An Inconvenient Truth - Essay Example

In an era of news coverage that seeks to engage the most viewers, the discussion of global warming is something that many people have debated and discussed for decades. Such discussions that have resulted in, among other things, questions as to whether or not global warming is in fact occurring and if so, what if anything can be done about it. An example of a cinematic product whose purpose it was to raise debate about global climate change, would be former Vice President Al Gores film “An Inconvenient Truth”. A fitting title for the concept for this very reason. Many of those who feel passionately that global warming is in fact happening, have long since said that one of the many causes for the problem, lie within the everyday behaviors that so many people within the human race take for granted. For the vast amount of people in question, such behaviors to a large degree, would not be done with malicious intent but rather without coherent thought. Performed thousands of times over the course of days, weeks and/or months, such tasks would seem routine. Only these routine behaviors, would lead the way for potentially hazardous ramifications for the vast world that everyone calls home. Just as Gores movie sought to do, the You Tube video itself, was created to continue debate and facilitate real potential for possible changes to be made. Many different special interest groups seeks to gain interest in their causes in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different reasons. The general argument for global warming has been summed up in the following manner: not only is it occurring but that it is something that resulted from abuse by mankind through use of such things as automobiles that release fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Opponents to the cause have formulated their own opinions on the matters. Primarily to say that either global warming is a myth on the one hand but on the other, if in fact true, then it will have not reached the level of catastrophic concern, which many others feel it already has. After outlining the general argument of global climate change, the author of the You Tube video seeks to break down the argument in his own explanation. Using a four square grid model, the author outlines the process that would lead towards the conclusion he would have come up with. The two horizontal columns would be labeled as true & false. This would be the case to symbolize whether or not the issue of global warming was either to be believed, or deemed to be a fraud. In the vertical columns, the authors makes note of the actions to be taken if the answer to the overall question would have been either yes, or no. Some of the familiar things placed within the four square grid included such things as the cost involved and other resulting occurrences for either response taken. He does include a section within his graph that would be best described as the worst case scenario when it comes to results of whatever action was taken, or in this case, inaction. It would be this section that he would describe as being the end result, if the human race continued to place itself within the primary question of whether global warming is a reality or a myth, instead of going beyond that to consider the choices to be made. The choices that each and every person would have to make and the ones that the author seeks to instill upon his viewing audience when he insists that they should take action. A basic summation of the authors overall argument would be that, while mankind cannot say for sure whether or not global climate change is in fact happening, especially to the degree at which it has been claimed to be happening, it would be far more costly to do nothing. The underlying danger of not choosing to take action remains greater and more detrimental, than whatever actions sought may result in. The video is very clear in concept and delivery. t states a clear re-construction of the overall broader question of what is happening to the climate of the globe. Whether the climate is changing and to what degree it may be changing, becomes only part of the bigger issue. That is, not taking any form of action at all and lapsing into making assumptions about a possible outcome instead. From a logical point of view, the author seeks to encourage his viewers to do the exact opposite of that and instead, to be actively engaged in the debate and to seek answers instead of only asking questions. The authors mention of cost, for one, would be factually accurate. In discussing possible actions for approaching climate control, it would have to be said that for these changes to be enacted, things such as increased regulation or news taxes would have to be instituted. For the very reason that without regulation, it would become very difficult if not impossible, to monitor the very companies and individuals whom are seen as the culprits. The same thing may be said about any form of tax increase. After all, for services to increase there would have to be some way to pay for them and tax increases would be one possible suggestion. By far the most dangerous of the authors four sections on his grid, would be the section having to do with if global warming was believed to be true but nothing was done to stop it. Mentioning such things as the economic, political, social, environmental and health ramifications that would come if action was not taken, even though it would have been previously determined that global warming was in fact to be believed. The conclusion on its own would be a mixture of both types of thinking. It approaches the central issue by looking at it from both sides and creating possible response patterns to go with each potential answer. This form of problem solving can only best serve this type of question in itself. To not just look at one side of the response category but to take a collective consideration for what could easily occur if either answer is provided for the same root question. If it had to be a choice of whether it was comprised of more inductive thinking rather than deductive thinking, or vice versa, the answer would most likely be more deductive than the first option. This can be asserted through the consideration of the authors design of his key argument. The deduction of the corresponding end results to the respective response categories. The process of enabling the mind to consider the primary question and to also decipher the resulting consequences that would arise if global warming was believed or not believed and if action was taken, or not taken for that matter. With the advancement of man, has come the introduction of things that have caused problems for the outside world. Primarily, the reliance upon automobiles that utilize fossil fuels, that in return are released into the atmosphere, that creates the depletion to the extent of creating the general problem. The premise of this authors argument is very believable and straightforward. The notion that, the ends do justify the means of getting there. The relevance of taking the necessary steps to ensure the prospects for future generations to come, instead of ignoring any options and instead, electing to feign ignorance. While the old saying may go ignorance is bliss, the general lesson to be taken out of watching the You Tube video, would be that ignorance should be the last method taken in considering the path to take for handling global climate. Instead of ignorance, the best method of handling any potential outcome, would be awareness. Anyone who views the weather channel, or sees what is occurring for the many different types of animals that exist throughout the world, it can be quite difficult to adequately question the presence of global warming. To deem it as strictly a myth with little factual truth behind it and to instead, pass it off as simply a creation and not a distinct possibility on the horizon. At the end of his You Tube video, the authors makes his case for whomever views the video, to pass it along to others to continue the debate. During the course of the final part of the video, he provides his view that without the discussion, there would appear to be no hope of finding a way to prevent what very well may be inevitable. In understanding the nature of government, he asserts that public policy can be influenced by public input. That would require the engagement and interest of the mass public and have that passionate response, translate into increased action through such means as contacting legislators and encouraging debate in the halls of Congress and the White House. In the end, the reason(s) that the author would have had for making such a video for a debate such as this, brings light to a bigger discussion. That is, the realization that there is only one Earth that human beings are able to call home and if not taken care of, there would remain the potential of the planet not being habitable in the future. As the author effectively asks at the beginning of his monologue in reference to many things, “Whats the worst that can happen?” (“The Most”, 2007). In this case, inaction would be far worse than any action at all. Reference “The Most Terrifying Video Youll Ever See”. Retrieved November 28, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Read More

In the vertical columns, the authors makes note of the actions to be taken if the answer to the overall question would have been either yes, or no. Some of the familiar things placed within the four square grid included such things as the cost involved and other resulting occurrences for either response taken. He does include a section within his graph that would be best described as the worst case scenario when it comes to results of whatever action was taken, or in this case, inaction. It would be this section that he would describe as being the end result, if the human race continued to place itself within the primary question of whether global warming is a reality or a myth, instead of going beyond that to consider the choices to be made.

The choices that each and every person would have to make and the ones that the author seeks to instill upon his viewing audience when he insists that they should take action. A basic summation of the authors overall argument would be that, while mankind cannot say for sure whether or not global climate change is in fact happening, especially to the degree at which it has been claimed to be happening, it would be far more costly to do nothing. The underlying danger of not choosing to take action remains greater and more detrimental, than whatever actions sought may result in.

The video is very clear in concept and delivery. t states a clear re-construction of the overall broader question of what is happening to the climate of the globe. Whether the climate is changing and to what degree it may be changing, becomes only part of the bigger issue. That is, not taking any form of action at all and lapsing into making assumptions about a possible outcome instead. From a logical point of view, the author seeks to encourage his viewers to do the exact opposite of that and instead, to be actively engaged in the debate and to seek answers instead of only asking questions.

The authors mention of cost, for one, would be factually accurate. In discussing possible actions for approaching climate control, it would have to be said that for these changes to be enacted, things such as increased regulation or news taxes would have to be instituted. For the very reason that without regulation, it would become very difficult if not impossible, to monitor the very companies and individuals whom are seen as the culprits. The same thing may be said about any form of tax increase.

After all, for services to increase there would have to be some way to pay for them and tax increases would be one possible suggestion. By far the most dangerous of the authors four sections on his grid, would be the section having to do with if global warming was believed to be true but nothing was done to stop it. Mentioning such things as the economic, political, social, environmental and health ramifications that would come if action was not taken, even though it would have been previously determined that global warming was in fact to be believed.

The conclusion on its own would be a mixture of both types of thinking. It approaches the central issue by looking at it from both sides and creating possible response patterns to go with each potential answer. This form of problem solving can only best serve this type of question in itself. To not just look at one side of the response category but to take a collective consideration for what could easily occur if either answer is provided for the same root question. If it had to be a choice of whether it was comprised of more inductive thinking rather than deductive thinking, or vice versa, the answer would most likely be more deductive than the first option.

This can be asserted through the consideration of the authors design of his key argument. The deduction of the corresponding end results to the respective response categories. The process of enabling the mind to consider the primary question and to also decipher the resulting consequences that would arise if global warming was believed or not believed and if action was taken, or not taken for that matter.

Read More