Search

In this paper, I discuss the “inconvenient truth” strategy of Al Gore. I argue that Gore’s notion of truth upholds a conception of science and policy that narrows our understanding of climate change discourse. In one notable exchange, Gore and NASA scientist, James Hansen, disagreed about whether scientific statements based on Hansen’s computer simulations were truth or opinion. This exchange is featured in An Inconvenient Truth, yet the disagreement is edited from the film and presented simply as an instance of Hansen speaking “inconvenient truth.” In this article, I compare the filmic representation of Hansen’s testimony with the congressional record. I place their exchange in a broader historical perspective on climate change disputation in order to discuss the implications of Gore’s perspective on truth. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) has earned Al Gore an Oscar and a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and has been widely acclaimed by the mass media. However, significant errors exist in the film, owing to alarmism and exaggeration. As this forum does not provide for a detailed examination of these errors, this paper will focus only on the portrayal of the hydrologic cycle by AIT--precipitation and floods, soil moisture and droughts, and storminess. AIT argues that precipitation and intense rainfalls, floods, droughts, and the total number, intensity, and duration of tropical cyclones have all increased due exclusively to anthropogenically-driven climate change; indeed, AIT paints a picture of near scientific certainty with an overwhelming bias toward catastrophe scenarios. A closer look at the science, however, reveals that the data do not support these claims and that the scientific community is divided as to what the impact of anthropogenic climate change on the hydrologic cycle will be. Thus, the film gives a false impression of both the current state of climate change and that 'the science is settled'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between climate change awareness and household behavior by testing whether Al Gore''s documentary An Inconvenient Truth caused an increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets. I find that in the two months following the film''s release, zip codes within a 10-mile radius of a zip code where the film was shown experienced a 50 percent relative increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets. During other times, offset purchasing patterns for zip codes inside the 10-mile radius were similar to the patterns of zip codes outside the 10-mile radius. There is, however, little evidence that individuals who purchased an offset due to the film purchased them again a year later. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Environmental discourses resonate with certain intrinsic values over others and shape environmental behaviours. Political ideology offers a powerful values-based heuristic for evaluating environmental messaging. The USA is a major global producer of greenhouse gases and the greatest industrialized nation holdout to political reform. A deeper understanding of the specific political-ideological forces at play in the US environmental debate can yield greater understanding of domestic ideology-based tensions and international US intractability by offering insight to the evolution of the US environmental movement and its political supporters and adversaries at home. Understanding what occurs within the US mindset in environmental discussions can help representatives of other nations frame more effective arguments and lead to policy reform. A textual analysis of a US environmental artefact deemed key to raising US global warming awareness, the documentaryAn Inconvenient Truth(2006), reveals that US politician/creator Al Gore simultaneously appeals to each of the three disparate – and conflicting – US political ideologies (liberalism, traditionalist conservatism, and individualist conservatism). The result is a transcendence of global warming from its entrenched liberal identity to moral identity, beyond political ideology, making it more comfortably accessible by members of multiple political ideologies rather than just liberals. Understanding the inherent US political-ideological dynamics of global warming can help the progress of this movement by informing framing of policy-shaping arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]