sounds interesting and i want to see it (though not as bad as the shortz/reagle crossword movie) but I take issue with your third bullet - there is no way I can imagine a movie that is at all cinematic and entertaining unquestionably settling *any* scientific matter unless it was, maybe, a negative result proved by simple counter-example. but then it probably wouldn't be too cinematic.

and by third i meant fourth.

Let me put it this way: if the sources of the graphs Gore shows check out, it settles these questions. But the alternative is that he's blatantly lying yet oddly hasn't been refuted within the scientific community.

E.g., saying 900 peer-reviewed articles supported global warming and 0 opposed it during a certain period, while 50% of print articles during that same time period claimed scientific doubt -- this pretty much settles the issue for me.

Note that this movie is essentially an academic talk. Have you ever watched a lecture that was scientifically convincing (assuming the sources checked out)? Similar thing here.

I haven't seen it, though I'd like to. But I'll echo Jon (hi Jon!) in that you have way way way overstated the ability for scientific evidence to "unquestionably settl[e]" anything, let alone your overly normative statements that 1) GW is "an alarming problem right now;" 2) that the cycling argument is "frighteningly uncomfortable;" and 3) other arguments are "immoral and unethical."

1) is hardly normative, and you've mistated what I meant in 2). As for 3), I disagree with you. But maybe I should clarify that I meant that the film settled the three above issues w/r/t myself, and not objectively.

Sorry to have misquoted you, Monk. Though you overstate the difference.

can we all agree, at least, that the general perception that global warming is a problem for the planet is bullshit, and that it is a problem exclusively for many forms of life on said planet.

all i'm saying is that if our ecological irresponsibility ultimately results in killing all humans, i have no objections.

But that's Gore's point, jbg. So when you say:

"all i’m saying is that if our ecological irresponsibility ultimately results in killing all humans, i have no objections."

in the cosmic sense, I'm sympathetic to this statement, but in a subjective sense -- where during your lifetime you may bear witness to tragedies on a massive scale, with millions of refugees, food shortages, etc. -- it's an immoral statement.

Your first point is also true, but the same applies to most environmental causes. That doesn't make them unworthy.

#1, well, i didn't know it was gore's point. i haven't seen the movie yet.

#2, ain't nothing immoral about wantin' a lil' more leg room on this here planet, knowhati'msayin? if a few million deaths from hurricanes is what it takes for me to not have to ride a crowded-ass fucking green line train in the morning, hey, that's just nature's way of saying "fuck you, manimals."

you sound like bush during late august, 2005.

and it's "mananimal."

no no, had i said "ain't nothing wrong with a few thousand less black people," that would have sounded like bush during late august, 2005. actually, i'd prefer far less white people. but you all knew that.

and it's totally not "mananimal." it's "manimal." ooooobviously.

jbg, if everyone else dies and you make it out alive, that right there would be the paragon of a world that knows nothing of morality. But dont worry, youll suffer too, not for the sake of morality but for the fact that even white people wont be able to make it out of this one unscathed. Fucking leg room.

I was surprised by how good inconvenient truth was- it even had something to say to the choir.

I finally got a chance to see the film last night, and it is excellent. Having observed the demise of several glaciers in Olympic National Park first-hand, the film felt like vindication.