I don't pretend to be an expert, but I care about sustainability and want to know the truth. Sometimes, though, I just have to go with the best educated guess.
I approach the topic of global warming with a wary but open mind. If there's a problem, I want to address it head on.
So I rented Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
Gore's movie frustrated me because I kind of wanted to be convinced all the global warming hype was true and rational, so I could jump on the bandwagon. But too many things got in the way of that conviction.
The movie was purposely emotionally manipulative - not something that inspires confidence in me - and had the obvious posing of select, supportive statistics, but that's all common enough in public presentations and one-sided arguments.
The biggest problems for me were the obvious omissions, the double standards and Gore's ironic self-obsession.
Gore fully elaborated the environmental costs of global warming with chart after chart but did not breath a single statistic of the economic costs except an exaggerated joke at the expense of his political opponents (despite his claim that global warming wasn't a political issue).
Certainly we would benefit in many ways from raising our environmental standards (breathable air, anyone?), but a fair argument would note that it means paying an economic price.
But no, Gore would have us believe that because this is a clear moral issue, we should be doing the right thing, and doing the right thing always leads to wealth and prosperity.
Wait, did he seriously just say that? Whoa, yeah, he did.
Global warming alarmists are quick to point out that the poor would suffer most from the effects of climate change. However, they also fail to mention that the poor would suffer most from the worldwide economic downturn that would result if everyone suddenly enforced the Kyoto treaty.
When Gore showed that long list of countries that signed the Kyoto treaty, I guess he also forgot to mention that they have failed to meet the standards they set themselves.
I give a bewildered look to anyone who says we shouldn't be focusing on the messenger in this situation but on the merits of the message.
At least half of Gore's movie was about himself (but remember, this isn't political). We are supposed to trust him and care because it is so obvious that he cares - he even threw in his life tragedies to highlight what a caring fellow he is. I know it's been said before, but if he cares so much, why isn't he living it?
That line at the end about biking and taking mass transit is just supposed to apply to people like you and me. He's rich enough to buy his own carbon credits - that's why most of the movie shows Gore looking intense while traveling by private plane or in large cars. He doesn't need to change; he just needs to motivate others to.
According to Gore and many here at ASU, there are no real dissenters, and climatologists have nothing to gain from hyping up a problem.
The truth is there are educated people - including climatologists - who make persuasive arguments that global warming is over-hyped.
Nothing to gain? When have climatologists ever received as much funding and attention as when there is a global climate problem?
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documents that supposedly prove global warming is a huge threat give far milder predictions than Gore's puddle-infested Earth graphics.
I want both sides of the argument, fairly presented, or I cannot make a decision either way. I'm having trouble finding people who are even willing to think two legitimate sides exist. Will anyone join me in a balanced discussion this summer?
Reach the reporters at: francesca.vanderfeltz@asu.edu.
