(Send us a topic for essay with your name and pic at khanabubakar095@gmail.com.We will publish that essay with your name and pic)
Introduction
An Inconvenient Truth is a 206 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States vice president Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate made in the film, he has given more than a thousand times.
In 2006, former senator Al Gore created an academy award winning documentary on global warming entitled “An Inconvenient Truth” . The movie earned several awards including an academy award for best documentary and gore later received a noble peace prize. The movie discussed several different topics of great concern to global warming; such as permafrost, climbs in temperature, extinction of species, drought, and fatigue to name a few. Four writers in five different articles discussed the three topics of greenhouse gases, climate change, and causes of global warming. These writers are writer and scholar Bill McKibben in “Think Again: Climate Change” and “How Close to catastrophe”; William J. Broad, writer for the New York Times in “From a Rapt audience, a call to cool the hype”; writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Kevin O’Brien, in “Global Warming? I won’t be losing any sleep over it”; and Alan Zarembo, staff writer for the the Los Angeles Times, in “Game over on global warming?” All though the articles explain some different topics from one another, only one of them disagree with gore on the causes for global warming being humans, they all agree that there will be impacts to the environment, and all of them believe that greenhouse gases are one of the primary causes for global warming.
First, all the articles discussed about who was to blame for the raising temperatures of the planet. The issue may be serious but O’Brien states that is just the media using another topic of interest and throwing it out of proportion. He claims that there is global warming, but the statistics being given are always changing, so the blame game can’t always point a finger at humans. Zarambo explained that humans are the cause of global warming but cannot but no matter what we were to do, even revert to the Stone Age, that global warming will still rise because the waste we have build up can dissolve slowly. On the opposite side, McKibben in “Think Again: Climate Change” he explains that humans are to blaim because the planet is already struggling to keep itself alive and all the excess heat we generate from CO2 and other waste, we are dooming ourselves to an early grave. In “How Close to catastrophe” where he explains his own thoughts he explains that its not just humans to blame but the citizens of the US. As he elaborates he explains that the US, though China creates more CO2 in general, creates more CO2 per person. This proves the US citizens are the most energy hungry and wasteful humans in the planet. The last writer, Broad stated that gore has inaccuracys in his slide show and movie, but the truth is that humans are the greatest cause of global warming. The opinions on global in terms of blame have been polarized for a long time, so of course everyone will not agree with Mr. Gore.
In “An Inconvenient Truth” there was a heavy focus on not just human impact but of what we creat to make global advance at a quickened pace, this product being greenhouse gases. It is the result of the fossil fuel dependent world we all live in currently. In “Game over on global warming” It states that the seriousness of amount of greenhouse gases we humans have created is not to be taken lightly. It claims that there si such an emmence amount of gases already in the air that almost anything we were to do would only slow down the increase of them, but there would be no way to stop them from developing. One of the only was to help in greatest way possible would be for the US to give up on all things that create CO2, for they are the largest contributor per person than anywhere in the world. In “Think Again: Climate Change”, McKibben explains that green house gases is resulting in a feedback system, where as our greenhouse gases raise the heat the Earth absorbs, it melts the ice which results in even greater increases of warming. But the major concern is that people are not willing to give up their comfort I order to let the world continue living. While in “How Close to catastrophe”, McKibben writes that methane is the most immense greenhouse gas, which is a natural gas also. Methane can come from leaks in the ground or from each living creature. Meaning that humans can only cut down one so much CO2, but anything we were to do would not stop the increase of methane in the ecosystem. Sadly both Broad and O’Brian do not speak on the causes and effects of green house gases in either of their articles.
Last, the articles were generally in agreement that the climate consequences of global warming will defiantly be bad, as Gore explained in “An Inconvenient Truth”, populations and migrating patterns will be altered, natural disasters (such as flooding, drought, hurricanes, ect.), and the world map would have to be remade to fit cities and large masses of land being emerged in water. On the agreement side, McKibben in “Think Again: Climate Change” depicts a scene from after Armageddon where the the earth looks like Mars does currently. He said that only about 250million out of our 7billion will survive, the earth will heat up exponentially, and this is only after all the dreadful hurricanes, world drought and flooding. He may have done a more extreme view of the results of global warming to our ecosystem but he was in agreement with Gore. McKibben in his other article is less drastic; he says that temperatures will change and reverse in some places, and that that should not be taken lightly. He says that at first it may seem like a counter balance system where one place suffers while another prospers but those prosperities would only be temporary. Crops may grow better in the north, but eventually they crops will fade and drought will occur, while other countries are forced to deal with a climate they may have never seen. O’Brian, much like with when he was describing who to blame, brought out how the UN changed their statistics from in 2001 from gthere being a thirty foot rise in sea level to only seventeen inches and that the amount of human impact on global warming by one-third. With those drastic changes in mind, it is obvious that there is not a clear understanding of global warming, and so there cannot be a correct expectation of what the impacts might be of global warming might be. Broad states in his article that the scenarios depicted in “An Inconvenient Truth” could be correct but it is the most drastic of cases. He said that the only thing people truly know is that it is hotter now than 400 years ago. Zarembo, had no comments in his paper that discussed the impacts of global warming.
Is “An Inconvenient Truth” actually truthful? Most articles have agreed that in general it is accurate. Is the affects and causes of global warming going to be drastic like in the movie or possibly a minute change in life style? That is a serious question that scientists have been trying to answer since the discovery of global warming. They truth is that global warming, though it may be more than 100 years old, is still a bit of a mystery to humans. There are always new facts coming out about this issue, and always new critics or skeptics to either both sides.
