Rhetoric and self-interest in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

¶ … Inconvenient Truth

Former Vice President Al Gore, who, in his documentary film on global warming, by director Davis Guggenheim, an Inconvenient Truth (2006), introduces himself, "I am Al Gore, I used to be the next president of the United States," won an Academy Award for the documentary. It is not the first time that a controversial documentary film has won an Academy Award, nor is it the first time that a politician has harnessed the Hollywood public relations mechanism as represented by the film stars like those stars backing Al Gore's documentary, to promote both their ideology and themselves as politicians. Hillary Clinton did it with her book, it Takes a Village (1996), which won a Golden Globe Award, and was the first time a book received such a Golden Globe. It was perhaps Clinton's which served as impetus for the Gore documentary, which, like Clinton's book, is replete with political and social rhetoric such that might cause some to wonder whether Gore's documentary is a political campaign, or a sincere statement of concern on global warming.

This essay attempts to examine the rhetoric of Mr. Gore's documentary, not because there is a lack of support for environmental wellness and for mankind to live in harmony with nature; but because there is an emerging trend seen here of politicians moving self-interest and special interest out of the confines of the Senate, and into the private sector in a very public way. Harnessing the momentum that can be gained from the fast pace of the Hollywood public relations machine when a well-known star or matinee idol endorses a candidate or cause draws huge support to the cause or candidate's ideological position. Many people believe that wealthy people such as Leonardo DiCaprio, who endorsed Al Gore in his documentary and message on global warming, and who was seen vigorously applauding his support at the Academy Awards; actually have done research on the subject or have a knowledge on the subject that many ordinary people do not have. For that reason, because their favorite "star" has endorsed the product or candidate or idea, these people will go along and incorporate those individuals or ideologies into their own ideas and support them with votes or with charitable donations, or renting or purchasing a DVD.

This essay will explore the rhetoric and the facts on global warming not in order to sway a mind in one direction or another, but to understand and the shed light on the ways in which political candidates and others target human emotions in order to take aim with arrows of rhetoric in order to reel in that support for a political cause. An attempt will be made to reveal the self-interest, if any, that might be associated with the global warming issue, and who might stand to benefit from efforts to "combat" global warming.

There are some real concerns that people should have about politicians and corporate magnates who attempt to harness the public passion in support of an ideological cause. This essay hopes to turn the spotlight away from the celebrities, towards the facts, dismantling the rhetoric so that people can gain an informed understanding of how that language is used to manipulate their ideas and support for ideas.

To do this, the documentary, an Inconvenient Truth, will be examined in as much detail as possible, breaking down the language and the images through analysis to reveal what might actually be seen beyond the rhetoric. Comparisons will be made between the data provided in the documentary with that of other documentaries, such as the counter position on Al Gore's version of global warming as seen in the documentary film the Great Global Warming Swindle (2007), by director Martin Durkin; and Doomsday Called Off (2004), by director Lars Mortensen.

Again, it has to be stated that there is no attempt being made here to thwart environmentalists in their efforts to bring about a balance between human nature and Mother Nature. In fact, the opposing views to Al Gore's science are very much supportive of balancing mankind's place in the world with nature, and supporting a clean environment, a conscientious approach to environmental efforts.

The Planet Earth

The documentary film, an Inconvenient Truth, the film opens with aesthetic images of nature: flowing stream (not blue though), trees, and the quiet voice of former Vice President Al Gore narrating, introducing the viewer to nature. Not that the viewer needs to be introduced to nature, because most viewers, urban and rural have an understanding of nature, but, as Al Gore goes on to say, following the aesthetic scenery, "I'd forgotten about this." That sentence, "I'd forgotten about this," not only re-introduces the viewer to nature again, and in a really aesthetically visual way on film, but also suggests to the viewer, wow, we have been so busy with our lives that we forgot about this. From the perspective of rhetoric, this statement goes even further, because it is Mr. Gore's gentle way of putting us in the frame of mind to accept our responsibility for having forgotten about nature; because in having done so, we have put nature, and ourselves, in fact, our planet, at risk. That we are responsible is something that is rhetorically important to establish early on in the film and the reason why will be explored as it is revealed towards the end of the film. However, it is, at this early start in the film, essential to the ideology being introduced in the film to invest the viewer by causing the viewer to accept that responsibility for, wow, I had forgotten about this. You can almost hear Al Gore's gentle, even fatherly voice softly chastising, shame on you; and, yes, we will feel shame before it is over. The rhetoric, as we note along the way, is supported, emphasized by the tone and infliction of Mr. Gore's voice.

The scene then jumps to Mr. Gore standing before an American audience with a tall screen next to him. On the screen is an image of earth, the blue planet, in a half shot, its white clouds swirling in the atmosphere above blue oceans and seas. The photograph, titled Earthrise, was taken by astronaut William a. Anders, during the 1968 Apollo 8 mission, seven months before the first moon landing. It is one of the most important photographs of earth taken from space.

As that image of earth is shown to a large auditorium that is filled to capacity with young Americans, all of whom are shown as listening intently to Mr. Gore's remarks because he is sharing with them information that, more than anyone else right now, impacts their lives as they will be the gatekeepers to successful environmental change in the world. The earth problems created by the generations before them are now theirs to deal with. It is, therefore, important invest them in the not just the concept of history, but in the notion of their inherited historical legacy. Americans were, after all, first to land on the moon. This is an important historical event, it is a legacy that belongs to them, and out this important historical event was this ever important photograph of the blue planet, their planet, Earth. The combination of rhetoric and imagery is magnetic up to this point in the documentary, and it remains either as magnetic, or increases in its magnetic hold on the viewer. "Within 18 months of this picture, the modern environmental movement had begun," Mr. Gore advises the audience. Thus, the reason Mr. Gore is showing this audience the picture; to invest them in the modern environmental movement.

Next, Mr. Gore shows the audience a photograph of the full picture of the blue planet, Earth, taken from the moon. December 11, 1972, the most commonly published photograph of the earth in all of history. Then, Mr. Gore shows the audience a time lapsed photograph taken from the American exploration satellite Galileo and it shows a 24-hour period of the earth's rotation. It is indeed an amazing image to see. Iconic images which are used in combination with rhetoric are a powerful tool. As the camera scans the faces in the audience, we see that Mr. Gore is enjoying success so far.

The use of the image of planet Earth serves another purpose here. It serves to emphasize that all mankind shares the same planet. This is a valid, and irrefutable point, and a necessary point to make from the perspective of not just the environment, but the global community and the global initiative that it will require to bring about change to protect the environment. Hopefully, as Mr. Gore suggests in the film, through the Kyoto initiative which he sponsored, and which the United States has not yet signed itself in commitment of supporting. The reasons for that will be explored here too.

Examining what has been accomplished up to this point in the film, it is seen that Mr. Gore has invested the older generation, those response for having forgotten about the planet, and those responsible for cleaning up the mess left by those who forgot about it. The hope, of course, that to the extent possible, both groups will invest themselves, and their money, in the ways that Mr. Gore is going to suggest in the film.

The Scientist and Mentors

Finally, Mr. Gore shows an image of earth that was made by a friend of his - all of the experts in the film are friends of Mr. Gore. The image was, again, made over a period of years and shows all the geographic locations of the earth. This is important because it segues into Mr. Gore's new direction of rhetoric; a story about two teachers, one he liked very much, the other not so well. Now, this explanation of his impression, his like or dislike of these teachers is intended to accomplish several things in the connection between Mr. Gore and his audience. Also, the audience has changed from a young audience, to one of mixed baby boomer generation and young people.

Mr. Gore goes on to share with the audience, as he stands beside the image of the planet in geographic view with the image of South America and, across the ocean, Africa, at that point that is historically iconic because it is image that shows that the continents were once joined. In fact, Mr. Gore points out, as a youngster in school one of his classmates questioned the teacher, asking if the land was ever connected because they looked to fit together like a jig-saw puzzle. Of course not, don't be silly, the teacher responded, shutting down the young boy's curiosity and eagerness to share his observation with others. Who hasn't had one of those moments with a teacher or professor. The rhetoric emphasizes the ways in which brilliant thinking is often shot down, and that young people, grade school children, often have important observations to contribute to society. Then, Mr. Gore goes on to explain, the young child grew up to be a "drug addict and ner do well." This is suggesting, of course, that the stifling of ideas in the young is the cause of economic and emotional destruction, if not death.

The teacher, the stiffler of ideas, who thwarted a valid and accurate observation about the environment, went to become the "science advisor in the current administration." The audience applauds their approval, but their applause is in respect to the "current administration." It is yet another rhetorical cheap shot at the current administration, which is the same administration that won the presidency away from the man who would be "the next president of the United States," but never was. A totally unrelated theme to global warming, yet one that surfaces again and again throughout the documentary.

The second teacher, more to the theme of global warming, was a man who served as the source environmental enlightenment, and inspired the man who, though he would not become president of the United States, would be elected to the United States Senate as the Senator from Tennessee; and who would go on to be vice president of the United States.

The teacher was reflecting the conclusion of scientists at that time, Mr. Gore advises the audience, continues, saying, it is not what we don't know; but what we know for sure, paraphrasing and quoting Mark Twain. "The earth is so big we can't possibly have any lasting harmful impact on the earth." This segues way into the lead in about the earth's atmosphere, and how thin and vulnerable the earth's atmosphere is. This leads to the introduction of the second teacher. However, before that, Mr. Gore explains that the details of global warming are complex, and offers a simplistic drawing of the sun's radiation absorbed into the earth's upper atmosphere, protecting the earth from the harmful radiation of the sun. Here, Mr. Gore is suggesting that the complexities of the science behind the issue of global warming is too complex for the average to understand beyond a simplistic drawing, and thereby the greater population should rely upon his expertise, his trained skill in gathering information and analyzing it for us. This is important rhetoric, because Mr. Gore is telling the audience that he won't bore them with the scientific details, which they will not understand anyway; and this theme of things being too complex for the average person repeats itself throughout the film.

Al Gore, who has not yet introduced the second teacher, but he will; is suggesting to the audience that we allow him to be our mentor on global warming. That he has done the tedious investigation of detail, and we can rely on the man who would be the next president the United States to lead us, to guide us on this life threatening environmental issue.

The thin layer of the atmosphere is being thickened by the man-made pollutants put into the air. This is where Mr. Gore introduces a video that is intended to inform the public at a level that we can all understand. Seemingly capitalizing on the success of the comic strip television show, the Simpsons, a video which uses beginner level reader language and cartoon characters explains how Mr. Sun sends his good rays of light to the earth, which Mr. Gore has suggested is good, because it keeps the earth from getting too cold. "I'll be on my way," Mr. Sunbeam informs us, and then, "Not so fast Mr. Sunbeam," the pollutants of "green house gases," stop him, beat him up, overwhelming him, trapping him in the earth's thin and vulnerable atmosphere. Not to worry, though, our "cheap" politicians came up with a solution to global warming, and the video shows a huge ice cube being dumped into the ocean to, presumably, cool the planet off. "Cheap politicians," and we can no longer count Al Gore amongst them, who, presumably, by the rhetoric, gave politicians a level of value by way his own credibility. It might be suggested here, as interpretation of the rhetoric, that Mr. Gore is feeling betrayed, abandoned by some politicians, otherwise, it would be hard to imagine him taking cheap shots at those amongst whom Al Gore sat and worked with for so many years of his professional life.

Now, Mr. Gore introduces his second great scholastic influence - the first, remember, was the teacher who thwarted independent thinking and sound observation. Now, he introduces us to his second one, the one that inspired him, and that he liked. This one is college Professor Roger Revelle, who was the inspiration him in facing his challenges in confronting the problem of global warming. Here, Mr. Gore is establishing for the audience that he has a youthful connection to the issue of global warming. It suggests, too, that he has spent his entire life researching this issue (when he was not inventing the internet). He is reassuring us of his earlier rhetoric that suggested we the audience, in general was not intelligent enough to understand the complexities of global warming above a first grade level, if we are to take that hint from the level of audience his cartoon was aimed at. That, again, his authority comes from science, a man of science, an academic, and, therefore, we can rely on Mr. Gore to understand those complexities for us.

Introducing the Opposing Authority and Science

Thus far in the documentary, it has been the use of rhetoric to draw the audience in, to relax, and to have confidence in Mr. Gore's authority in the matter of global warming even though he, himself, is not a scientist. We can do that because Mr. Gore's own relationship in the global warming issue arises out of youthful college days and his direct connection to Professor Roger Revelle, a man of science and an academic.

As Mr. Gore now introduces the academic Professor Roger Revelle as his authority, at least his earliest authority, as the first man ever to suggest that CO2 emissions, man-made emissions, into the earth's atmosphere were creating a dangerous condition of global warming. It is time to introduce, for purposes of analyzing the rhetoric on that level of academic credibility, the opposition to Mr. Gore's documentary. The opposition is the documentary film by director Martin Durking, the Great Global Warming Swindle. This documentary features no politicians, no celebrities, but scientists: Professor Tim Ball, of the University of Winnipeg; Professor Niv Shaviv, University of Jerusalem; Professor Ian Clark, University of Ottawa; Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama and lead author International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Professor Philip Stott, University of London; Professor Richard Lindzen, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and others from Harvard and other highly respected universities around the world.

An impressive cast of scientist, and it is especially important to note Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama, who served as the lead author for the IPCC, which is the document most commonly cited by global warming activists, including Al Gore in his documentary film, an Inconvenient Truth. These scientists, including Christy, beg to differ with Al Gore's explanation of the science on global warming, and the science and the scientists from whom that science comes from. It is not, Christy says, the science that was put into the IPCC, and Christy maintains that the IPCC was to broad extent misinterpreted; for the lack of saying that it was outright misrepresented.

Al Gore says that Professor Revelle "intuited" what his findings on global warming meant was "yet to come." There is the rhetoric of the doomsday warning that is commonly associated with moving the masses to become impassioned about a cause. Here, again, in the documentary, Al Gore reverts from his louder voice in addressing the larger and young audiences, to a softer and more sentimental voice of concern, of doom. The linguistic infliction as he speaks emphasizes the "what is to come," suggestion of his words.

Revelle conducted an experiment in 1957, with the assistance of Charles David Keeling, who was faithful and precise in making measurements gained through sending up weather balloons everyday. "It was a wonderful time for me," Al Gore says, "I came into contact with intellectual ferment, ideas that I never considered in my wildest dreams before. And he showed our class the results of his measurements after only a few years. It was startling to me. And he was startled." It is important to note that Dr. Revelle passed away in 1991, and there have been allegations, amongst the people making those allegations, the scientist in the film opposing Gore's documentary; that Al Gore is misrepresenting Roger Revelle's science and his beliefs about global warming.

Yes, Revelle did research on climate and was the first to suggest that CO2 had an impact on the climate, and that he did express concerns about mankind's disregard for the environment and certainly with pollution. Revelle's climate research colleague, Charles David Keeling, passed away in 2005, but it is the charts prepared by Keeling to show the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere upon which Mr. Gore relies throughout much of his science facts discussion, and in refuting the science of the opposition.

More Rhetoric

Gore explains why there are seasonal fluctuations in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is consistent with the seasonal changes, the natural processes of the earth's seasonal changes. What began as Revelle's studies in 1958, served as the impetus for Al Gore to take the issue to Congress when he was elected to the Senate, and even had Professor Revelle address the Senate.

Al Gore shows photographs of important geographical sites from around the world: Kilamanjaro, Glacier National Park, and other sites around the globe and there are, indeed, decreasing snow and ice caps. "In the Himalayas there is a particular problem because 40% of the people in the world," Gore says, receive their drinking water from the snow and ice caps of the Himalayas, and in the near-term future 40% of the people in the world will begin having water shortages, and there will be a global disaster.

There is no one who would not be concerned with the fact that 40% of the world's population is faced with a water shortage. However, whether or not the source of that shortage is mankind is what is being put to question in Gore's film, and in the opposing view of the scientists previously mentioned.

Al Gore stands before a huge graph showing the findings of his mentor, Dr. Revelle, and he brings up the classmate whose observations were dissed by the teacher Gore did not like. And Mr. Gore shows that the there is a relationship, in observable appearance, between the graph showing temperature rises on earth, and the levels of CO2. The graph, predicting CO2 levels in the future, goes up. and, Mr. Gore, who admittedly is using a stage prop to demonstrate his meaning, climbs aboard a machine that raises him to the level of the giant screen where the CO2 levels are shown. The machine goes up, up, up and Mr. Gore's point is well made; in "less than 50 years, it will be here." Mr. Gore says that there is no data and no science to dispute the unproven - which science relies on proven facts - and says that the increases in temperature are going to be at a disastrous level in 50 years, and "if we allow that to happen, it is deeply unethical." These words are important her, because Mr. Gore is suggesting that, first, we have the power to change the climate. Second, that if we do not employ that power to change the climate, we are unethical, we are immoral, because we will have allowed a disaster to occur that we, the people, could have prevented.

The rhetoric here is to instill guilt in the viewer, not on the basis of science that proves the global warming theory, but on the basis of speculation, "predicting" that the global warming scenario is going to be at such levels in 50 years as to bring about global disaster. More importantly, that people, and specifically, Americans, are responsible for the CO2 levels in the air, the increasing levels of CO2, and the predicted disaster that is to occur in 50 years.

What Mr. Gore knows, for certain, without a crystal ball, without unproven scientific predictions, is that the American people are a generous people who have responded to the needs of people who have suffered man-made and natural disasters throughout the history. Americans are so generous that their Congress has seen fit to indebt them for generations to come by way of forgiving third world debt, charity in the way of food and healthcare in foreign and third world countries for decades now. However, if Americans fail to respond to Mr. Gore's unproven science, they are immoral and unethical.

It is at this point, too, that Mr. Gore now accuses the U.S. Congress of being unethical; although he made no such distinctions while he held his seat in the United States Senate, or while he was vice president. Now, Mr. Gore tells us he took this important global warming issues to the Congress while he was in Congress, but that Congress acted unethically by disregarding his findings. The question must be asked why this documentary film is the first time Mr. Gore is making these public allegations about his former Senate colleagues.

Also, Mr. Gore takes another shot at the administration that supplanted him as the "the next president of the United States," by advising us that Mr. Gore ran for office in 2000 in part because he wanted to bring about further research and results in the study of CO2 and climate. That Mr. Bush, likewise, said that he wanted to do that as well. A promise, Mr. Gore points out, made by Mr. Bush that he has never acted on. Unfortunately, the war on terror has consumed much of Mr. Bush's time (rightly or wrongly). But what Mr. Gore is suggesting is that Mr. Bush has failed us morally, while he, Al Gore, would not have.

There, again, is the rhetoric to trust Al Gore, comparing himself against, at this point in time, an unpopular president whom many Americans confess they do not, at this time, any longer trust. If we do not trust Mr. Bush, Gore's rhetoric is suggesting, we can trust Al Gore.

On Bush's campaign promise to make global warming an initiative, Mr. Gore reminds us, "That was not a pledge that was kept," This suggests that Mr. Gore has never made a campaign promise that he did not keep, however, it would be safe to "predict" that if we went back in time and searched the archive of Al Gore senatorial campaign promises, we would no doubt find campaign promises that Mr. Gore did not keep.

April 3, 1999," Al Gore begins in his now familiar quiet tone, and shares another personal story with us about how he almost lost his son when his son was just six years old. It was indeed a tragic time, and would be in the life of any family. "This turned my whole world upside down," Mr. Gore shares with us, "My way of being in the world. It just changed everything for me." He says. I really dug in, he says, and he went to the Arctic to understand, places where scientists could help him gain an understanding what he could do about losing that which was most precious to him.

It is important to note here Mr. Gore is assuring the audience that he is relying on the scientists for his expertise. He has been to the Artic, to the South Pole, to Greenland and others sites where cooling and warming would have significant impacts on the earth.

Here, Mr. Gore is equating his love for the environment with his love for his child. His voice drops to a whisper, "That what we take for granted might not be here four children." Then he goes another chart, the overall trend showing, again, he is correct that the temperature is rising on earth, and that the hottest of all was 2005. Mr. Gore attempts to demonstrate that the increased number of storms, including Hurricane Katrina, are a result of global warming.

Mr. Gore is not wrong, say the scientists in the Great Global Warming Swindle. What is important, say those scientists, is that Mr. Gore is saying two things: that mankind is responsible, and that mankind can change the warming of the planet. This, say the scientists, is simply unproven, bad science, and, based on the science we have to date, not true.

Environmental Rhetoric

Environment rhetoric, Carl C. Herndl and Stuart C. Brown (1996), say "is part of radical democratic theory focusing on how the various groups in a society struggle to gain acceptance for their views in the area of public discourse (237)." This is what we identify in Mr. Gore's documentary, is his struggle to gain acceptance about his views on global warming, sans sound scientific theory and support. There is, at this point in time, as of the release of the Great Global Warming Swindle, much less scientific support for Mr. Gore's contentions and theories than Mr. Gore suggested. Herndl and Brown say that each group's rhetoric is aimed at bringing about changes in the way that people think about the issue (237), and from Mr. Gore's language, especially that associating global warming with end of times and the Biblical Revelations, there is a perceived attempt to create a panic in the public opinion, a hysteria even, that will propel the movement that Mr. Gore is spearheading to its goal; increased taxes for special interest, private business and research and development of private enterprise in the study and response to global warming.

Rom Harre, Jens Brockmeier, and Petr Muhllhausler (1999) examine the subject of environmental discourse. The very word "science," the say, can conjure up a number of meanings, but most importantly is the association with the word as the information emanating from it is of an authentic and reliable source (51). This rhetoric can be employed by both sides of the argument; indeed, in the case of global warming it has been used that way. Such that right now the public is wary of the word "science," and ambivalent about how to apply the information being disseminated under that guise. "By and large," the authors say, "the uses we will discuss are bona fide science (51)." In so stating, these authors are adding yet another dimension to the word; now we have science, and we have "bona fide" science, whatever that means. "There is one striking way in which rhetorical conclusions go beyond scientific premises, and that is in the expansion and compression of timescales (51)." We have seen that on both sides of the global warming argument, and both sides are supposedly presenting us with "bona fide" science.

Still, these authors contend that through identifying the linguistics associated with the discussion on global warming, they can discern the political direction the speaker is attempting to lead the listener in on the issue of global warming (55). The authors cite as an example a London Times article on third world disaster rhetoric (55-56). The article reads this way:

Global warming, ozone depletion, desertification, large scale pollution and species loss were all threatening to combine with runaway poverty and hunger in the Third World (not discerning which third world country, rather blending them all together under the heading "third world.") in one crisis which could destroy the 'the security', well-being and very survival of the planet.' It was the most frightening analysis possible yet it was not dismissed as exaggeration (Goldsmith, 1992, p. 17) (Harre, et al., 53-54).

The article employing this exaggerated language appeared in the Times in 1992, years before Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth, but nonetheless equally employing of the same rhetorical language, which, the authors say, was because the author of the article, Goldsmith, was speaking with the voice of authority, which was that of science (54). Because he was citing scientific authorities, he was not called to question by lay people, not even journalists. No one questioned the exaggerated use of his rhetoric (54).

Fortunately, as Al Gore himself says, it is the job of every scientist in the world to respond to scientifically proven information, even when that information means that the world is at risk. Especially when the world is at risk, we would hope. However, he goes on to suggest that the very scientist who do respond in opposition to his view, the view of the few scientist he is offering in support of his exaggerated claims, are trouble makers, scientists with an agenda of their own.

Al Gore has already explained why he should enjoy a privileged status, and why his data is good science, and it is through his connection with Keeling and Roger Revelle, both men of science, and, remember, Revelle was the one who indoctrinated the young college student that Al Gore was, into the science of global warming.

When we look at the way in which Al Gore presented his data, we find the exaggeration of information that Harre, et al., mention; the giant graphs where Mr. Gore steps onto a machine that takes him up, up, up above the stage floor to the point of the 50-year prediction on temperature that is off the charts. In the giant screen on the stage, much bigger than the auditorium warrants, but which graphs larger than life sized depictions of Roger Revelle's "discovery." In his documentary, Al Gore has employed all the elements that Harre, et al., studied in their study on environmental rhetoric.

Impact on Public

The rhetoric employed in Al Gore's documentary is strong, emotional, and magnetic. It has had a profound impact on the American public opinion about global warming, sparking a hotly contested debate that resulted in the response by a large group of scientists in the Great Global Warming Swindle. The scientists in this film remind viewers that they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by speaking out against what they call "junk science" in the global warming debate. The world of science, they point out, is propelled forward with funding, much of it from the United States Government, in research dollars. One scientist in the film says that a scientist should never tell a politician that something is not important; because that will kill potential for research funding. It is not that science is immoral or corrupt, but that the very nature of science is to continuously explore, evaluate, hypothesize, and experiment. Government funding is essential to this process, and many of them, by going public in their lack of support for the man-made global warming, are risking the wrath of Al Gore and other politicians who support the contention that global warming is a man-made condition, and that it is especially an American-made condition.

For the detractors of his argument in support of global warming, in support of man-made global warming and excessive CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are man-made; Al Gore says there are a "handful" of detractors. He also states that these detractors do not include scientists. The scientists of the Durkins documentary are all credible scientists in the field of climatology, meteorology, and other disciplines that make them credible and reliable

Patrick J. Michaels (2004) says that global warming is real, and that people have something to do with it, but not everything to do with it (9). That is a very middle of the road opinion, but deserves to be cited here because Mr. Gore contends that global warming is man-made, the opposing view says that it is natural and arising out of nature and forces that man-kind cannot - should not attempt - to control.

As science and government stand divided on the subject, so, too, is the public. However, the public mood might predictably change with the implementation of CO2 taxes. That is charging the consumer public a CO2 tax, which, presumably, will result in increased taxes for American politicians to fuel "research" that supports their tax increases other "special interest" spending that arises out of the global warming tax coffers.

Bruce E. Johansen (2002), quotes Ross Gelbspan as saying:

The world's political leaders must forge a binding treaty to phase out virtually all of our fossil-fuel use within a decade and create a new worldwide energy economy based on energy efficiency and climate-friendly, renewable technologies. The imposition of draconian carbon taxes in the United States and elsewhere would be politically unacceptable and economically inadequate. Instead, I would envision an energy-based global public-works program, funded by the profits from fossil fuels, under a stringent regime of international governmental regulation. (Gelbspan 1998) (Johansen 12)."

Addressing the National Geographic Society in 1997, then President Bill Clinton made these remarks:

propose a sweeping plan to provide incentives and lift road blocks to help our companies and our citizens find new and creative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. First, we must enact tax cuts and make research and development investments worth up to $5 billion over the next five years -- "targeted incentives to encourage energy efficiency and the use of cleaner energy sources. Second, we must urge companies to take early actions to reduce emissions by ensuring that they receive appropriate credit for showing the way. Third, we must create a market system for reducing emissions wherever they can be achieved most inexpensively, here or abroad; a system that will draw on our successful experience with acid rain permit trading. Fourth, we must reinvent how the federal government, the nation's largest energy consumer, buys and uses energy. Through new technology, renewable energy resources, innovative partnerships with private firms and assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from major federal projects, the federal government will play an important role in helping our nation to meet its goal. Today, as a down payment on our million solar roof initiative, I commit the federal government to have 20,000 systems on federal buildings by 2010 (Johansen 14)."

So, even before Al Gore's documentary on global warming, rhetoric from the president and other sources were already preparing Americans for the fact that global warming would be source of additional taxes to them. It is pretty clear, too, from Al Gore's efforts and his remarks, that he supports this increase in the tax base. In his documentary, Gore makes the point that Americans are the source of the greatest amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It should not be lost on anyone that the readily accepted conditions of he Kyoto initiative would levy taxes according to the highest source of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that would be Americans. Good reason that the Kyoto initiative has not been ratified by the Bush administration. Al Gore points out that America is one of but a few nations not to have ratified the treaty thus far.

The impact upon the public is not limited just to the American people. In the film the Great Global Warming Swindle, the impact, it is pointed out, is already having affects on some third world countries. Paul Driessen says that the global warming theorists have been successful in stalling the growth of third world countries. These are countries that have supplies of coal, but they are not able to mine that coal because of trade agreements with developed nations that promote "green" technology, which is not sufficient, says James Shikwati, is keeping African countries from developing their natural resources in a way that will serve its populations.

Today, those impoverished people, whose lives would be greatly improved by electricity, are, by virtue of financial blocs from green environmental groups campaigning against the fossil fuel technologies, advocating solar power. In Kenya, solar polar is insufficient to provide electricity for medical care, homes, or businesses. The movement "green" the planet is preventing third world nations like Kenya to bring vital services to their populations. In this way, the opposition to Gore's documentary score big points, because keeping these populations in the dark, says James Shikwati, is keeping them poor, unhealthy, and trapped in the "green" argument. James Shikwati makes a good point, solar panels are not going to power steel mills, or other major industries.

The argument about class and isolation, says William D. Sunderlin (2003), is part of either side's argument about mankind's relationship with the environment, and, depending on the side, either promotes the exploitation of the country's natural resources, or, as Shikwati has described, discourage it, and incentivize their leaders to pursue alternative sources of energy and power (76-77). Either way, as is James Shikwati's experience, it is possible for the third world nation to become caught in the argument in a way that does not serve its population well.

Perhaps the worst impact on the public is that of hysteria, which arises out of the fact that well-known public figure, someone who purportedly has the "voice" of authority, uses terms that bring into play people's religious and ideological beliefs and fears. Today, global warming is being taught in schools to young children, who have real fears with which they must deal as a result of being taught that the very planet on which they live is in peril, and that it might not continue to exist in the way that they understand it. This doomsday scenario is perhaps the worst offense of all in the global warming scare.

Frederick Buell (2003) writes on the hysteria response of the public to the information on the environment that is being disseminated to the public, creating the hysteria because the information has been described in apocalyptic terms. Buell says it is usually done with a blend of wit and apocalypse (251), describing perfectly the way in Al Gore employed it during his presentation.

The Science

Carbon dioxide, the scientists of the Great Global Warming Swindle, contend, has always had a fluctuating presence in the earth's atmosphere, and that it is a relatively small amount in the atmosphere. The data, they contend, shows that there is a surface warming of a slight level, but no atmospheric warming. The recent warming of the earth, these scientists say, happened in the early part of the 20th century, and, if the CO2 theory were valid, it would be reflected in the data that shows that the most significant increase in human generated CO2. Professor Ian Clark has examined ice samples going back thousands of years, but that link between CO2 and the weather, but that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature increase by 800 years. So when the temperature rises, behind it, consistent with historical data, the CO2 rises. The most fundamental assumption of climate changes because of CO2 is proven wrong, the scientists say.

In fact, that the CO2 increases in the atmosphere is more easily proven scientifically to be consistent with global cooling, than global warming. Other natural bodies, like the oceans, are the source of CO2 than is the modern technology of mankind.

The scientists say that the global warming, now, is a result of coming out of a "mini-ice age," and that during that time, which predates modern civilization, the temperatures were much cooler than those times going back to the "little medieval period," when in fact the temperatures were much higher than temperatures today, and during a period when mankind could not have had any responsibility for putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It is not, these scientists contend, CO2 that drives climate change.

They do agree that climate change is occurring, and that the global warming is occurring; but that it is more related to the activity of the sun, solar flares, solar winds that pass close to the earth, than related to mankind's generating CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, they provide data to demonstrate that man's CO2 contribution is minimal as compared to the effects of solar winds, solar flares, and the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere through natural events like volcanoes, rotting vegetation, and plants.

It is important to understand that these scientists do not disagree that there is a need - for economic reasons - to find alternative fuel sources, or that environmental conscientiousness is a good thing; they do, however, adamantly maintain that they cannot stand back as scientists and allow "junk science," to be put out as fact and good science, when in fact it is not.

Professor Frederick Singer, points out that the true measurement of global warming is done in the troposphere, where, if green house gasses are trapped, which hold the sun's radiation in, warming the planet; would be hotter. and, says Singer, it is not indicating that there is warming in the upper atmosphere. Professor John Christy says, too, that there is no indication that upper air temperatures are warming. This suggests, says the professors, that the planet is warming, but not the upper atmosphere, which is vastly different than what is being said about global warming. The warming is occurring on the earth's surface, which is opposite the theory of Al Gore's global warming theory.

However, having said that, it is appropriate to point that even these scientists, just as they disagree with Al. Gore, have serious and qualified experts who disagree with their documentary on global warming. In an article appearing in the Political Quarterly, Richard Douglas (2007) discusses this documentary and the perspective of these scientists. They are, Douglas says, part of a media campaign aimed at combating what has been described as myths about global warming (547). There is a philosophy, says Douglas, which underlies the position of these renowned scientists (547). If that is the case, it would behoove us to understand that philosophy, because, otherwise, the data, the science, and especially the scientists' position that there is not enough data to show that mankind is responsible for global warming, is a compelling argument.

Again, these scientists are not saying that the global warming is not occurring, nor that the environment has so far been treated well by mankind. They are saying that there is a need to be environmentally concerned and sensitive and to attempt to achieve a balance between man and nature, but that mankind is not responsible for global warming. This is very different than perhaps alleging that 1) global warming is not occurring, or, 2) taking a Marxist position on the environment, as Douglas has hinted at (547).

The philosophy of these scientists, Douglas contends, is revealed as we examination their process and motivation in taking a stance opposite that of global warming (547). Douglas says this:

This suspicion is reinforced by the frequent example of commentators who continually seek to poke holes in environmentalist arguments in different fields; by those who switch positions as new evidence becomes accepted, but in every case find a new 'sceptical' position; and those who do not apply their scepticism consistently, but vary it rather according to the political connotations of the suggested policy measures to take in response (547)."

Douglas goes on to point out that the number of critics has gone from individuals, to groups, and suggests that is indicative of an organized movement to confront the theories of global warming, constituting an underlying philosophy of motivation in contesting the advocates of mankind generated global warming (548). Douglas stands both in awe, and it sounds, in fear of the amounts of money and backing that the anti-green movement is receiving (548). That is, however, true in the case of both sides. Douglas points out that writers like Andrew Rowell, environmentalist scientists like Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg have joined the anti-green, thus, anti-Gore, movement, and that their underlying philosophy, their goal, is to prove that all points made by environmentalists are false. Note here how those who stand in opposition of global warming are referred to anti-green or anti-environmentalists, while those in support of the "green" movement are simply environmentalists. It demonstrates that even those whose goal it is to define the political rhetoric, are self-motivated, and employ their own use of rhetoric in explaining to use the rhetoric.

The argument is made by both sides that they are not popular, and that powerful organizations and people back the opposition, such that their coming forward - both sides - in support of their moral conscience on global warming has earned them no amount of respect from the other side. One scientist in the Great Global Warming Swindle, a professor in Ottawa, claims that taking a stand against Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth, has brought death threats to his door.

Conclusion

In order to understand the enormous popularity of Al Gore's award winning documentary, an Inconvenient Truth, it is essential to understand Gore's overall goal. This film is not meant to win him another shot at the presidency, nor is it just a resumption of an old quest. It is the next logical step in his continued pursuit to prompt global warming legislation and national change in CO2 emissions and it is designed as a direct appeal to the people and thereby the government. Like a triple layer cake, this film takes a multi-layered approach, so there is something for everyone in each byte of the film. For those who accept that global warming is an issue, the film is a well laid out revelation of little known scientific data, which is designed to broaden knowledge in memorable and easily understood terms. For the various others, there is the combination of a stasiastic approach to convince and a doxic approach to prompt action. By using this layered approach Gore is able to bring the issue of global warming out of the difficult to understand political and scientific arena and into the realm of public discourse.

One of Gore's major aims in his film is to create stasis in the problem of global warming. In his article Stasis and Karios: Principles of Social construction in classical Rhetoric, Michael Cater describes stasis as a process with five identifying features: contains conflict of opposing forces, creates an impetus of rhetorical action, asks what question or questions the issue hinges on, provides a means of resolving the conflict, and defines the rhetorical conflict (99-100).

When looking at Gore's film, it becomes clear that he very carefully follows this process. First of all, the global warming debate, or the myth of global warming as it is sometimes called, does indeed contain a conflict of opposing forces, and although Gore vaguely defines these two sides and 'us' and 'them' and also as 'us' and 'the current administration', he is clearly identifying two groups here. We again see this representation of two opposing forces, when Gore tells us "a story about tow teachers I had, one I did not like that much, the other who was a real hero to me." Additionally, this example clearly demonstrates how Gore assigns value to the two groups, because he holds the teacher that he "did not like very much" up as representative of the closed minded and antiquated view of "the current administration: and the other teacher up as the ingenuous hero, who also just so happens to have been one of the leading scientists studying carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

This conflict obviously creates an impetus for rhetorical action; otherwise, there would be no need for this award winning film. The film lends itself to rhetorical action by providing its audience with the knowledge and ability to effect change. Gore gives us the knowledge of the science and facts that had no previously been mad public knowledge; for example, when he talks about the thinning of the polar ice cap, he says "they wouldn't release it previously because it was a matter of national security." Gore also gives us the ability to discuss this matter socially by couching his lecture as an exploration into the truth amongst friends and on a personal level; he even incorporates a pop culture element with the use of animation. In addition, Gore provides the knowledge of the rebuttal claims and how to answer them, when he looks at the questions of debate.

Gore addresses many of the questions surrounding the truth of the global warming debate, including those surrounding what Carter would refer to as fact, definition, and quality (100). For example, he focuses on establishing that global warming is a fact by answering "The world is so big that we can't possibly have any lasting, harmful impact on earth's environment," "Aw, it [the global temperature] just naturally goes up and down, so don't worry about it" and "Isn't there a disagreement among scientists?" Gore tackles the question of the definition or degree of the problem, when he looks at the consequences and ramifications of the global warming issue, "Do we have to choose between the economy and the environment?" Finally, he undertakes the question of if we can really do anything about an issue of this size, "maybe it is just too big to do anything about."

Gore's means for resolving this conflict is two-fold. First, he aims to convince the "so-called skeptics" that the global warming problem is indeed real by addressing their "misconceptions" and presenting them with scientific facts. Secondly, Gore says that "if it is not on the tips of their constituent's tongues, it is easy for them [the government] to ignore it"; so Gore attempts to resolve the issue of global warming by compelling those who believe in it to advocate for change to the government.

Although, Gore doesn't spend too much time explaining who is responsible for sowing these misconceptions like some environmental rhetors such as David Orr does, Gore denies the rhetorical situation in a concise manner, suggesting that companies such as Exxon-Mobil has a vested interest in keeping the public in doubt concerning the global warming problem.

In his doxic approach, Al Gore attempts to incorporate an aspect of environmental consciousness into our doxa about our national identity. The term doxa refers to "opinions acceptable enough [to the general public] and they rely on a general or at least representative consensus" to quote Ruth Amossy's translation of von Moos in her article Introduction of the Study of Doxa (371). Throughout the film, Gore subtly works on the audience to bring them to accept that it is only American to take care of our environment, because of what we hold our values to be. Gore invokes the American doxa that we are moral and value ethics, that we prize the aesthetic value of nature, and that we value life.

For example, Gore stresses that to let carbon dioxide levels to continue unchecked would be "deeply unethical." Also he uses the example of his family's tobacco business to demonstrate the understanding of how it can take time to change your way of thinking or "to connect the dots," yet how devastating the ethical ramifications can be if you wait too long. These rhetorical strategies work because we care. The very beginning of the film impresses upon us the peace and beauty of nature with the gently flowing river that reminds us of the poetic values of nature, which is then contrasted with images of burning smoke stacks and images of land ravaged by hurricane Katrina. Also there is the literary reference to Mark Twain that truly resonates how deeply nature is intertwined with the American identity.

The quote itself, "What gets us into trouble is not what you don't know, but what you think you know that just ain't so," is a reminder that things change and also signifies the value of open mindedness; in addition, the choice of the source of the quote was also part of the message. Mark Twain himself is iconic of a tradition of early American literature that helped to define a unique American identity in which wilderness is very much a part of. The doxa that we value life is heavily appealed to in this film by means of repetition. Gore stresses that we need to make changes for the future lives of our children, so they can live the life we take for granted. He tells us how global warming has and will affect the weather, focusing on how Katrina "killed a lot of people" and how the heat wave in Europe "killed 35,000 people." In explaining the zig-zag pattern of the carbon dioxide levels, Gore describes the earth itself as breathing which suggests it is a living entity and we are slowly killing it. Then again at the end he reiterates, "that is what is at stake -- "our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization." He situates his argument so that once we accept that global warming is real, we have a "moral imperative" to make big changes.

Then, there is the opposition to Al Gore's theories on global warming, because that is what they are at this time, theories. The other side speaks not from the voice of scientific authority, it is the scientific authority. They say Al Gore is wrong, is motivated by corporate profits, and that while they do not disagree that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing, they do disagree that it is increasing because of man-made or generated CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. They say that there are other reasons for the global warming, and it is hard not to be swayed by them when they employ historical geographical and scientific data - gained by the same methods that Mr. Gore claims supports his data - which, the opposition says, show that they are right, and Mr. Gore, if not perpetrating a fraud on the public, is then hugely mistaken in his understanding of the science.

One of the things that make the scientists' arguments so compelling, aside from the fact that there are so many of them; is that they do not employ the exaggerated rhetoric that is found in Al Gore's documentary. Rather, they speak not in emotional terms, they do not cite family histories of tragedy and loss, but speak from science. Of course, one might argue, science has been wrong in the past. That is true, but science has never stopped hypothesizing, experimenting, and revising its own science to more accurately reflect updated knowledge gained through technology.

Having demonstrated that all parties who have gained a public platform on the global warming issue have their own agendas, on whom, then, can the general public rely upon to gain the accurate information concerning global warming? It really requires a lot of individual research of the science, the math, the motivation of the individual groups, and, after all that, to assess the information and to arrive at independent, informed, and unbiased conclusions as a member of the public. As a member of the group which stands to lose the most either way the coin toss falls; taxes, environmental legacy, and genetic legacy if it all goes wrong. Turn not just to the scientists and the politicians, but to the historians, the geologists, the meteorologists, biologists, and the experts in all fields that help us to understand the history of the natural planet. Then choose a side, because the war of the global warming debate is just heating up, and there are huge stakes for the winner; what former President Bill Clinton cited as a five billion dollar tax package, which now, eight years later, is sure to have a much weightier price tag on it.

The answer probably rests somewhere in the middle between the two sides. Global warming is real, but we cannot say that it is as a result of man-made CO2 emissions. We can say that current temperatures at the Artic during the winter is as low as 60 degrees below, which suggests that at those temperatures, even with slight increases, there is no apocalyptic meltdown of the polar regions any time soon. That it will occur one day, is a possibility, but it is a probability, too, that it will be an occurrence of natural forces on the planet rather than by mankind.

In the billions of years of the planet Earth history, there have been numerous phases and cycles of climate change. We see those changes, for instance, in the mountain ranges of the east coast in America; the Appalachians, the Smoky Mountains. When comparing those mountains to the ranges of the western part of the United States, we see a huge differences that suggests even to the non-scientists, that the mountains of the east coast are much younger than the mountains of the west. The eastern mountains are smaller, worn with the billions of years of time. They bear the marks of glaciers, as do those mountain ranges in the northwest and Midwest portions of the Untied States. All across the United States, we see signs of a changing eco system that evolved over the billions of years of the life of the planet. Is that natural evolution going to stop because Mr. Gore says we can stop it? Probably not, but that does not mean that Mr. Gore is entirely wrong. Mankind needs to find a balance with the environment, a harmony with it, and to develop an appreciation for the planet on which we live. We must help other nations come to terms with the lessons we have learned. Helped them build industry, but cleaner industry. We cannot prevent the lives of people in third world nations to continue in poverty and despair because we subscribe to unproven science.