Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth, in my opinion, is undoubtedly a convincing source in the corner of those who believe that climate change is indeed taking place and is negatively effecting features of earth as well as human beings. The film is filled with what seem to be valid and logical facts that claim the climate change, caused by the actions of human beings, is responsible for many negative things related to nature. Al Gore’s main point of the movie is that human beings are responsible for the climate change that will result in the destruction of the earth. Therefore we must act now and take initiative towards reducing CO₂ levels and reducing the warming of earths atmosphere. Al Gore uses effective pathos to attract the audience, however the content of the film, when further researched, proves to be ineffective due to inconsistent information.

Initially Al Gore’s argument is successful. If someone who’s never researched the issue of climate change and really has no thorough viewpoint on the topic watches this film, they will be convinced that climate change is indeed a serious issue at hand and that mankind needs to act immediately in order to save the earth. However, if one further researches the topic and the arguments that Al Gore is making, one might find that maybe it is not all entirely true. There are many different viewpoints on the issue of climate change and there are many valid arguments made to support each view. There are many strengths to Al Gore’s argument if you believe climate change is indeed occurring and is due to human activity. He supports his claims with evidence of earth’s destruction. For example, At the beginning of the film he shows that the increased level of CO₂ in the past 50 years goes hand in hand with the increasing temperature of earth in the past 50 years. He shows the rapid melting of glaciers in recently as well as the decrease in the thickness of ice in Antarctica. He also shows that as the overall temperatures increase, the heating of bodies of water occurs as well. This results in more severe storms with more speed and faster winds. One major example Al Gore shows of this,that all Americans can relate to, is Hurricane Katrina. Also, Gore claims that with the temperature increase comes a change in ecological niches. This results in the uprising of new infectious diseases such as SARS and the Wes Nile virus. He shows that at the rate of the melting of ice shelves due to the temperature increase that pretty soon Greenland and Antarctica will melt. This would result in severe flooding throughout the world. In America, it would result in the flooding Florida, California and parts of New York, specifically Gore points out that the 911 memorial site would become flooded. All of this information he uses to support his main point is quite convincing.

However, if you do not buy into this theory then the film might only contain a handful of strengths that support Gore’s arguments and many weaknesses that may point to climate change being all “hype”. There are many people that might find An Inconvenient Truth to only be “broadly” accurate. For instance, a judge in Britain ruled that the film could only be showed in schools if “accompanied by a warning about its ‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated" claims’.

Not all of the information presented in the film is entirely accurate according to the scientific community. For example, as of 2007, according to information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable, “ More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part “ there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Al Gore is merely a politician and is not scientifically qualified to make some of the claims that he does in the film. If the scientific community is not backing Al Gore on the content of the film, the film loses credibility.

The way the film itself is produced has many strengths and weaknesses. The film targets the viewers emotions more so than anything else. It contains parts that don’t necessarily pertain to the topic of climate change. They try to emotionally get the viewer to empathize with the film. They do this by adding scenes to the film that feature aspects about Al Gore’s life. It contains a scene where Al Gore reflects upon the experience of when his son was hit by a car and nearly died as well as a scene where Gore reflects upon how he grew up on a tobacco farm only to watch his sister tragically die of lung cancer at a young age. Also, when explaining how if Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, he shows how this would result in the severe flooding of cities all over the world. He emphasizes that certain cities in the united states would become severely flooded. He especially emphasizes that it would flood the 911 memorial site which he clearly does to emotionally effect the targeted audience, which is the American people. All of this can be considered a strength to the film if you buy into it. However, if you realize that the film is off the topic of climate change and into your emotions than you might consider it to be a weakness of the film. Another weakness of the film is that it contains false information. He shows a chart that says that earths temperatures haven”t been as high as they are now in the past millennium. However, this does not prove to be true as William Broad says; “So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.” Scientists acclaim the rise in temperature to the natural warming cycle of earth.

The film does reflect something bigger in American culture and society. If the claim the humans are responsible for climate change is true, America is the number one contributor to the problem as America is the number one country in CO₂ emissions in the world. According to Vexen Crabtree , the United States contains 4% of the worlds population but produces about 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and 36.1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the United States is one of the only countries in the world that has not adopted the Kyoto protocol which is a pact that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Americans, it is a part of our culture that everyone has their own vehicle, and the nicest one possible at that. Up until very recently, no one was concerned about environmentally friendly vehicles, gas mileage or the amount of pollution their car emits. It is a cultural issue when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the United States is responsible for and as a culture we should be more concerned about the environment.

Overall, An Inconvenient Truth is a well put together and convincing film. However, when further researched there seems to be faulty information and inconsistent data throughout the film. If the scientific community does not believe that l climate change is even an issue, especially not an issue caused by human beings, then I am forced to believe that An Inconvenient Truth is truly just “hype”.

Works Cited

"Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square." American Policy Roundtable | Non-Partisan Public Policy Organization. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Broad, William J. "From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool Hype." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2010.

Crabtree, Vexen. "The USA Versus the Environment: Oil, Pollution and Kyoto." Vexen Crabtree's Websites: Forcing Humanity Onwards. 4 June 2002. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Tom. "Global Warming, Scientists, Al Gore Climate Change." Canada Free Press: Online Conservative Newspaper, News, Politics, Editorials. 12 June 2006. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Soltis, Andy. "What's Wrong With Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." Web log post. Greensboring. 12 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth, in my opinion, is undoubtedly a convincing source in the corner of those who believe that climate change is indeed

taking place and is negatively effecting features of earth as well as human beings. The film is filled with what seem to be valid and logical facts

that claim the climate change, caused by the actions of human beings, is responsible for many negative things related to nature. Al Gore’s main

point of the movie is that human beings are responsible for the climate change that will result in the destruction of the earth. Therefore we must

act now and take initiative towards reducing CO₂ levels and reducing the warming of earths atmosphere. Al Gore uses effective pathos to attract

the audience, however the content of the film, when further researched, proves to be ineffective due to inconsistent information.

Initially Al Gore’s argument is successful. If someone who’s never researched the issue of climate change and really has no thorough

viewpoint on the topic watches this film, they will be convinced that climate change is indeed a serious issue at hand and that mankind needs to

act immediately in order to save the earth. However, if one further researches the topic and the arguments that Al Gore is making, one might

find that maybe it is not all entirely true. There are many different viewpoints on the issue of climate change and there are many valid arguments

made to support each view. There are many strengths to Al Gore’s argument if you believe climate change is indeed occurring and is due to

human activity. He supports his claims with evidence of earth’s destruction. For example, At the beginning of the film he shows that the

increased level of CO₂ in the past 50 years goes hand in hand with the increasing temperature of earth in the past 50 years. He shows the rapid

melting of glaciers in recently as well as the decrease in the thickness of ice in Antarctica. He also shows that as the overall temperatures

increase, the heating of bodies of water occurs as well. This results in more severe storms with more speed and faster winds. One major

example Al Gore shows of this,that all Americans can relate to, is Hurricane Katrina. Also, Gore claims that with the temperature increase

comes a change in ecological niches. This results in the uprising of new infectious diseases such as SARS and the Wes Nile virus. He shows

that at the rate of the melting of ice shelves due to the temperature increase that pretty soon Greenland and Antarctica will melt. This would

result in severe flooding throughout the world. In America, it would result in the flooding Florida, California and parts of New York,

specifically Gore points out that the 911 memorial site would become flooded. All of this information he uses to support his main point is quite

convincing.

However, if you do not buy into this theory then the film might only contain a handful of strengths that support Gore’s arguments and

many weaknesses that may point to climate change being all “hype”. There are many people that might find An Inconvenient Truth to only be

“broadly” accurate. For instance, a judge in Britain ruled that the film could only be showed in schools if “accompanied by a warning about its

‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated" claims’.

Not all of the information presented in the film is entirely accurate according to the scientific community.

For example, as of 2007, according to information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable, “ More than 17,000 scientists have signed a

petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part “ there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release

of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s

atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Al Gore is merely a politician and is not scientifically qualified to make some of the claims

that he does in the film. If the scientific community is not backing Al Gore on the content of the film, the film loses credibility.

The way the film itself is produced has many strengths and weaknesses. The film targets the viewers emotions more so than anything else.

It contains parts that don’t necessarily pertain to the topic of climate change. They try to emotionally get the viewer to empathize with the film.

They do this by adding scenes to the film that feature aspects about Al Gore’s life. It contains a scene where Al Gore reflects upon the

experience of when his son was hit by a car and nearly died as well as a scene where Gore reflects upon how he grew up on a tobacco farm

only to watch his sister tragically die of lung cancer at a young age. Also, when explaining how if Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, he

shows how this would result in the severe flooding of cities all over the world. He emphasizes that certain cities in the united states would

become severely flooded. He especially emphasizes that it would flood the 911 memorial site which he clearly does to emotionally effect the

targeted audience, which is the American people. All of this can be considered a strength to the film if you buy into it. However, if you realize

that the film is off the topic of climate change and into your emotions than you might consider it to be a weakness of the film. Another weakness

of the film is that it contains false information. He shows a chart that says that earths temperatures haven”t been as high as they are now in the

past millennium. However, this does not prove to be true as William Broad says; “So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed

to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared

unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.” Scientists acclaim the rise in temperature to

the natural warming cycle of earth.

The film does reflect something bigger in American culture and society. If the claim the humans are responsible for climate change is true,

America is the number one contributor to the problem as America is the number one country in CO₂ emissions in the world. According to

Vexen Crabtree , the United States contains 4% of the worlds population but produces about 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and

36.1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the United States is one of the only countries in the world that has not adopted the Kyoto protocol

which is a pact that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Americans, it is a part of our culture that everyone has their

own vehicle, and the nicest one possible at that. Up until very recently, no one was concerned about environmentally friendly vehicles,

gas mileage or the amount of pollution their car emits. It is a cultural issue when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the United

States is responsible for and as a culture we should be more concerned about the environment.

Overall, An Inconvenient Truth is a well put together and convincing film. However, when further researched there seems to be faulty

information and inconsistent data throughout the film. If the scientific community does not believe that l climate change is even an issue,

especially not an issue caused by human beings, then I am forced to believe that An Inconvenient Truth is truly just “hype”.

Works Cited

"Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square." American Policy Roundtable | Non-

Partisan Public Policy Organization. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Broad, William J. "From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool Hype." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2010.

Crabtree, Vexen. "The USA Versus the Environment: Oil, Pollution and Kyoto." Vexen Crabtree's Websites: Forcing Humanity Onwards. 4

June 2002. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Tom. "Global Warming, Scientists, Al Gore Climate Change." Canada Free Press: Online Conservative Newspaper, News, Politics,

Editorials. 12 June 2006. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Soltis, Andy. "What's Wrong With Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." Web log post. Greensboring. 12 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Formal Response

Formal Response

After watching An Inconvenient Truth, it really had an impact on the way I think when it comes to the issue of climate change. I never really bought into all the hype about climate change because I was not directly affected by it and was unaware of the changes taking place due to climate change. I now think that something definitely needs to be done and changes must be made in the way we live our lives. The movie made me willing to do my part in order to save the earth.

The movie starts off with Al Gore explaining what climate change is. He explains that due to the increased levels of CO2 in the past 50 years, the temperatures have increased drastically in the past 50 years as well. He gives numerous examples throughout the movie that show how detrimental such drastic temperature increases are to earth. As temperatures increase, storms get worse because increased temperatures means increased wind and speed of storms. Thickness in ice in the Artic has gone down dramatically and is even starting to melt. Polar bears are dying off because they are drowning and cant’ find places to live. Al Gore also talks about his personal life a little bit throughout the movie. He talks about how he almost lost his son to being hit by a car and also how his sister past away due to lung cancer. The movie finishes with Al Gore giving an inspirational statement saying that we are more than capable to do something about the climate change so we must take initiative.

The central claim, or thesis, of the film is that this climate change is detrimental to earth and dangerous to mankind and we must do something about it in order to preserve this planet. It offers evidence of this by showing how this climate change is destroying some of the most beautiful aspects of our earth such as the melting of glaciers. It also shows how dangerous this climate change is to mankind by showing the increase in deadly natural disasters as well as the increase in new diseases.

The intended emotional appeal of the film is to make the viewer feel apathetic about the climate change. The movie was successful in making me feel this way. I used to not really know what the effects of climate change were nor did I care. Now I know the effects and I feel bad about what is going on and I want to do my part to help. With all the examples of how detrimental it is to nature and, more importantly, how dangerous it is to mankind.
The character of the speaker, Al Gore, is kind of like the one person who is willing to take a stand and do what is necessary to make a change. He goes around, city to city, giving this power point hoping to make such an impact on the viewers that they will feel inspired to make a change. I also did not like how he included little parts of his personal life to make the viewer feel bad and have emotional ties to what he was saying. This character of Al Gore kind of annoyed me. I feel like if it was someone else that I would have not only like the movie more but also would have had more respect for the message he was trying to get across.

Overall, I thought the movie was very effective and got the message across loud and clear. After seeing An Inconvenient Truth I want to make a change in order to keep the earth beautiful, as well as make it a safer place to live.

Rhetorical Defense

Tucker Sorrell Sorrell 1

Melissa Mudd

English 151

2 October 2010

Rhetorical Defense

I originally decided to do my campus history project on our very own Ellis Hall. I figured that would be cool because that is where our English 151 class takes place. I wanted to inform the class on the history of the building. It also appealed to me because I don’t think anyone else had the idea to do the project on Ellis Hall. I looked up information on Ellis Hall and went to the library to find out about the buildings history. Nothing really stood out to me as being that interesting. I found myself becoming bored with the project and realized that I needed to make a change in what building I was doing. I then decided to do the project on the Ping Center. The Ping Center appealed to me because, aside from Baker Center, Ping is the most up to date and state-of-the-art building. Aside from my dorm, Crawford Hall, and some of the buildings that I have classes in, Ping is probably the one place where I spend most of my time. I love going to Ping to work out and play basketball so it seemed only right to do my project on the Ping Center.

For my promotion piece, I at first decided that I really wanted to do a video/commercial. I thought that would be the most entertaining and attention grasping. I wanted to make it funny but also informative at the same time. I wanted to interview people that work at Ping because they probably have a lot of useful information to share with the audience. I also wanted to interview students who were using the ping facility to ask them what they think of the facility, what they

Sorrell 2

know about the facility and any thoughts or comments they would have liked to share about Ping. Even though I ended up doing a brochure, I still feel as though doing a video would have been the best possible promotional piece. I ended up running into problems doing the video. I could not find a video camera and I tried using a digital camera to record the video. I could not figure out how to cut and edit certain parts of the video. Given the opportunity to go back, I probably would have made better use of my time and figured out where I could get a real video camera and help from someone on how to cut and edit the video. This was absolutely necessary because I did not want to just have an ongoing video that looked unprofessional and sloppy. I then chose to do a brochure because, to be honest, I was crunched for time and I figured it would be the easiest and fastest way to go about getting my promotional piece finished.

My audience for my promotion piece would be any Ohio University student/faculty member. I catered to this audience by having an Ohio University colors themed brochure. I also used diction that would make any OU student/faculty member feel like I was directing this brochure at them. The purpose of my brochure was to inform people about the Ping Center and try and make it appeal to them so they would want to take advantage of the opportunity to use this state-of-the-art facility. My piece fulfilled this purpose by pointing out the most appealing parts of the Ping Center. For example I chose to put pictures in of the most popular aspects that Ping has to offer such as the rock wall, the group workout classes and the elliptical machines that support sustainability. My piece also included the brief history of the Ping Center as it has only been around since 1996. It has a picture of the man who the Ping Center is named after, Charles J. Ping. The genre of my piece is informative. It is filled with information about the Ping Center

Sorrell 3

as to inform the audience. I stuck to the genres conventions by putting informative information in my piece that would give the audience insight about the Ping Center. I appealed to pathos, logos,

and ethos by appealing to the demands of the audience. I also used statistics and facts about Ping that would appeal to logic. I made my piece look very professional and legitimate as to appeal to ethos. I chose to include the information that I did because, in my opinion, they are the most interesting aspects of the Ping Center. These aspects are the ones that I feel would appeal most to my audience.