Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was one of the high points not only of the environmental movement but also of the documentary tradition in America. He figured out how to use a new medium, PowerPoint, to take the unavoidably wonkish story of global warming and make it scary, credible and manageable. It was, perhaps, as important as anything he could have done as president, and he deserved not only the Oscar but also the Nobel.As almost everyone noted at the time, however, there was one problem with the film: the section on what to actually do about the biggest problem we’ve ever faced was remarkably short, both in duration and on plausible ideas. If the world is coming to an end, changing your light bulb doesn’t seem like the obvious response. Or rather, it seems highly obvious but highly insufficient–a gesture, not a solution.
Gore heard those criticisms and spent the next few years convening a series of more than thirty 'Solutions Summits' in Nashville and elsewhere, where he picked the brains of virtually everyone who ever thought professionally about climate and energy. He’s taken all those data and all those ideas, and with the help of a capable team of researchers he’s turned them into a book, Our Choice, an ambitious and entirely successful attempt to lay out all that we know about mainstream answers to global warming. (When I say 'virtually everyone,' I mean it; the acknowledgments take up four pages of agate type and include even me.) He’s got chapters on solar electricity, on wind energy, on biofuels, on nuclear power and even on more recondite topics: geothermal energy, carbon sequestration.Occasionally, truth be told, the book verges on the nerdy. There are diagrams on topics like 'how a turbine works' that could have come from an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Gore has a weakness for statistics: did you know that between 1984 and 1991 nine early concentrated solar thermal power plants were built in the Mojave Desert with a total of 2 million square meters of mirrors? Some of the vast book is taken up with what amounts to more PowerPoint slides–beautiful but stock images of farmers or roaring hurricanes.
Now how's that for a game! F-U-N is truly redefined whenever we get to play this game! And I am very much amused that it never changed after verifying it on that night I checked out free drinking games online. Another game that we definitely like to play whenever we are with girl friends is called Answer This.
(If you like gorgeous windmill porn, this is your book.)Taken as a whole, however, this is the most comprehensive and well-informed survey anyone has ever done of what we need to do to get off fossil fuel. Gore is judicious and reasoned at every turn, and gets most of the calls exactly right. Building more traditional nuclear power plants will be too expensive to provide much help. Ditto carbon sequestration: it’s a good idea to try and take the exhaust from coal-fired power plants and store it underground in old oil wells, but the costs so far seem prohibitive. In fact, to many of these dilemmas Gore applies a wise test: 'Put a high price on carbon.
When the reality of the need to sharply reduce CO2 emissions is integrated into all market calculations–including the decisions by utilities and their investors–market forces will drive us quickly toward the answers we need.'
Running time97 minutesCountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$1.5 millionBox office$49.8 millionAn Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 American / directed by about former 's campaign to educate people about. The film features a that, by Gore's own estimate, he has presented over a thousand times to audiences worldwide.The idea to document Gore's efforts came from producer, who saw his presentation at a on global warming, which coincided with the opening of. Laurie David was so inspired by his slide show that she, with producer, met with Guggenheim to adapt the presentation into a film. Premiering at the and opening in and on May 24, 2006, the documentary was a critical and commercial success, winning two for. The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. And $26 million at the international, becoming the eleventh highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.Since the film's release, An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising and reenergizing the. The documentary has also been included in science curricula in schools around the world, which has spurred some controversy.
A sequel to the film, titled, was released on July 28, 2017. Contents.Synopsis An Inconvenient Truth presents in film form an illustrated talk on climate by Al Gore, aimed at alerting the public to an increasing 'planetary emergency' due to, and shows re-enacted incidents from his life story which influenced his concerns about environmental issues. He began making these presentations in 1989 with illustrations; the film version uses a, which Gore refers to as 'the '.The former vice president opens the film by greeting an audience with his well-known line about: 'I am Al Gore; I used to be the next President of the United States.' He is shown using his laptop to edit his presentation, and pondering the difficulty he has had in awakening public concern: 'I've been trying to tell this story for a long time and I feel as if I've failed to get the message across.' Gore then begins his slide show on Global Warming; a comprehensive presentation replete with detailed graphs, flow charts and stark visuals.
Gore shows off several photographs of the Earth taken from multiple space missions, as. Gore notes that these photos dramatically transformed the way we see the Earth, helping spark modern.Following this, Gore shares anecdotes that inspired his interest in the issue, including his college education with early climate expert at, his sister's death from lung cancer and his young son's near-fatal car accident. Gore recalls a story from his grade-school years, where a fellow student asked his geography teacher about; in response, the teacher called the concept the 'most ridiculous thing he'd ever heard.' Gore ties this conclusion to the assumption that 'the Earth is so big, we can't possibly have any lasting, harmful impact on the Earth's environment.' For comic effect, Gore uses a clip from the episode ' to describe the. Gore refers to his loss to in the as a 'hard blow' yet one which subsequently 'brought into clear focus, the mission he had been pursuing for all these years.'
The, a photo showing Earth (circled) as a single pixel from 4 billion miles (6.4 billion kilometres) away, is featured in the film. Al Gore points out that all of human history has happened on that tiny pixel, which is our only home.Throughout the movie, Gore discusses the, as well as the present and future and stresses that global warming 'is really not a political issue, so much as a moral one,' describing the consequences he believes global warming will produce if the amount of human-generated is not significantly reduced in the very near future. Gore also presents Antarctic data showing CO 2 levels higher now than in the past 650,000 years.The film includes segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be insignificant. For example, Gore discusses the possibility of the collapse of a major in or in, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6 m), flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees.
Melt water from Greenland, because of its lower, could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly trigger dramatic local cooling there. It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to global warming.The documentary ends with Gore arguing that if appropriate actions are taken soon, the effects of global warming can be successfully reversed by releasing less and planting more vegetation to consume existing CO 2.
Gore calls upon his viewers to learn how they can help him in these efforts. Gore concludes the film by saying:Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen. We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource.During the film's end credits, a pops up on screen suggesting to viewers things at home they can do to combat global warming, including 'recycle', 'speak up in your community', 'try to buy a ' and 'encourage everyone you know to watch this movie.' Gore's was published concurrently with the theatrical release of the documentary. The book contains additional information, scientific analysis, and Gore's commentary on the issues presented in the documentary.
A 2007 documentary entitled An Update with Former Vice President Al Gore features Gore discussing additional information that came to light after the film was completed, such as, depletion, glacial earthquake activity on the, and trapped methane gas release associated with melting. Background. See also:Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at with Professor, one of the first scientists to measure in the atmosphere.Later, when Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first congressional hearing on the subject in 1981. Gore's 1992 book, dealing with a number of environmental topics, reached the.As Vice President during the, Gore pushed for the implementation of a to encourage and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of; it was partially implemented in 1993.He helped broker the 1997, an international treaty designed to curb emissions. The treaty was not ratified in the United States after a 95 to 0 vote in the. The primary objections stemmed from the exemptions the treaty gave to China and India, whose and have grown rapidly, and fears that the exemptions would lead to further trade imbalances and offshoring arrangement with those countries.Gore also supported the funding of the controversial, and much-delayed satellite called, which would have provided an image of the Earth 24 hours a day, over the internet and would have acted as a barometer measuring the process of global warming. During, Gore ran, in part, on a pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
The slide show. Gore presents his global warming slide show at theAfter his defeat in by, Gore returned his focus to the topic. He edited and adapted a slide show he had compiled years earlier, and began featuring the slide show in presentations on global warming across the U.S. And around the world.
At the time of the film, Gore estimated he had shown the presentation more than one thousand times.Producer Laurie David saw Gore's slide show in at a global warming town-hall meeting after the May 27, 2004 premiere of. Gore was one of several panelists and he showed a ten-minute version of his slide show.I had never seen it before, and I was floored. As soon as the evening's program concluded, I asked him to let me present his full briefing to leaders and friends in New York and Los Angeles.
I would do all the organizing if he would commit to the dates. Gore's presentation was the most powerful and clear explanation of global warming I had ever seen. And it became my mission to get everyone I knew to see it too.Inspired, David assembled a team, including producer Lawrence Bender and former president of, who met with Gore about the possibility of making the slide show into a movie. It took some convincing. The slide show, she says, 'was his baby, and he felt proprietary about it and it was hard for him to let go.' David said the box office returns weren't important to her. 'None of us are going to make a dime.'
What is at stake, she says, 'is, you know, the planet.' David and Bender later met with director Davis Guggenheim, to have him direct the film adaptation of his slide show. Guggenheim, who was skeptical at first, later saw the presentation for himself, stating that he was 'blown away,' and 'left after an hour and a half thinking that global warming was the most important issue. I had no idea how you'd make a film out of it, but I wanted to try,' he said.In 2004 Gore enlisted Duarte Design to condense and update his material and add video and animation. Ted Boda described the tools that went into designing the project: 'Gore's presentation was in fact using Apple's presentation software (the same software presents from) and did so for a number of reasons. As a designer for the presentation, Keynote was the first choice to help create such an engaging presentation.'
Initially reluctant of the film adaptation, Gore said after he and the crew were into the production of the movie, the director, Guggenheim, earned his trust.I had seen enough to gain a tremendous respect for his skill and sensitivity. And he said that one of the huge differences between a live stage performance and a movie is that when you're in the same room with a live person who's on stage speaking – even if it's me – there's an element of dramatic tension and human connection that keeps your attention.
And in a movie, that element is just not present. He explained to me that you have to create that element on screen, by supplying a narrative thread that allows the audience to make a connection with one or more characters. He said, 'You've got to be that character.' So we talked about it, and as I say, by then he had earned such a high level of trust from me that he convinced me. Production When Bender first saw Gore's visual presentation he had concerns about connection with viewers, citing a 'need to find a personal way in.' In the string of interviews with Gore that followed, Gore himself felt like they 'were making Kill Al Vol.
Bender had other issues including a time frame that was 'grueling' and needed to be done in 'a very short period of time' despite many filming locations planned. These included many locations throughout the United States and also included China. 'It was a lot of travel in a very short period of time. And they had to get this thing edited and cut starting in January, and ready to screen in May. That's like a seriously tight schedule.
So the logistics of pulling it off with a low budget were really difficult, and if there's one person who gets credit, it's Leslie Chilcott, because she really pulled it together.' Technical aspects The majority of the movie exhibits Gore delivering his lecture to an audience at a relatively small theater in Los Angeles.
Gore's presentation was delivered on a 70-foot (21 m) digital screen that Bender commissioned specifically for the movie.While the bulk of the film was shot on 4:4:4, according to director Guggenheim, a vast array of different film formats were used: 'There's. A lot of the stuff on the farm I just shot myself on. We used four HDCAMs for the presentation. We shot three different kinds of HD, both 30 and 24. There's MiniDV, there's 3200 black-and-white stills, there's digital stills, some of them emailed on the day they were taken from as far off as Greenland. There was three or four different types of animation. One of the animators is from New Zealand and emailed me his work.
There's JPEG stuff.' Guggenheim says while it would've been a lot easier to use one format, it would not have had the same impact.
'Each format has its own feel and texture and touch. For the storytelling of what Gore's memory was like of growing up on the farm, some of this 8mm stuff that I shot is very impressionistic. And for some of his memories of his son's accident, these grainy black-and-white stills.
Have a feel that contrasted very beautifully with the crisp hi-def HD that we shot. Every format was used to its best potential. Some of the footage of Katrina has this blown-out video, where the is just blasted, and it looks real muddy, but that too has its own kind of powerful, impactful feeling.'
Scientific basis. Gore presents the, which shows a pattern of steadily increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic,. Gore presents specificdata that supports the thesis, including:. The, measuring CO 2 from the. The is shown in before-and-after photographs. A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the and the (EPICA) presenting data from Antarctic showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.
showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record had all occurred in the previous fourteen years. A 2004 survey, by of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003.
The survey, published as an editorial in the journal, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it. Gore also presented a 2004 study by Max and showing 53% of articles that appeared in major US newspapers over a fourteen-year period gave roughly equal attention to scientists who expressed views that global warming was caused by humans as they did to (many of them funded by carbon-based industry interests), creating a.The contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or had read the said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors., dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at said 'Gore got all the important material and got it right.'
, chairman of the was also impressed. 'I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate. After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' .I could find no error.'
YPG-235 Piano-focused 76-key Yamaha Portable Grand Discontinued. Online Services. Firmware / Software. Select OS All Mac Win. Musicsoft Downloader V5.7.4 for Win 10/8.1/8/7. USB-MIDI Driver V1.3.2-2 for Mac macOS 10.15-OS X 10.5. USB-MIDI Driver V3.1.4 for Win 10/8.1/8/7 (32-bit) USB-MIDI Driver V3.1.4 for Win 10/8.1/8/7 (64-bit). Yamaha ypg 235 midi setup.
, scientific author and founder of, wrote in that Gore's slide show 'shocked me out of my doubting stance.' Eric Steig, a climate scientist writing on, lauded the film's science as 'remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.' Ted Scambos, lead scientist from the, said the film 'does an excellent job of outlining the science behind global warming and the challenges society faces in the coming century because of it.'
One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between hurricanes and global warming, which remains contentious in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
'I thought the use of imagery from was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,' said Brian Soden, professor of meteorology and oceanography at the University of Miami., climate modeler for NASA, thought Gore appropriately addressed the issue.' Gore talked about 2005 and 2004 being very strong seasons, and if you weren't paying attention, you could be left with the impression that there was a direct cause and effect, but he was very careful to not say there's a direct correlation,' Schmidt said. 'There is a difference between saying 'we are confident that they will increase' and 'we are confident that they have increased due to this effect,' added Steig. 'Never in the movie does he say: 'This particular event is caused by global warming.' And ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO 2 for the last 650,000 years. ('Current CO 2 level' is as of 2006.)Gore's use of long ice core records of CO 2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two drew some scrutiny; Schmidt, Steig and back up Gore's data.
'Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they 'fit'. Both of these statements are true,' said Schmidt and Mann.
'The complexity though is actually quite fascinating. A full understanding of why CO 2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth's orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO 2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore's terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point–that the observed long-term relationship between CO 2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO 2 concentrations–is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO 2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO 2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO 2 and CH 4), implying that future changes in CO 2 will be larger than we might anticipate.' 'Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO 2 scaling is,' said Steig. 'He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate.
The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO 2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO 2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO 2 on climate.' Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the has had on ice cores in Antarctica. 'One can neither see, nor even detect using sensitive chemical methods any evidence in Antarctica of the Clean Air Act,' he said, but did note that they are 'clearly recorded in ice core records from Greenland.' Despite these flaws, Steig said that the film got the fundamental science right and the minor factual errors did not undermine the main message of the film, adding ' An Inconvenient Truth rests on a solid scientific foundation.'
, Earth Science professor at, whose work on retreating glaciers was featured in the film, was pleased with how his research was presented. 'It's so hard given the breadth of this topic to be factually correct, and make sure you don't lose your audience,' Thompson said.
'As scientists, we publish our papers in Science and Nature, but very few people read those. Here's another way to get this message out.
To me, it's an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university. What are the issues and what are the possible consequences of not doing anything about those changes? To me, it has tremendous value. It will reach people that scientists will never reach.' From said the 'main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification.' Nielsen-Gammon thought the film neglected information gained from computer models, and instead relied entirely on past and current observational evidence, 'perhaps because such information would be difficult for alay audience to grasp, believe, or connect with emotionally.'
Steven Quiring, climatologist from Texas A&M University added that 'whether scientists like it or not, An Inconvenient Truth has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.' Reception Box office The film opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. On weekend, it grossed an average of $91,447 per theater, the highest of any movie that weekend and a record for a documentary, though it was only playing on four screens at the time.At the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three. It was also screened at the and was the opening night film at the 27th on June 14, 2006. An Inconvenient Truth was the most popular documentary at the 2006.The film has grossed over $24 million in the U.S., making it the eleventh-highest-grossing documentary in the U.S.
(from 1982 to the present). It grossed nearly $26 million in foreign countries, the highest being France, where it grossed $5 million. According to Gore, ' and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming.' Committed 5% of their domestic theatrical gross from the film to form a new bipartisan climate action group, dedicated to awareness and grassroots organizing.
Reviews The film received a positive reaction from film critics and audiences. It garnered a 'certified fresh' 93% rating at.
At, which assigns a score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 75, based on 32 reviews.Film critics and gave the film 'two thumbs up'. Ebert said, 'In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to,' calling the film 'horrifying, enthralling and having the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the Earth.' Critic called the film 'One of the most realistic documentaries I've ever seen—and, dry as it is, one of the most devastating in its implications.' 's added that while it was 'not the most entertaining film of the year. It might be the most important' and a 'brilliantly lucid, often riveting attempt to warn Americans off our hellbent path to global suicide.'
Reviewer thought the film was 'edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of and shaped to give Mr. Gore's argument a real sense of drama,' and 'as unsettling as it can be,' Scott continued, 'it is also intellectually exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite for further study.' Critic Jayson Harsin declared the film's aesthetic qualities groundbreaking, as a new genre of slideshow film.climatologist described the film as powerful, complemented by detail in the book. Hansen said that 'Gore has put together a coherent account of a complex topic that Americans desperately need to understand. The story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public, a public that is less and less drawn to science.' He added that with An Inconvenient Truth, 'Al Gore may have done for global warming what did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.'
In 'extensive exit polling' of An Inconvenient Truth in 'conservative suburban markets like Plano and Irvine (Orange County), as well as Dallas and Long Island', 92 percent rated 'Truth' highly and 87 percent of the respondents said they'd recommend the film to a friend. Professor Michele Poff argued that Gore was successful in communicating to conservative-leaning audiences by framing the as apolitical.
'Gore's and the environment's identification with the Democratic Party posed a significant challenge to reaching Republicans and conservatives, as well as those disgruntled with politics in general,' Poff wrote. 'To appeal to such individuals, Gore framed the matter as distinctly apolitical – as an issue both outside politics and one that was crucial regardless of one's ideological leanings. These explicit attempts to frame the issue as apolitical take on further gravitas when we consider how Gore infused the film with reflections of conservative values.
Indeed, Gore reached deeply into the value structure of American conservatives to highlight ideals that suggested his cause was not liberal, but rather was beyond politics, beyond ideology.' Critical response A small number of reviews criticized the film on scientific and political grounds.
Journalist argued in the magazine that although 'Gore gets the science more right than wrong,' he exaggerates the risks. Billy joel greatest hits. Atmospheric physicist was vocally critical of the film, writing in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain.A few other reviewers were also skeptical of Gore's intent, wondering whether he was setting himself for another Presidential run. Writer Peter Canello criticized the 'gauzy biographical material that seems to have been culled from old Gore campaign commercials.' Of gave the film a negative review, saying ' An Inconvenient Truth is something you rarely see in movies today: a blatant intellectual fraud.' Others felt Gore didn't go far enough in depicting the threat faced with the dire consequences of climate change. ' An Inconvenient Truth completely ignores the plight of Arctic indigenous peoples whose cultures and landscapes are facing profound changes produced by melting polar ice,' argued environmental historian Finis Dunaway.
Accolades An Inconvenient Truth has received many different awards worldwide. The film won the 2006 for and for 's '. It is the first documentary to win 2 Oscars and the first to win a best original song Oscar. After winning the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, the Oscar was awarded to director Guggenheim, who asked Gore to join him and other members of the crew on stage. Gore then gave a brief speech, saying:My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act.
That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it.For Gore's wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming which is centerpieced in the film, Al Gore, along with the (IPCC), won the 2007. Gore also received the in 2007 for international cooperation.
The related album, which featured the voices of, and, also won at the.The film received numerous other accolades, including a special recognition from the, the first time the organization had handed out a Special Award in over 10 years, the 2007 from The Producers Guild of America, which recognizes 'work that dramatically illustrates provocative social issues' and the President's Award 2007 from the 'for demonstrating that effective and understandable technical communication, when coupled with passion and vision, has the power to educate—and change—the world.' The film won many other awards for Best Documentary:. Chicago Film Critics Association 2006. Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association 2006. Florida Film Critics 2006. Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006. Las Vegas Film Critics Society 2006.
National Board of Review 2006. National Society of Film Critics 2006. New York Film Critics Online 2006. Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006. Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006. Online Film Critics Society 2006. Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006.
Satellite Awards 2006 (Nominated). St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006. Utah Film Critics Awards 2006.
Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006Impact The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally. The film inspired producer to conceive the 2007 festival and influenced Italian composer to write an operatic adaptation, entitled ',' premiering at in in 2015. Activism Following the film, Gore founded in 2006 which trained 1,000 activists to give Gore's presentation in their communities. Presently, the group has 3,500 presenters worldwide. An additional initiative was launched in 2010, called. 'Inconvenient Youth' is built on the belief that teens can help lead efforts to solve the climate crisis,' said Gore.
The project was inspired by Mary Doerr, a 16-year-old who trained as presenter for the organization.professor Jessica Nolan found in a 2010 study published for that people became more informed and concerned about climate change right after seeing the film but that these concerns didn't translate into changed behavior a month later. On the contrary, in a 2011 paper published in the, professor Grant Jacobsen found in the two months following the release of the film, zip codes within a 10-mile (16 km) radius of a zip code where the film was shown experienced a 50 percent relative increase in the purchase of voluntary. Public opinion In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by and, 66% of those respondents who said they had seen An Inconvenient Truth stated that it had 'changed their mind' about global warming and 89% said it had made them more aware of the problem.
Three out of four (74%) said they had changed some of their habits because of seeing the film. Governmental reactions Then-President George W. Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: 'Doubt it.' 'New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment,' Bush said. 'And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment'.
Gore responded that 'The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he Bush has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true.' White House deputy press secretary stated that 'The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to a certain extent to human activity'.screened the film.
Democratic Senator and Democratic Senator saw the movie at its Washington premiere at the National Geographic Society. Democratic Senator planned to see the film saying 'It's such a powerful statement because of the way the movie is put together, I tell everybody, Democrat or Republican, they've got to go see this movie.' Former Republican Senator thought Gore's prominence on the global warming issue made it more difficult to get a consensus in Congress. Bingaman disputed this saying, 'It seems to me we were having great difficulty recruiting Republican members of Congress to support a bill before Al Gore came up with this movie.'
Republican Senator, then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, didn't plan to see the film (which he appears in), and compared it to 's book. 'If you say the same lie over and over again, and particularly if you have the media's support, people will believe it,' Inhofe said, adding that he thought Gore was trying to use the issue to run for president again in 2008. In contrast to Inhofe, Arizona Republican Senator, did not criticize Gore's efforts or the movie, which he planned to see. Republican Senator, said 'Because (Gore) was a former vice president and presidential nominee, he brings a lot of visibility to (the issue),' Alexander said.
'On the other hand it may be seen as political by some, and they may be less eager to be a part of it.' Alexander also criticized the omission of nuclear power in the film. 'Maybe it needs a sequel: 'An Inconvenient Truth 2: Nuclear Power.'
'In September 2006, Gore traveled to to promote the film. Then-Australian Prime Minister said he would not meet with Gore or agree to because of the movie: 'I don't take policy advice from films.' Former Opposition Leader joined Gore for a viewing and other attended a special screening at earlier in the week. After winning the general election a year later, Prime Minister ratified Kyoto in his first week of office, leaving the United States the only industrialized nation in the world not to have signed the treaty.In the United Kingdom, party leader and future Prime Minister urged people to watch the film in order to understand climate change. In, activist persuaded the entire Belgian government to see the film.200 politicians and political staff accepted her invitation, among whom were Belgian prime minister and Minister-President of Flanders,. In, the film was screened by president. Arias's subsequent championing of the climate change issue was greatly influenced by the film.
Industry and business The released pro- television ads in preparation for the film's release in May 2006. The ads featured a little girl blowing a dandelion with the tagline, 'Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.'
In August 2006, the revealed that a video lampooning Gore and the movie, titled, appeared to be ' by, a Washington firm. Use in education Several colleges and high schools have featured the film in science.In Germany, German Environment Minister bought 6,000 DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth to make it available to German schools. Prime Minister distributed 30 000 copies to the schools in October 2007. In, Canada, the made An Inconvenient Truth available at schools and as an educational resource. In the United Kingdom As part of a nationwide 'Sustainable Schools Year of Action' launched in late 2006, the, and announced between January–March 2007 that copies of An Inconvenient Truth would be sent to all their. The film was placed into the science curriculum for fourth and sixth-year students in as a joint initiative between.
Dimmock case. Further information:In May 2007, Stewart Dimmock—a (HGV) driver, school governor from, and member of a right-wing group called the —challenged the UK Government's distribution of the film in a lawsuit, with help from political ally and New Party founder, who notably pointed out '35 serious scientific errors'.
ReleasedSeptember 26, 2006 ( 2006-09-26)Length44: 43High Wire MusicProfessional ratings Review scoresSourceRatingAn Inconvenient Truth was by with an accompanying theme song played during the end credits. Brook explained that he wanted to bring out the emotion expressed in the film: '. In Inconvenient Truth, there's a lot of information and it's kind of a lecture, in a way, and very well organized and very well presented, but it's a lot to absorb. And the director, Guggenheim, wanted to have – sort of give people a little break every once in a while and say, okay, you don't have to absorb this information, you can just sort of – and it was more the personal side of Al Gore's life or how it connected to the theme of the film. And that's when there's music.'
Etheridge agreed to write An Inconvenient Truth's theme song, ' after viewing Gore's slide show. 'I was so honored he would ask me to contribute to a project that is so powerful and so important, I felt such a huge responsibility,' she said. 'Then I went, 'What am I going to write? What am I going to say?'
' Etheridge's former partner, told her: 'Write what you feel, because that's what people are going to feel.' Of Etheridge's commitment to the project, Gore said, 'Melissa is a rare soul who gives a lot of time and effort to causes in which she strongly believes.' Etheridge received the 2006 for 'I Need to Wake Up.' Upon receiving the award, she noted in her acceptance speech:Mostly I have to thank Al Gore, for inspiring us, for inspiring me, showing that caring about the Earth is not or; it's not red or blue, it's all green.
Main Title (River View)'1:232.' How Could I Spend My Time?' 1000 Slide Shows'2:1914.' Earth Alone'3:3015.' Best Unsaid'2:4016.' Carte Noir'3:09Sequel.
Main article:When asked during a Reddit 'Ask Me Anything' in October 2013 whether there were plans for a follow-up film, Guggenheim said, 'I think about it a lot – I think we need one right now.' In 2014, reported that the producers of the film were in talks over a possible sequel. 'We have had conversations,' co-producer Bender said. 'We've met; we've discussed. If we are going to make a movie, we want it to have an impact.' Co-producer David also believed a sequel was needed. 'God, do we need one,' David said.
'Everything in that movie has come to pass. At the time we did the movie, there was; now we have events every other week. The update has to be incredible and shocking.' In December 2016, Al Gore announced that a follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth would open at the 2017. The film was screened in the Climate section, a new section for films featuring themes of climate and the environment. It was released by on July 28, 2017. See also.
(TV series). (2009 documentary film).References.