I have to wait till June 23rd damnit, and i have to shit is a really old theater. The non stadium setaing irritates me, because I have to look aorund people's head, I hate that. Thankfully this is openign the summer and there be less Brown Students to trample/kill on my way to a good seat/parking space.

I like the new poster...

brilliant poster. nothing disarms opposition like a bit of humour.

Well, I saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time tonight, and it is simply chilling, or should I say -- just the opposite...

It is a powerful documentary indicting the viewer as complicit through complacency in our own species' potential decimation. It is a superbly argued and presented overview of the challenging situation facing us in the next 50 years, and more critically, right this second.

This is absolutely essential viewing for each and every inhabitant of this planet, and what's more, it's entertaining to boot!

Mark my words -- this film is prophetic - it is the new dividing point between past and future. Step up to the brink, and look over...

8 out of 5.

8/5?

This must be the best film youve ever seen, then, right?

Didn't you just recently give your first ever 2 seven out of fives?

So best movie ever material, eh? Hm.

I haven't #-rated my top ten lifetime movies - but a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey would likely rate in the eleven range...

So, you're now using a 10 point scale Bradley?

Seriously.

Why not just switch to a ten point scale?

Rating a film 11/5 is just silly and makes all the 5/5s kinda obsolete. I mean, 5/5 = 100% = Perfect/masterpiece/the peak/films don't get any better than this...unless they're a 9/5 in which case oh wait wtf nevermind. Yknow?

Since when is a little eccentricness in a forum like this a bad thing? It's not like he's a professional reviewer. I wish more people here had little quirks like that.

It's not a "bad" thing, it's a "doesn't-make-any-sense" thing. I really don't care and when it was just 6/5s, that was more than fine -- I just equated it with 'A+best of the best see-this-or-die'; but when you're giving a film 220%, it just makes me wonder how I can take a 5/5 seriously. Am I making sense? What IS a grade of 11/5? And what is a grade of 5 or 6 out of 5 in relation to the 11? It's certainly no longer "A+ best of the best see-this-or-die", right? So, yknow, the whole scale just seems silly.

Thank-you, that is the spirit in which it is intended...

Oh, oh!

I guess I better reconsider my new "googol out of 2" rating system roll-out I had planned for next month...

I went to see An Inconvenient Truth for a second time last night. The first time was at the downtown arthouse theatre, where even at a Wednesday late show, the theatre was three-quarters full and the audience was enthusiastic.

Last night (Friday), it opened in several more suburban theatres, and I saw it in a huge 500 seat auditorium with only 6 other people. You could hear the crickets in there.

It appears that An Inconvenient Truth might prove to be just a little too inconvenient for SUV-drivin' suburbia...

Though I hesitate only in imagining the unbelievers, I have had to take an unprecedented action today. I have had to revise the grade of a film I had already rated.

I went to see An Inconvenient Truth for a third time tonight and had the privilege of a private screening in another suburban auditorium - on cheapo Tuesday no less! Yup, just me and 225 empty seats.

Now, I know that some would regard that as a sure sign of lack of quality of a movie, but nope - each time I have seen it, my experience of it's quality and prescience has grown. It is really, really a great documentary.

Anyone who has seen it and who has also sat through a hundred plus university lectures, I defy you to admit that you wouldn't have been thrilled to have had this style of presentation of any complex and mind-expanding topic. Sure you might have had a prof who was a more enthralling live speaker, but imagine that teacher with this suite of media processes at their command...

It is truly a splendid and prophetic film.

9 out of 5.

Here's an interesting article from Salon entitled: Did Al Get the Science Right? Note: No registration needed - just click on the ad and go straight to the story...

(Also, includes a link to the latest propoganda clip from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" called Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story - always enjoyable for their absurd reasoning...)

I love the fact that any scientist who casts any doubt on any aspect of the anthropogenic global warming theory is industry-funded, while nothing at all mentioned about the funding for the scientists who support the AGW theory. To diffuse any doubt, they are most likely funded by government grants. Is there any doubt then, according to the logic laid out by Salon and the Real Climate website, why these scientists want the government to spend more funds on fighting global warming?

How about this little nugget:

Yet some scientists who are enthusiastic about the film had their own critiques of how the science is presented. One of the biggest challenges in the film is visually portraying the likely consequences of global warming in the future. For instance, invasive species, both plants and insects, are a growing scourge, which will likely be exacerbated by global warming. Yet, the film, while not saying anything technically wrong about invasive species, could leave the erroneous impression that the dandelion in your backyard was planted there by climate change, simply by omitting other contributing factors. "Anybody having to fight kudzu in their garden knows it has nothing to do with global warming. It has to do with the fact that we introduced the species from Europe," says Steig. At the same time, he says, invasive species are opportunistic, thriving in many different environments, so they're likely to thrive under climate change. "The ecological niche for certain species are changing quite rapidly," says Schmidt. "You have situations where only a small amount of climate change can make a big difference."

The deadly aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is featured prominently in the film, and may lead viewers to conclude global warming is to blame for the disaster. But the truth is not that simple. As global temperatures rise, hurricane scientists predict that we'll see stronger storms as rising sea temperatures feed their fury. Yet it's hotly debated among hurricane specialists whether the intensity of tropical cyclones seen around the world over the past few years already show the impacts of global warming. Sketchy data from past decades makes nailing down that proof difficult, amplifying the debate. "There is a difference between saying 'we are confident that they will increase' and 'we are confident that they have increased due to this effect,'" explains Steig.

So was Al Gore wrong? Yes, but only when the facts are disputed by pro-AGW scientists.

I can't say for sure you're wrong, after all, my original poll for this thread includes a "Haven't figured out which way I'm being spun on this one..." option, but I just have to ask, Krem: How far can you trust your cynicism?

Oh, but I have figured out which way I'm being spun on this one

Global Warming debate is driven by anti-growth zealots. These are the same people who pushed the population bomb theory in the 60's and the anti-nuclear energy debate in the 70's.

Interesting, and definitely a possible spin. But these "anti-growth zealots" -- what do they have to gain?

Social engineering, of course. Because they cannot make people change their lifestyles voluntarily, they seek to do it by forcing these behaviors on them.

It's certainly not a coincidence that the people who whine about rampant consumerism, Wal-Mart's unfair practices, Americans' abundant lifestyles, and want to curb all of those, are the same people who threaten us with Global Warming.