sharethetruth

Stan: Aren't you hurting the cause by being such an Al Gore fanboy?

sharethetruth: Whoa, Stan! Are you a cable news anchor?

I think it's important to distinguish the validity of an argument, from the sincerity or eagerness used to communicate it. People are drawn to genuine emotion, especially when channeled into a cause. This is either terrific or dangerous. It's dangerous, for example, when an oppressive dictator, bent on proving the superiority of his race, enlists an army to spread a destructive cause. Even considerate, well-reasoned people can get swept up by the emotions in their surroundings, and be swayed into believing faulty arguments. Thankfully, history has seen zealous arguments which also happened to be transcendentally wonderful, for example as embodied in the words spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. to spur our nation into action.

The point is that in both cases above, willpower and dedication are essential to the cause. Those qualities deliver the message. An unsound argument, presented with great passion, has immense power to defraud – if people don't call it out in the first place.

My enthusiasm for An Inconvenient Truth does extend to Al Gore, who more than makes up for his squareness with warmth, life, and conviction. To distort a reasonable appreciation and respect for someone into something negative is not a noble feat, and despite the rhetoric flying about every which way nowadays, I don't even think it's very effective.

So you're enthusiastic. But if I disregard that, like you suggest, then your argument isn't particularly strong. There are a ton of facts to contradict the hypothesis that humans are causing global warming.

This is actually the easiest subject to discuss, because contemporary climate science stands for itself. You'll find that members of the press or government still doubtful of anthropogenic global warming overwhelmingly fall into a few categories.

The majority of the legitimate skeptics are those who cite outdated science. They're the ones who quote statistics from the 90s or before, who are vocal about margins of error, about how scientists used to predict an impending ice age but have now apparently changed their minds. This first group is still loyal to logic, and they'll raise issues like the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "mysterious" cooling of the mid-20th-century. Now the great thing is that if you were to introduce the latest science to them, you'd gain their support, because they'd get it. It's no longer difficult to present the evidence behind humanity's vast capabilities to alter the Earth's atmosphere. An excellent resource is Tim Flannery's book , which is unfailingly accurate, inspires as much as it informs, and reads like a good detective novel.

The second group is the most vocal and widely cited: the editorial press. Most editorial press figures haven't disagreed with An Inconvenient Truth, but there are a few who do, and there's a couple interesting things about them. One, you'll notice that the few who do are very loud and get quoted all the time. Their articles go into wide circulation, sometimes abnormally wide, partly because they're sensational and partly because there's really only a handful of them, so people searching for a fight against anthropogenic global warming tend to point to the same sources over and over.

Two, they're often inaccurate, due to faulty reasoning or, alternately worse, selective screening of evidence. The trouble with bad but widely publicized arguments is that legitimate counterargument rarely achieves the same outreach. So what you end up with is, on one hand, these press articles citing outdated science, or patches of information which aim to resemble science but are actually only representative of certain facts taken out of context and other facts completely ignored. And on the other hand, a seeming total lack of response to them, because the New York Times isn't about to launch a rebuttal to Richard Lindzen of the Wall Street Journal. Since scientists aren't generally in the position to own media outlets, their subsequent observations that Lindzen is wrong for precisely two dozen reasons are barely heard. The sad part about this is it's the public at large that loses out.

There's a third group, which we can probably agree is the most detrimental to our understanding of the world. They're the "skeptics" who willfully spread misinformation, paid outright by ExxonMobil or other parties whose profits run directly proportional to carbon emission levels.

Again, the real victim is everyone else outside these three main groups, like you and me. We often don't realize which of our beliefs originated from sources that weren't entirely honest.

Then, ultimately, you're just preaching to the converted, because only treehuggers, freedom-haters, and maybe some democrats will care and want to watch this movie.

Stan! Were you even listening earlier? I feel as if you're just playing the devil's advocate!

One way to address your concern is by looking at who's been watching this film, and what they've thought. There's every indication that even people who are conservative and don't like Al Gore and don't particularly care about global warming, end up enjoying and agreeing with the film. The evidence spans media, from theater exit polls, to individual reviewers, from critics, to responses from people who've taken skeptical friends using funds gifted by sharethetruth.

So no, I don't buy the "preaching" argument. As a side note, I don't even think it's valid when applied in other situations, because it sort of assumes that by not reaching enough of the right audience, a message is not worth spreading. I disagree: every worthwhile message deserves its time on stage no matter the outcome.

Let's say I believe humans are causing global warming and can stop it. Why would I donate money to you when I could spend it on enabling real change, such as by funding environmental groups or investing in my own life instead?

Sharethetruth is founded on the principle that An Inconvenient Truth is powerful enough to speak for itself. Now I went home after the movie and, just like Roger Ebert, turned off all the lights not in use. Other moviegoers have reported similar takeaways, which is extremely cool. So I realized that by persuading others to the theater, I could help them reach their own conclusions. If I could convince lots of different people all across the country, my effect would be more than just turning off my own lights: it'd be far bigger. And if one person took another to the theater, and that new ticketholder became the next President of the United States? Well, that could be a trillion-dollar difference.

Of course we're not talking about a trillion dollars; we're talking about ten. Rarely by donating to any environmental group can you see real change occurring before your eyes. But a $10 movie ticket? People's lives are being transformed by An Inconvenient Truth the very day they watch it for themselves.

I have no desire to tell people to donate to sharethetruth instead of using their money elsewhere, whether for another cause or the price of a double cappuccino. But if the film's already been a starting point of change for so many, it makes all the sense in the world to replicate that starting point as much as possible, for everyone else.

You ain't seen the last of me yet! *Poofs into oblivion*

Thanks for the interview!