Last night the company finally screened An Inconvenient Truth down at the Plaza theatre in Kensington. I think most people in the company walked away with a greater awareness of why its so important to come up with ways to reduce our CO2 emmissions. Unfortunately, the screening pretty much came at the worse time. Four hours earlier, the CEO broke some bad news as to the fate of the company, which left most of us fairly stunned and really in no mood to thoroughly discuss the movie afterward (lets just say we were more inclined to plant ourselves in front to the beer taps.)
Here are some observations/opinions about the movie.
1) Al Gore is a great speaker, I mean where the hell was that Al Gore during the 2000 election?!
2) Gore brought too much of his own personal politics into the video. He didn't need to mention 9/11 and the photo of him, all decked out in a hospital suit, next to his son's hospital bed, felt very staged to me to the point where I felt like I was watching a campaign commercial (for Al Gore, not climate change).
3) While the movie probably does a good job in getting the message out to the lay masses, it will not change the minds of hardcore skeptics. He made no mention of some the evidence that climate change skeptics use. (i.e. non-anthropogenic CO2 sources are at least an order of magnitude higher than anthropogenic sources so we couldn't have an effect, which can be rebutted through 13C and 14C isopotic measurements, or that changes in the solar cycle may be having an effect, which may have some merit, but so far no link has been proven, at least from what I've researched/read)
4) Gore lied when he said there are no published peer-reviewed articles questioning the existence of anthropogenic caused climate change. This paper is currently sitting on my desk at work right now:
de Freitas, C.R., 2002: Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 50 (2), 297-327.
While this guy may not be right, his paper questions whether human-caused climate change exists and it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (yes, its a journal for Petroleum Geologists, but we're scientists too). I'm sure there are many more out there.
5) The smoking-cancer analogy in the movie was kinda weak, I think he should've focussed on something more relevant, like CFC's and the ozone layer.
After the flick, our environmental group detailed a pilot project they plan on starting to curb our CO2 emmissions, needless to say, its a different idea than what is being talked about in industry right now.