An Inconvenient Truth
An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 American documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate people about global warming. The film features a slide show that, by Gore's own estimate, he has presented over 1,000 times to audiences worldwide.
For other uses, see An Inconvenient Truth (disambiguation).An Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore
- Bob Richman
- Davis Guggenheim
- Jay Cassidy
- Dan Swietlik
- May 24, 2006
97 minutes[1]
United States
English
$1.5 million[2]
$49.8 million[3]
The idea to document Gore's efforts came from producer Laurie David, who saw his presentation at a town hall meeting on global warming, which coincided with the opening of The Day After Tomorrow. Laurie David was so inspired by his slide show that she, with producer Lawrence Bender, met with Guggenheim to adapt the presentation into a film. Premiering at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006, the film was a critical and commercial success, winning two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.[4] The film grossed $24 million in the US and $26 million in other countries’ box offices, becoming the eleventh highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.[5]
Since the film's release, An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising international public awareness of global warming and reenergizing the environmental movement. 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 An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, was released on July 28, 2017.
The film lays out the scientific consensus that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused. Gore presents specific
data to support this, including:
The Associated Press 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 homonymous book said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.[35]
William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, said "[Gore] got all the important material and got it right." Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 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."[35] Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that Gore's slide show "shocked me out of my doubting stance."[36] Eric Steig, a climate scientist writing on RealClimate, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."[37] Ted Scambos, lead scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, 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."[38]
One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between hurricanes and global warming, which at the time was contentious in the scientific community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.[35] "I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina 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.[35] Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler for NASA, thought Gore appropriately addressed the issue.[39] "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.[39] "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.'"[39]
Gore's use of long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two drew some scrutiny; Schmidt, Steig and Michael E. Mann 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.[40] "The complexity though is actually quite fascinating ... a full understanding of why CO2 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 CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore's terse explanation does not delve into such complexities, but the crux of his point—that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations—is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate."[40] "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 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 CO2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate."[37]
Steig disputed Gore's statement that one can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act 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."[41] 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,[41] adding "An Inconvenient Truth rests on a solid scientific foundation."[41]
Lonnie Thompson, Earth Science professor at Ohio State University, 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.
John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University 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."[42] 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 a
lay audience to grasp, believe, or connect with emotionally."[42]
Steven Quiring, a 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."[43]
Reception[edit]
Box office[edit]
The film opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006.[44] On Memorial Day 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.[45]
At the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three standing ovations.[46] It was also screened at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival[47] and was the opening night film at the 27th Durban International Film Festival on June 14, 2006.[48]
An Inconvenient Truth was the most popular documentary at the 2006 Brisbane International Film Festival.[49]
The film has grossed over $24 million in the US, making it the eleventh-highest-grossing documentary in the US (from 1982 to the present).[50] It grossed nearly $26 million in foreign countries, the highest being France, where it grossed $5 million.[51] According to Gore, "Tipper 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."[52] Paramount Classics committed 5% of their domestic theatrical gross from the film to form a new bipartisan climate action group, Alliance for Climate Protection, dedicated to awareness and grassroots organizing.[53]
Critical response[edit]
The film received a positive reaction from film critics and audiences. It has a 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 166 reviews, and an average rating of 7.74/10. The website's critical consensus states, "This candid, powerful and informative documentary illuminates some of the myths surrounding its dual subjects: global warming and Al Gore".[54] At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 75, based on 32 reviews.[55]
Film critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper 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,"[56] 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".[9]
New York Magazine critic David Edelstein 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."[57] The New Yorker's David Remnick 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."[58]
The New York Times reviewer A. O. Scott thought the film was "edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of C-SPAN 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."[59]
Bright Lights Film Journal critic Jayson Harsin declared the film's aesthetic qualities groundbreaking, as a new genre of slideshow film.[60]
NASA climatologist James Hansen 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 Silent Spring 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."[61]
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.[62] University of Washington professor Michele Poff argued that Gore was successful in communicating to conservative-leaning audiences by framing the climate crisis as apolitical.[63] "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.
A small number of reviews criticized the film on scientific and political grounds. Journalist Ronald Bailey argued in the libertarian magazine Reason that although "Gore gets [the science] more right than wrong," he exaggerates the risks.[64] MIT atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen 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.[65]
A few other reviewers were also skeptical of Gore's intent, wondering whether he was setting himself for another Presidential run. The Boston Globe writer Peter Canellos criticized the "gauzy biographical material that seems to have been culled from old Gore campaign commercials."[66] Phil Hall of Film Threat gave the film a negative review, saying "An Inconvenient Truth is something you rarely see in movies today: a blatant intellectual fraud."[67]
Others felt that Gore did not go far enough in depicting the threat Indigenous peoples 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.[68]
An Inconvenient Truth: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack
Book and documentary[edit]
Gore's book of the same title 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.[150][151] 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 Hurricane Katrina, coral reef depletion, glacial earthquake activity on the Greenland ice sheet, wildfires, and trapped methane gas release associated with permafrost melting.[152]