their estimates considerably from then.
But anyways, if I understand you correctly, you are saying (through the quote) that Gore’s analysis is correct if the West Antarctic ice sheet collapses. Yet, what is the probability of this happening? That’s what really matters. I’ve asked people who have seen the movie, they expect this to happen in the near future. Yet, if this is not reality, Gore has done the nation a disservice. Without being able to put things into perspective, the American people are being used for a political agenda.
6skepticalcatholic
wrote on 5 March 2007 at 2:36
Nope, haven’t seen the movie. I have no idea if the award was politically motivated. Some people think it is a dry powerpoint presentation. Others think it is fascinating and compelling. Art, even that which seeks to document facts, is subjective.
Don’t pretend that you don’t know of the Bush administration’s efforts to supress and deny information on global warming.
Here are a couple of links for you to chew on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd80c073dd8&ei=5089
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html
7Katelyn Sills
wrote on 25 March 2007 at 15:46
Sorry I am so late in responding.
In the NY Times article, all the man did was emphasize doubts already present about certain research. For instance, “in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, “Our Changing Planet,” Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word “extremely” to this sentence: “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.” I think this doubt is actually quite healthy, and a welcome change from the Gore scare tactics. After all, the scientific process is not based on belief, but on doubt.
The Christian Science Monitor article also offers no evidence to support your conclusion that the Bush administration suppresses or denies information on global warming. If you’ve read the article, you’ll know that all it states is that the administration has selected certain studies to highlight. That doesn’t mean it suppresses or denies anything.
Aren’t you equally interested in why Al Gore’s information is contrary to the UN’s IPCC fourth report on global warming? Is he denying information?
8lee
wrote on 18 April 2007 at 15:28
Katelyn,
Have you ever seen this video on global warming. It is a skeptical video (it makes the argument against man-made global warming.
Makes you think
-Lee