‘An Inconvenient Truth’ the Documentary by Davis Guggenheim Research Paper

1. Summary of video and scientific evidence contained in it

The 2006 documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ shook the nation and the world with its alarmist predictions about how man is hastening global warming and contributing to his doom.

The first scientific evidence is that icepacks in the north and south poles are breaking up unnaturally. Presenter Al Gore talks about the probability of the break-up of a huge icepack in Greenland or the West Antarctic that would precipitate a rise in international sea levels by about 20 feet (Guggenheim).

The second scientific evidence involves samples of the Antarctic ice core. Gore blames man for causing climate change by analyzing yearly temperatures and carbon dioxide levels for the past 650,000 years in the samples (Guggenheim).

The third evidence is that the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising to unnaturally high levels. Gore blames man for generating excessive carbon dioxide that is creating havoc with the atmosphere (Guggenheim).

2. Evidence that denies the video’s claims

Regarding the first evidence, in reality, even the normal predictions of rising in sea levels, according to the UN, has been grossly exaggerated; it admitted in a recent report that it had erroneously projected sea level rises since 2001 as more than 100% of what it was (Inhofe).

Regarding the second evidence, a research finding by a group of global scientists headed by Danish solar specialist Henrik Svensmark confirms that the Sun exerts maximum influence on climate change, ominously adding that the Sun’s present solar activity has been at its highest level in 10 centuries (Inhofe). A UN report also refutes the documentary’s claims by admitting its earlier reports erred about man’s impact on global climate changes; the impact was 25% lesser than (Inhofe).

Regarding the third evidence, the documentary’s claim is refuted by an independent 2006 UN report that discovered emissions from cattle caused greater global warming as compared to automobile emissions (Inhofe).

3. Arguments that support the evidence that denies the video’s claims

The denying evidence is backed by a powerful argument that claims the documentary’s alarmist scenario is driven by money. The supporters of this viewpoint cite the Kyoto Protocol as the best example, charging that the draconian international agreement would have a negligible impact on the climate but would cost U.S taxpayers $ 300 billion – a tax figure that is 10% greater than the earlier largest tax increase in U.S history. The underlying economic connection is revealed by one simple fact: following the release of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 6 global warming proposals surfaced in U.S Congress, all promising two similar outcomes if implemented: the actual impact on the climate would be virtually undetectable, but the cost of enacting them would be massive. The Washington Post in its January 25, 2007 edition gave a clearer picture about these proposals by selecting one of them and confirming that Bingaman’s proposal would do little to tackle the climate threat, but cost the nation heavily in the form of a 5% increase in gasoline prices and a 4% rise in electricity prices (Inhofe).

A significant incident in the documentary takes on a different meaning in the light of this new dimension about economic implications. When Gore observes the portrait of a scientist looking at a pair of scales that is weighed down with the world globe on one end and a pile of gold bars on the other, he wryly remarks that the portrait presents a false choice because, due to man-made mistakes, we do not have a planet which we can use as a bargaining tool (Guggenheim). Given the new economic connection, this scene can be reviewed with 2 changes: the gold bars should be substituted by greenbacks, and the presenter’s remarks should be amended to admit to having a planet with which there is nothing wrong, except that it should be run in response to our financial instructions. These two changes would correctly portray to one and all the “The Real Inconvenient Truth” that lies behind the video “An Inconvenient Truth.”

4. My personal opinion

My personal opinion is that global warming is taking place, for which man is to be blamed – but not to the great extent as in the documentary. Nature has provided its in-built safeguards that preempt any change to a massive degree, but mankind has erred in committing too many errors that have compromised these safeguards considerably – not terribly or irrevocably, but to a noticeable degree. Two main culprits have been deforestation and the growing number of automobiles. Thankfully, we have not yet reached a stage where the damage is irreversible. We have already achieved a remarkable breakthrough. Ethanol-85 powered cars have burst into national and international prominence in 2003. They are acclaimed as the best alternative to gasoline and petrol to power cars without causing high emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Ellis). Secondly, the UN should take the initiative in demanding that all countries curtail deforestation as much as possible while also undertaking extensive campaigns to grow new plants and trees.

On my part, I can contribute in 5 ways. I can switch over to driving an E85 powered car, that too very sparingly; I can use it in tandem with travelling by public transportation, forming carpools with office colleagues, and cycling to the gym and supermarket. Secondly, I can plant trees in my household compound as well as urge my neighbors and friends to do likewise. Thirdly, I can reduce my consumption of electricity by turning down the water heater and using compact fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs. Lastly, I can avoid purchasing imported foodstuffs and buy local foodstuffs instead.

References

1. Ellis, Chris. “E85 Hybrids: The Next Big Step.” BusinessWeek. 2006.
2. Guggenheim, Davis. “An Inconvenient Truth.” IMDB Movies. 2006.
3. Inhofe, Jim. “The Real Inconvenient Truth.” Politico.com. 2007. Web.