An Inconvenient Truth

Guggenheim remembers asking Gore why climate change was "so hard for people to grasp." To which Gore replied, "Because it's an inconvenient truth, ya know." "[...] In the back of my head, I go, that's the title of our movie," Guggenheim said.

An Inconvenient Truth

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine "errors", i.e. statements the truth of which he did not rule on, but that he found to depart from the mainstream scientific positions on global warming.[132][133][134] He also found that some of these departures from the mainstream arose in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of political theses.[135][136] Since the government had already accepted to amend the guidance notes to address these along with other points in a fashion that the judge found satisfactory, no order was made on the application.

This rationalization should not be interpreted as an attack on tradition. Previous generations were limited by the informational environments of their time and wisely, we should, of course, respect and learn from those that came before us. We do not, however, honour the past when we cling to convention in the face of disconfirming evidence. The intention here, accordingly, is simply to highlight that the set of assumptions, presumptions, and rules implicit in periodization theory were formulized under the dictates of a no longer sustainable theoretical reality. In truth, there seems no optimized pre-determinable planning path. There is only the informed exploration of a dynamically changing landscape. An exploration best guided, not by contrived rules and automated decision making, but by critical thinking, examined experience, and the unbiased interpretation of evidence evaluated through a conceptual lens accurately reflecting phenomenological reality.

In moving this field forward, our task is neither to reflexively accept nor automatically reject historical convention. Instead, an awareness of the embedded nature of path-dependent phenomena should encourage us to mindfully scrutinize engrained, often cherished, beliefs so we may better distinguish conveniently simplistic myths from inconveniently complex truths.

When it comes to climate change, the information on what Al Gore famously dubbed an inconvenient truth is indeed getting bleaker by the day. The most recent IPCC report confirms the dramatic consequences of not taking immediate action: additional global warming of up to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the near term would increase climate hazards, and present numerous risks to ecosystems and human society. Europe is particularly badly affected, as temperatures here continue to rise above the mean and, despite our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, we lag far behind in terms of what we need to do to adapt to some of the inevitable consequences.

In these new essays, Williams explores the concept of erosion: of the land, of the self, of belief, of fear. She wrangles with the paradox of desert lands and the truth of erosion: What is weathered, worn, and whittled away through wind, water, and time is as powerful as what remains. Our undoing is also our becoming.

The aughts were an inconvenient time for environmentalism. President George W. Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol, the first international treaty meant to address climate change, dead. Environmentalists charged widespread political interference in climate change science conducted at federal agencies. Most people had not heard of global warming.

Yes, it has been 14 years since the first post and what have Climate believers done to help the planet in that time. Ask for money, complain, take your money through taxes, complain, etc. The inconvenient truth I see today is a lot more trash littering the sides of our highways. many more homeless in communities, and regulations against farmers that will contribute to famine around the globe. Republicans have offered suggestions such as nuclear energy and desalination plants, but Democrats refuse to compromise. So, what exactly is the priority? Saving the planet or taking our money? 041b061a72