An Inconvenient Truth

[Hustler]

Anyone seen it? I'm putting this in The World instead of a different forum, because the movie is about a world topic, and I expect the thread will develop along those lines. That said, I found it interesting for a different reason than its message. I think it showed how finely a piece of propoganda can be crafted, especially when viewed in the light of MBTI. Al Gore packaged his message in such a way that sensors and intuitives will be able to come away with something from the movie, and the message will not be lost on either group. He used concrete and abstract methods in conveying his message, and interleaved them in such a way that neither concrete nor abstract thinkers would be bored. He would open with an analogy, segue into laying out a few facts and figures, discuss a general concept, fill it in with specific details and then step back out to the general. This pattern was repeated throughout the film. What's more, he moved from emotional to rational by shifting from morality and personal appeal to scientific analysis of data. It seems to me that people wishing to learn a few tricks of the propoganda trade would do well to see this movie, as would anyone interested in the psychology of communication. It is far better presented in terms of its ability to communicate to different types of thinkers on different levels than most films of this nature (quasi-political, pseudo-documentaries).

[Nemesis]

I think it's fair (and accurate) to say that the reason he layed the film out the way he did is because he wanted it to apply to both Democrats and Republicans instead of it feeling like a "Vote Clinton 2008" ad.

[Pooja]

note: I've only seen the trailer for that movie.

I have no problem w/ propoganda, as long as it's a message that I agree with, and it isn't taken too far (like Michael Moore likes to do). Gore's persuasion techniques are great.
I was just reading Ann Coulter's blog (I was bored!), and she wrote,
"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".

[Nemesis]

note: I've only seen the trailer for that movie.

I have no problem w/ propoganda, as long as it's a message that I agree with, and it isn't taken too far (like Michael Moore likes to do). Gore's persuasion techniques are great.
I was just reading Ann Coulter's blog (I was bored!), and she wrote,
"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".
So she agreed or disagreed with the message of the film?

[Pooja]

So she agreed or disagreed with the message of the film?

disagreed! rape=bad thing

[Nemesis]

disagreed! rape=bad thing
Well, if you subscribe to my view, Anne Coulter saying that something had to do with rape is a good review, because I sincerely believe that Anne Coulter is the tangible, satanic scourge of the God she professes to praise.

[Pooja]

Well, if you subscribe to my view, Anne Coulter saying that something had to do with rape is a good review, because I sincerely believe that Anne Coulter is the tangible, satanic scourge of the God she professes to praise.

:lol:

I was just reading LiveScience, and came across this article on the movie:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060627_inconv_truth.html
( Scientists are praising the movie for it's accuracy. )
We're naturally inclined to believe that all documentaries are actually psuedo-documentaries in disguise. Especially after Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock were found to have lied, in certain portions of their respective movies.

[bedhead]

I was just reading Ann Coulter's blog (I was bored!), and she wrote,
"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".

Wow. What a bitch. Sometimes I wonder if she is just used as some kind of a tactic for distracting the left. She is a fool but people still get inflamed every time she speaks.

I think the key to the movie is accessability. There will always be snobby contrarians who automatically reject anything designed for political mass appeal. This just encourages the fallacy of moderation. People need to be aware of the environmental debt we're passing on to our grandchildren. Corporate entities are not capable of having a conscience and will not responsibly self-regulate.

[Dr. Haight]

sir Hustler,

I am curious as to the reason this particular film struck you as propaganda, rather than a simple form of political persuasion. In other words, how would this film differ from other modern political attempts at persuading the public to 'see things their way' on a given issue?

And I have not viewed the film either, so maybe I am off track.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

note: I've only seen the trailer for that movie.

I have no problem w/ propoganda, as long as it's a message that I agree with, and it isn't taken too far (like Michael Moore likes to do). Gore's persuasion techniques are great.
I was just reading Ann Coulter's blog (I was bored!), and she wrote,
"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".It shouldn't be too difficult to let her say that children are a gift of god, and then insert that quote into the conversation.

[Pooja]

It shouldn't be too difficult to let her say that children are a gift of god, and then insert that quote into the conversation.

I love the way your mind works. :devil:

[LongSilence]

"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".

Great! God was pretty darn generous, especially to us men. After all, he gave us women too! :)

[Hustler]

sir Hustler,

I am curious as to the reason this particular film struck you as propaganda, rather than a simple form of political persuasion. In other words, how would this film differ from other modern political attempts at persuading the public to 'see things their way' on a given issue?

Simple political persuasion is just a subset of propaganda. If you differentiate those in your mind, you can call the film an example of whichever one you think suits it better, and I probably won't object. How it differs from other films? I think that's sort of what my first post was about. I think it is more effective in getting its message across to a wider cross-section of different types of thinkers by switching back and forth between concrete and abstract tactics, and emotional and logical appeals.

[Ferrus]

Well I'm glad someone so high profile is raising awareness of the issue and disspelling the confusion cast by the right and the trans-nationals. If only a similar warning about oil could be made...

[Ringoyam]

I've never seen it but my parents know the guy who worked on making part of it.

[booyalab]

note: I've only seen the trailer for that movie.

I have no problem w/ propoganda, as long as it's a message that I agree with, and it isn't taken too far (like Michael Moore likes to do). Gore's persuasion techniques are great.
I was just reading Ann Coulter's blog (I was bored!), and she wrote,
"God gave us the earth, and so it is ours to rape".


I wonder if there are any liberals that yet understand the fact that she LIKES getting reactions. The first part of that sentence is something she actually believes. She doesn't believe that what we do is "rape" because you can't rape something that you own. She says that because she knows that many liberals primarily use their emotions when trying to understand and discuss issues like these. It's a rhetoric trap
Someone who reads the sentence "God gave us the earth, so we can rape it" and focuses on the word "rape" and reacts accordingly, instead of focusing on the substance..which is a religious conviction, falls into that trap.

[C.J.Woolf]

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are trolls. Rich and famous trolls.

[interface]

as i understand there isnt much we can do about the rising temperatures caused by co2--something to the effect of 6% less increase in temperature in 100 years if we stop co2 pollution now.


Therefore its very irrationel to use huge resources on this when there is so much else that could be done(disease,hunger etc)

this should be tackled as a cost/benefit analysis.

no need to see the movie, its for dumb people.better to read stuff if you have a serious interest.

[mgb]

as i understand there isnt much we can do about the rising temperatures caused by co2--something to the effect of 6% less increase in temperature in 100 years if we stop co2 pollution now.


Therefore its very irrationel to use huge resources on this when there is so much else that could be done(disease,hunger etc)

this should be tackled as a cost/benefit analysis.

no need to see the movie, its for dumb people.better to read stuff if you have a serious interest.

Do you really think the money/energy not spent on curtailing pollution is really going to spent on disease, hunger and other like-minded projects?

And isn't a global increase in temperature caused by dangerous pollutants going to cause more disease and hunger world wide? Wouldn't fixing the problem as much as possible be considered "and ounce of prevention"?

What model are you using for your "cost benefit analysis"?

Maybe you do need to see the movie.

[interface]

Do you really think the money/energy not spent on curtailing pollution is really going to spent on disease, hunger and other like-minded projects?

And isn't a global increase in temperature caused by dangerous pollutants going to cause more disease and hunger world wide? Wouldn't fixing the problem as much as possible be considered "and ounce of prevention"?

What model are you using for your "cost benefit analysis"?

Maybe you do need to see the movie.


I am not doing any cost/benefit analysis since i dont have the expertise...but i am saying that this should be tackled as a cost/benefit problem, and i dont believe it is at the moment.

why would i want to see a onesided documentary by a politician hoping to be president?

take a look at this site:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.dk/Default.aspx?ID=675

[mgb]

I am not doing any cost/benefit analysis since i dont have the expertise...but i am saying that this should be tackled as a cost/benefit problem, and i dont believe it is at the moment.

why would i want to see a onesided documentary by a politician hoping to be president?

take a look at this site:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.dk/Default.aspx?ID=675

I don't think that conference was really on point with what we are talking about here.

Yes, all those things are problems. But, if you look at the big picture, do you think continuing to increase the global tempurature in a significant manner is going to hurt or help all those problems? Do you think it's going to be easier to grow food? Do you think hungry kids to better or worse at school? Just as an example.

Lowering CO2 emmissions doesn't have to be paid for at government levels. They can make laws to lower them and increase fines for those who don't cooperate. It's really industry that should be covering the costs. And industry's money isn't going to feed starving kids or end communicable diseases.

And why would you want to see it? Because you don't have a full grasp of the problem, but feel you do, so it shouldn't really matter what you think of the person giving it to you, they are obviously an expert in a field you aren't.

[interface]

I don't think that conference was really on point with what we are talking about here.

Yes, all those things are problems. But, if you look at the big picture, do you think continuing to increase the global tempurature in a significant manner is going to hurt or help all those problems? Do you think it's going to be easier to grow food? Do you think hungry kids to better or worse at school? Just as an example.

Lowering CO2 emmissions doesn't have to be paid for at government levels. They can make laws to lower them and increase fines for those who don't cooperate. It's really industry that should be covering the costs. And industry's money isn't going to feed starving kids or end communicable diseases.

And why would you want to see it? Because you don't have a full grasp of the problem, but feel you do, so it shouldn't really matter what you think of the person giving it to you, they are obviously an expert in a field you aren't.

i don't feel i have a full grasp of the problem, but maybe you do?

that site was axactly about looking at the "big picture", if you don't understand that, look again.

this is a very complex problem, making a movie with hurricans is not the right way to tackle it.

the temperatures are going to increase even if we stop co2 pollution...you don't seem to understand that.

[bedhead]

i don't feel i have a full grasp of the problem, but maybe you do?

that site was axactly about looking at the "big picture", if you don't understand that, look again.

this is a very complex problem, making a movie with hurricans is not the right way to tackle it.

the temperatures are going to increase even if we stop co2 pollution...you don't seem to understand that.

This is not meant as a personal attack, but if you are trying to make a point, you should provide discrete facts supporting your position. Make an effort to consicely quote from your source illustrating the logical framework that led you to your position. You cannot expect people to read an entire website and say "Look at the big picture, if you don't understand, look again".

You won't see the movie beacause you have a pre-concieved bias that Al Gore will run for president. There is no way he could enact all the environmental policies necessary to prevent global warming. It would be too easy for the opposition to label him as a hypocrite. He speaks out so often probably because he has no intention of running.


"the temperatures are going to increase even if we stop co2 pollution...you don't seem to understand that."
Slippery slope.

"i don't feel i have a full grasp of the problem, but maybe you do?"
If you are insecure about your grasp of the problem, you should gather more information. From both "sides".

"this is a very complex problem, making a movie with hurricans is not the right way to tackle it."
It is difficult to figure out what you are saying here. One can only read into this and project their own interpretation. Are you saying that packaging information about environmental problems into a format that is accessable to the masses is a bad thing? Or are you saying that instead of making movies people should be solving problems? And how do they conduct research? Funding? Where does funding come from? Attention? Hey kids, do you like apathy?

"I am not doing any cost/benefit analysis since i dont have the expertise...but i am saying that this should be tackled as a cost/benefit problem, and i dont believe it is at the moment."
What difference does it make what you believe if you don't illustrate why? We need to focus on one thing at a time. You cannot lump all of the world's problems into one cost/benefit analysis. Of course, there are ways of killing two birds with one stone (for instance, all the waste and polution generated by cattle.. we could feed a lot more people if we didn't eat so many cows). However, what you say is a deflection and has little to do with the original topic.

Peace

[bedhead]

I wonder if there are any liberals that yet understand the fact that she LIKES getting reactions. The first part of that sentence is something she actually believes. She doesn't believe that what we do is "rape" because you can't rape something that you own. She says that because she knows that many liberals primarily use their emotions when trying to understand and discuss issues like these. It's a rhetoric trap
Someone who reads the sentence "God gave us the earth, so we can rape it" and focuses on the word "rape" and reacts accordingly, instead of focusing on the substance..which is a religious conviction, falls into that trap.

What kind of religious conviction are we talking about here? What is the substance you are referring to?


A ) The earth was made by God.
B ) He gave it to humanity.

So A and B =

C ) We can do whatever we want with it.

It does not matter if C has the vulgar sound "rape", this emotional reaction you refer to is not relevant. C) does not say we should be considerate of how our actions hurt eachother and our grandchildren. It says we can do whatever we want. The first part of her argument asserts a Christian world-view and the conclusion completely contradicts that assertion.

As an aside, the right is trying to create a buzzword by changing the original definition of "emotivist". All the old labels are getting boring I guess. Emotivist does not mean emotional activist:

From faithnet.org.uk (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2%20Subjects/Ethics/Sections/a2ethics_emotivism.htm)

Tip: It is important to remember that Emotivism is NOT a method for doing ethics, but an analysis of ethical language. Emotivism is NOT saying that people make decisions based on their feelings (for example, 'I feel like doing x today'), but that ethical statements have no factual content to them, as they cannot be said to be either analytic or synthetic. Emotivists believe many people have good reasons for doing what they do, and are not claiming that no-one has any idea why they act as they do. However, Emotivists do argue that what people claim to believe is right or wrong has no factual content, and as such, their moral beliefs cannot be understood to be anything other than an expression of feeling.

[Madrigal]

Anyone seen it? I'm putting this in The World instead of a different forum, because the movie is about a world topic, and I expect the thread will develop along those lines. That said, I found it interesting for a different reason than its message. I think it showed how finely a piece of propoganda can be crafted, especially when viewed in the light of MBTI. Al Gore packaged his message in such a way that sensors and intuitives will be able to come away with something from the movie, and the message will not be lost on either group. He used concrete and abstract methods in conveying his message, and interleaved them in such a way that neither concrete nor abstract thinkers would be bored. He would open with an analogy, segue into laying out a few facts and figures, discuss a general concept, fill it in with specific details and then step back out to the general. This pattern was repeated throughout the film. What's more, he moved from emotional to rational by shifting from morality and personal appeal to scientific analysis of data. It seems to me that people wishing to learn a few tricks of the propoganda trade would do well to see this movie, as would anyone interested in the psychology of communication. It is far better presented in terms of its ability to communicate to different types of thinkers on different levels than most films of this nature (quasi-political, pseudo-documentaries).

Eh, enough about that "psychology of propaganda" mumbo-jumbo. The film's alleged broader appeal versus Michael Moore and the like, is most likely due to Gore's political opinions being further from the left, and therefore closer to those of today's masses.

Centrists never fail to emphasize the importance of form, when it is the content that makes them... ill at ease.

EDIT: I totally agree with MBTI-specific propaganda, though.

[Hustler]

Eh, enough about that "psychology of propaganda" mumbo-jumbo. The film's alleged broader appeal versus Michael Moore and the like, is most likely due to Gore's political opinions being further from the left, and therefore closer to those of today's masses.

No. It's broader appeal is because of its superior tactics of communication and persuasion. Michael Moore's techniques are far too unrefined and irony-driven. Have you even seen the movie or are you just talking out of your ass?

Edit: Oh, nevermind, I see from the title of your post that you haven't seen it. I won't totally disregard your thoughts on the matter once you've seen it but, for now, yeah.

[Hustler]

Centrists never fail to emphasize the importance of form, when it is the content that makes them... ill at ease.

And, by the way, the medium is the message.

[jittus rye]

I should see this movie. MM movies annoy me.

[Madrigal]

No. It's broader appeal is because of its superior tactics of communication and persuasion. Michael Moore's techniques are far too unrefined and irony-driven. Have you even seen the movie or are you just talking out of your ass?

Edit: Oh, nevermind, I see from the title of your post that you haven't seen it. I won't totally disregard your thoughts on the matter once you've seen it but, for now, yeah.

No, I have screened, filmed and studied political documentaries and associated with documentary film-makers for years, and I've learned a few things from my experiences. While it would be ignorant to deny that form is essential, I've also come to grips with how easily scared the center left is when you offer them an extreme concept to think about. That is to say, when you dare to propose an extreme solution to a problem. Oh, it can work out pretty well for you when you stop at denouncing. But proposing - or strongly suggesting - is seen as a dirty attempt to manipulate. There have been times when openly and honestly attempting to convince another was considered a respectable endeavour. There is a reason why this is not so today, and Postmodernism has something to do with it. Anyway, I find people's scorn and underlying fear for "bias" to be completely laughable.

I don't need to watch Al Gore's film to know his political orientation is further to the right that Moore's. I don't need to talk to every American to know that they are politically closer to Gore than to Moore. And when someone tells me a documentary is more convincing because it was packaged better, I become suspicious of its message. Which doesn't mean I wouldn't watch it, I most certainly would if I could - mostly as an expression of a political phenomenon, than as a lesson on political propaganda.

[Madrigal]

And, by the way, the medium is the message.
That's exactly why I get suspicious.

[Ferrus]

To be fair, it seems Peak Oil may be there to spoil the party long before Global Warming washes up whatever is left.

[Hustler]

That's exactly why I get suspicious.

When you understand that, in all things, the medium is the message, then you will realize that your suspicions are unwarranted and unnecessary.