On the 24th May 2006 An Inconvenient Truth premiered in theaters and opened a controversial dialogue between the general public, corporations, environmental activists, and governments from around the globe. Like most controversial conversations, lines were drawn, facts were quoted with ideological spin, scientific facts were/are disputed, and the persons that were/are most effected were/are left wondering what were/are the truths and what can I do to protect those who are closest and dearest to me? Most of the scientific community believes that the phenomenon of global warming is a tangible reality but their hypotheses are not without its critics. This paper will explore the verisimilitude of An Inconvenient Truth, by addressing the following questions: 1.
Is An Inconvenient Truth exaggerated while erroneously representing the global interests of one country versus another? Or perhaps the political interests of one country versus another? 2.
Are the governments and industry leaders being honest with its citizens when they make statements about the amount of pollution their industry or country creates? 3.
Should an organization such as the United Nations address this worldwide issue to make sure all nations adhere to standardized pollution regulations? 4.
What international public policies should be in place to prevent revolutionary and economic uprisings in those countries? 5.
What options do you see presently for world enforcement of pollution control, economic growth, and political stability; while still maintaining world peace? In the case of oil for example, it is predicted as oil shortages increase world instability will increase. An Inconvenient Truth, Is It an Exaggeration?
In a recent (2008) article from the Salt Lake Tribune the author depicted scientific findings from the preliminary report of Dr. Oerjan Gustafsson, a leading scientist who is the Swedish leader of the International Siberian Shelf Study. In the report which was published in (The Independent) of Sept. 23. It stated that a substantial amount of methane gas was released into the sea and rose to the surface via methane bubbles (Dyer, 2008). Why is this significant? Essentially, methane gas is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a warming agent (Dyer, 2008). Further, there are thousands of megatons of methane stored underground in the Arctic region, trapped there by the permafrost (permanently frozen ground) that covers much of northern Russia, Alaska and Canada and extends far out under the seabed of the Arctic Ocean (Dyer, 2008). If the permafrost melts and methane escapes into the atmosphere on a large scale, it would cause a rapid rise in temperature - which would melt more permafrost, releasing more methane, which would cause more warming, and so on. Consequently, the first sign of the permafrost melting is the mass escape of methane gas, the research ship "Jakob Smirnitskyi" has just found: areas of the Arctic Ocean off the Russian coast where "chimneys" of methane gas are bubbling to the surface (Dyer, 2008). Giving the facts of the aforementioned methane gas dispersion coupled with the recent increased intensity/frequency of hurricanes one can deduct that An Inconvenient Truth is not the result of exaggeration, political interest, or the suppression of the economic growth of another country. It is real and each passing day more and more physical evidence is being discovered to corroborate its veracity. Are Governments And Industry Leaders Being Honest About Pollution? There is a great deal of scientific evidence that illustrates the correlation of CO2 emission with global warming. Likewise, there are an abundance of corporate lobbyists decrying scientific data that substantiates global warming. Towing the line of public perception are the many politicians that give affirmations of how the government will lead the fight against the threat of global warming. However, when the facts are reviewed they paint a different view...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document