Estudiante

Analysis: An Inconvenient Truth


An Inconvenient Truth is a thought-provoking film based on the multi-media lecture given in over 1,000 cities globally, presented by former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. The Academy Award winning documentary (first documentary to ever win two Oscars) portrays an alarming depiction of the negative consequences that our planet has endured,and will continue to endure due to the effects of global warming. The prime concern addressed in the film is that global warming is continually harming the planet and if this international problem is not properly addressed, humans will be facing an awfully ill fated future. Al Gore displays, criticizes and provides accessibility to millions of viewers through the medium of his film, all thewhile providing fundamental information about global warming, successfully through the display of ethos, logos and pathos.
After the film was released, Al Gore and his documentary were predominantly received on two atypical levels, acclaim and incredulity. He deliberately mentions in the film that he studied under Roger Revelle (a professor from Harvard whom is credited with the discovery of“greenhouse gases” and global warming) and that his “friends” were primary contributors to his study of global warming. Gore also refers to his political and environmental attributes from the past, speaking on his induction and proposal of global warming in the senate. He then adds that his effort was not taken seriously and shows a video clip of the first George Bush, who says in reference toGore, “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we'll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man,” (AIT). The inclusion of this video and others alike are simply to demonstrate to his audience that he’s been working on the global warming project for a long time and he has yet received an adequate response to his proposal. He came to theconclusion if his fellow “bigwigs” in Washington D.C. were not going to receive him genuinely he would have to bring his message of alertness to another crowd. And that is exactly what he accomplished in the creation of his movie.
Gore furthers his thesis by supporting it with both visual and verbal explanations.
In the movie he presents scientific concepts and evidence about global warmingin an apparent, succinct and compelling fashion in order to appeal to his audience in a logical fashion. Gore consistently utilizes multiple graphs and slideshows to further his arguments during his lecture. A. O. Scott writes in the New York Times review of the movie, “I can’t think of another movie in which the display of a graph elicited gasps of horror, but when the red lines showing theincreasing rates of carbon dioxide emissions and the corresponding rise in temperatures come on screen, the effect is jolting and chilling” (Scott 1). This graph in particular demonstrates a link between CO2 levels and global temperature during the last 650,000 years; Gore says scientists confirmed evidence by using samples from polar ice caps in the Antarctic. He explains that throughout this lengthof the earth’s existence, CO2 levels continually changed between 180 and 280 parts per million. While the level of carbon today is nearly 400 parts per million, well above anything that has been seen in over a half million years (AIT). Gore waits until the end of this demonstration to add that the CO2 levels will rise within the next fifty years to 600 parts per million if conditions and methodsare not changed. Facts like these implement the severity of Global Warming and make it hard to understand how some can deem his argument a mute point.
Gore continues to logically support his claim when he portrays the dramatic variations of the earth’s change occurring around the world as a result of global warming. By comparing photographs of glaciers from fifteen to thirty years ago...