So I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth. I must say that he was pretty convincing, although I'm not convinced yet. I feel that he got off to a bad start highlighting politics and the 2000 election. It just makes him look like a sore loser. Bashing the Bush Administration doesn't make him look better either, even though Bush isn't popular. I am also not big on the cartoon shown. It just seems too silly.
Next he started talking about measuring CO2 in college. He talks about how he and his professor were among the first ones to do so. It did look very clear that the CO2 was trending upward sharply, much further than it normally is. I even checked the graphs and the axis were labeled correctly, and not misleading. He goes on to show graph after graph with an upward trend in temperature. When he shows graphs of CO2 and temperature side by side they look perfect. Sweet it all looks good. The only thing that could stop you is your data being wrong.
Alright now things start going downhill again. He shows the impact of Katrina as if to say that none of that would have happened it if wasn't for global warming. Truth is nature happens. Bad storms will come. Next he goes over the 2000 election again. Dude if you make this about you it's going to be less effective. It makes you look bad. It makes you think that he has other motives for pushing Global Warming.
Well I pulled out most of the bad things and only a fraction of the good things he said. I just thought I would throw that out there. I just didn't seem to think it necessary to comment on every single graph he showed. Again I am not necessarily convinced one way or another. I think both sides lack credibility. I just thought I would offer my analysis as it is a school project and all.
No comments:
Post a Comment