Its the best documentary film.

by Navojit Saha
(India)

It gives us a lot of information about the temperature levels and carbon dioxide levels, their rise from the past.

Barry's Response That's right, Havojit, it's a great introduction to climate change and global warming. An Inconvenient Truth changed the world.

Check it out. Many people commenting on it haven't seen it and only heard others talking about it or taking a political stance before they saw it. Keep an open mind. Even though it's several years old, it's still an important introduction.

You'll be able to talk more intelligently if you have something to say. Dated or not, it is the basis for the debate and controversy over the last decade (or two). If you're gonna know, you've got to start somewhere. It's a good place to start.

You don't have to believe it all. You don't have to do anything about it. Knowing is best. It's about the science, as Al Gore knows it. It's got some truth in it. It's worth it.

It provides us opportunities and ideas on which to base future research, to clarify ambiguous issues, to prove him wrong, or to prove him right. Probably both.

Search this site for more information now.

Here are some tough criticisms of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Different experts and viewers may have different opinions on the film's strengths and weaknesses, but here goes:

The film is one-sided and doesn't always present the climate change debate in a balanced way. There's no adequate discussion of opposing viewpoints or potential limitations of climate change science because it focuses on Al Gore's perspective.

As Al Gore was a prominent politician, this might see that the movie has a political agenda. The film's credibility and objectivity are undermined by this political bias.

Emotional Manipulation: I'd say the film relies on emotional storytelling and dramatic visuals to sway the audience. It might seem that this affective manipulation is detracting from the scientific rigor that should underpin climate change discussions.

"An Inconvenient Truth" simplifies complex climate science and policy issues. One would argue that the film doesn't give a nuanced understanding of climate change's challenges and potential solutions. And with its limited focus on solutions, the film emphasizes problems associated with climate change more than practical solutions. Thus it might leave viewers feeling overwhelmed and powerless.

Maybe you should question some of the specific predictions about the timing and severity of climate change impacts in the film. And then find out if these predictions are speculative and subject to change.

There's not enough scientific depth in the film to really educate viewers about climate change, especially if it simplifies complex scientific concepts, causing misunderstandings. Then one could argue that the film selectively presents data and statistics to support its narrative while ignoring data that might challenge it. Using information selectively could be seen as intellectual dishonest.

Criticizing the film for its alarmist tone, I might argue that it exaggerates the severity and immediacy of climate change impacts. And I'll bet the film doesn't discuss the complexities of climate change policy or the trade-offs involved in implementing environmental laws well.

It's important to note that these criticisms are hypothetical thoughts and represent a critical perspective that every scientist might take when analyzing a documentary like "An Inconvenient Truth." Not everyone will agree with these.