Tuesday, July 04, 2006

An Inconsistent Truth

I'm always interested in hearing what people have to say on both (all) sides of a topic since everybody is always doing some amount of "spin" and only when you have truly looked at all angles can you successfully de-spin the discussion and determine where the "truth" likely lies. The whole "Global Warming" debate, marked most recently with the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great case in point.

Back in the days of Bill Clinton, I thought that global warming was a true no-brainer and that the Kyoto Accords were equally a no-brainer. Not because of any passionate ranting by Al Gore, but because a lot of sane people discussed the issue in a rational manner and came to rational conclusions. Alas, that is not the end of the story.

Certainly the waters have been muddied by a number of vested interests who have tried to downplay the original conclusions about global warming, but that's to be expected. The proper response is simply for sane people to push on with rational proposals and rational research and rational plans.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case for Al Gore and others who have turned what was once a strictly environmental issue and turned it into primarily a shrill political issue, or what I would say is now 1% about the environment and 99% about far left (and far right) politics.

The convenient truth is that we will gradually and incrementally improve our environmental stewardship in the coming years and decades, even if we too frequently do occasionally take a few steps back after taking a few leaps forward. The truly inconvenient truth is that the far left is apoplectic about losing a political issue that they thought that they owned, an issue that wasn't political in the first place.

Some on the far left seem to think that the Global Warming "cause" can be used to "bury" the Republicans. That is unlikely to be true and more likely to backfire as a political move. It is truly a shame that the far left is far more interested in politics than in building consensus on the original issues at stake.

I am certainly no supporter of any Republican politician, but I can't support the far left either. Luckily, the convenient truth is that elections in the near future are likely to be won by more centrist candidates who are focused on working for constituents (voters) than promoting pet causes.

I am all in favor of Democratic candidates winning more elections, but only to the extent that sane, rational, centrist positions are taken and pursued.

The real point of this post is not the political angle, but to promote the concept of real balance, real sanity, real rational thought, words, and actions.

I happened to read the poster for the movie today. It says that the movie is "by far the most terrifying film you will ever see", but the rating indicator at the bottom say "Mild thematic elements". How can "mild thematic elements" be terrifying?? In truth, the "terrifying" truth is that the far left feels that they will become completely irrelevant unless they scare people into taking up "their" cause. I also noticed that Al Gore's name isn't even mentioned on the poster, let alone prominently. That speaks volumes for the fact that this guy simply doesn't have any substantial credibility any more. Actually, he never had any real credibility, and this film only emphsizes that inconvenient fact. He is a passionate guy and he likes to tell stories, but he also has a reputation for... ummmh... "embellishing" whatever truth may lurk beneath his stories. If the left really wants to "win" on this issue, they truly need to find a more credible spokesperson. For the most part, the movie was simply "preaching to the choir". It certainly did nothing to convince me to become more "terrified". Angry (at the far left), yes. Terrified, no.

For me personally, I am always deeply offended when someone feels the need to tell me "stories" rather than enlighten me with hard facts that I can use to draw my own conclusions. And I am even more deeply offended by people who believe that raw passion is an acceptable substitute for honesty.

-- Jack Krupansky


At 1:30 PM EDT , Blogger valas said...

totally agree. in fact i had embraced the al gore movie, until i started to dig more. one of the core points in the movie was the correlation graph between the carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. al gore _implies_ that this graph shows co2 affecting the temperature. in fact, if you look more closely to other sources, that graph shows the exact opposite - the co2 trails the temperature by 800 years for the last 600'000 years.

i'm not denying global warming issue, i'm just appalled by the methods used by al gore in that movie...


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home