The documentary An Inconvenient Truth got great reviews. It won an Oscar.
The new documentary Cool It is being received coolly by the critics, and probably won’t even get nominated in the documentary category (yet the boring Waiting for Superman will be).
This leads me to believe that most critics are liberals, and they don’t like the viewpoint presented in Cool It.
It features Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which deals with the real facts about global warming and the science behind it.
No, he’s not some wacky scientist that is claiming global warming is “made up.” He knows it’s happening; but because he picks apart the flaws in Al Gore’s movie, and other problems with continuing to throw money at this “problem” – the liberals are just going to complain.
It’s strange, because it’s really hard not to like Lomborg. He’s genuinely nice, funny, and really cares (I sound like his PR rep). He’d rather we spend money on poverty, clean drinking water, AIDS, Malaria, and the proper things to help global warming (those mostly involve geo-engineering).
It was so much more powerful than anything I saw in Waiting for Superman. To see Lomborg talk to poor students in a third world country, and their biggest concerns were clean water and having a home to live in. Yet the children in Europe and America were drawing pictures showing dead penguins and polar bears, and going on at great length about global warming.
I love how he mentions things like Kyoto Protocol only saving one polar bear per year, but if we stopped shooting them, that would save a lot more (I’m all for letting polar bears die; just like sharks, they’re evil bastards).
Lomborg points out Gore being wrong about the sea level rising 20 feet. Scientists in this said in 150 years, it’ll probably rise about a foot. The same it didn’t in the last 100 years (and did anyone notice that?)
Hurricane experts talked about the science involved in blaming global warming for Hurricane Katrina being wrong.
It makes it baffling as to why someone would throw a pie in this guys face when he’s speaking about these things; especially since he’s not doing it in that wind-bag, annoying cadence that Glenn Beck and Rush speak.
He has a think tank that has the best scientists and economists figuring out ways to spend money. And we should listen to what they say.
(On a side note: these scientists really like their facial hair. It made me feel less awkward sitting in the crowd with my big goofy mustache.)
It’s strange to think of the figures he presents.
For the $180 billion a year people like Gore want spent on the problem for less CO2 emissions – and if that was done for 20 years – it would cool the planet 0.001%.
It’s funny how when he mentions the “turning lights out for an hour once a year” thing. He smiles as he explains “Most people at that time lit candles. Two candles produce more CO2 than a light (a similar argument I always made when Critical Mass rides their bicycles and blocks traffic, only to have us idling in our cars and doing more harm to the environment).
Apparently the Malaria thing was told all wrong in Gore’s film. Geez, that movie poster said something about that being “the scariest movie you’d ever see.” I find it scary that documentaries seem to always play fast and loose with facts (I’m talking to you, Michael Moore).
Lomborg mentions that if everyone drove a Prius tomorrow, it would only impact by about .5%. And this is precisely why this whole topic had bothered me from day one.
People like Sheryl Crowe were telling us to use one square of toilet paper. And three weeks later, for her concert at Copley Symphony Hall downtown, my friend told me she had three tour buses (two of which stayed on for three hours straight, with air conditioning blasting). Oh, she also had three 18-wheelers. I guess we can use one square of toilet paper, while she brings that carbon foot print from city-to-city (and uses as much toilet paper as she wants on the bus).
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind her using all those vehicles; just as I don’t mind the person next to me that has the SUV or Hummer (although, if you aren’t fighting a war or off-roading, you kinda look like a douche in a Hummer on the I-5).
If you complain about the population and their vehicles, you better be an Ed Beagley Jr. and practice what you preach.
Since Rotten Tomatoes showed this movie getting mostly bad reviews, I clicked one random critic (Justin Lowe). He sounded like an angry liberal as one of his complaints was that Lomborg did “incessant carbon-emitting globetrotting.”
Uh, okay. Does it bother Lowe that Gore does that, too? Or that he’s made hundreds of millions on this “green thing”? Or because he agrees with the message, he doesn’t mind the footprint Gore has been leaving (one of which included him flying a private plane just to meet someone in Phoenix for lunch, and then flying back to New York).
And speaking of Gore, didn’t he say in his movie that in 10 years if we didn’t fix things we’d be history? Aren’t we at the half-way point? Are we going to be underwater or have the ice caps melt in four or five years? It doesn’t look like it.
I would’ve preferred to see a few more scientists that disagreed with Lomborg. I would’ve liked to have seen a movie that didn’t sometimes feel like an infomercial for his book.
And someone please tell me the point of the visit to see his mom, who is suffering from Alzheimer’s and living in a home. That’s the type of manipulation I don’t like in other documentaries, so I don’t want to see it here. I don’t care what some suit at the film studio said about making Bjorn Lomborg more likable or whatever test audiences felt about his personal life.
Overall though, this movie lays out its thesis clearly, and makes me wonder why there would be any haters. I’m guessing even Beagley likes this guy and the cut of his jib.
It’s a must-see for anyone interested in global warming or An Inconvenient Truth.
I’m giving it a B-.