Book Review - An Inconvenient Truth
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding global warming. Some insist that it is a terrifying and imminent concern that portends worldwide disaster. Others scoff at the notion, accusing those who spread such dire predictions of using global warming as part of a larger, sinister agenda. Al Gore considers global warming to be an inconvenient truth and a pending planetary emergency. In his political career he was an advocate of measures to deal with this and other environmental crises, and in his post-political career he has accelerated these warnings. An Inconvenient Truth, an immediate New York Times bestseller, and the film that was released at around the same time, are his attempt to take this message to the masses.
An Inconvenient Truth is an oversize paperback book which contains predominantly photographs. “It was Tipper who first suggested that I put together a new kind of book with pictures and graphics to make the whole message easier to follow, combining many elements of all the new original material I have compiled over the last few years… My hope is that those who read the book and see the film will begin to feel, as I have for a long time, that global warming is not just about science and that it is not just a political issue. It is really a moral issue.”
The introduction contains exactly what we would expect from Al Gore. He trumpets his concern for the environment and his accomplishments in this area, while criticizing the Bush administration for its lack of environmental concern. He quotes Martin Luther King, mentions AIDS and Hitler and, in veiled terms, compares Bush’s apathy towards global warming to the appeasement tactics of Neville Chamberlain. The book then begins to present Gore’s case for the threat of global warming. He uses many beautiful pictures showcasing the beauty of creation, and just as many sickening pictures showcasing the negligence of human beings. He presents multitudes of graphs and charts. But strangely and noticeably absent from the book is any kind of substantial proof. There is not a single footnote or endnote to be found. Nor is their any serious consideration of those who have studied the same evidence and reached different conclusions. Gore presents global warming as fact and as fact accepted by the almost unanimous consent of qualified scientists. In a section answering the ten most common misconceptions of global warming, Gore repeats what he writes elsewhere: “Scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is getting warmer, that this trend is caused by people, and that if we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the warming will be increasingly harmful.” While some of this is fact, the extent of the danger and the extent that humans are causing this warming trend are hotly disputed among credible and knowledgeable scientists. The case is not nearly as settled as he would have us believe.
One of the great frustrations with this book is that all evidence, no matter how contradictory, is used to prove the existence of global warming. Global warming is blamed for flood and drought, heat and cold, freezing and melting, thick ice and thin ice. The mounting evidence that would seem to contradict Gore’s thesis is either ignored or reinvented to prove it. Also, for a book dealing with the environment, this one contains a great many uses of the word “I.” The book is, in fact, partly autobiographical, for Gore discusses events in his life that shaped his passion for the environment. It is more than a little bit self-congratulatory and more than a little uncharitable to those who reach opposite conclusions.
Despite these frustrations, the book is not without value. Many of the facts presented are worthy of deep consideration. The book’s final section contains information on what you and I can do to solve the climate crisis. While some may not believe in the immediate extent and danger of the crisis, there are many good and common sense suggestions to be found here. There are many suggestions that will help us become better stewards of the earth. Pictures and descriptions of the devastation caused by humans should give us all reason to think deeply about our responsibility to this planet.
While the book contains only brief and vague references to God, Gore does affirm his belief that God created this world. He feels God did so, though, through the means of evolution. Beyond this he provides little explanation as to how God may have created the world or what God’s ongoing involvement is. He certainly does not discuss one of the great contradictions between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creationism. Evolution teaches that humans, while we may be the most intelligent and capable form of life in the world at the moment, are merely as we are because of the long and random process of evolution. We were apes in the past and may evolve into some other form of life in the future. Our source is little different than the source of any other form of life. The Bible, however, teaches that God deliberately made us as we are today and that our source is God Himself. We are made in His image and He gave us this earth to tend and to keep. We are not the same as the earth and not subordinate to it. Rather, we are high above it as the only creatures made in the image of God. It is the Bible, and not evolution, that provides the moral basis for tending to the earth. I don’t see how it is possible for an evolutionary worldview to posit a moral responsibility to the earth.
Those who hold dear the Bible ought to be the first to protect the earth, for it was made by God and was given as a gift for our enjoyment. We were told, and still are told, to tend and to keep it. We are responsible for protecting it from harm. I am not convinced that the case for global warming is as clear as Gore would have me believe. Still, I believe we need to protect this world for it has been given to us in trust. The earth is a finite resource and one we ought to treasure, for it displays the glory of God. This book could have been much better, if only Gore hadn’t skipped over so many facts that were inconvenient to his arguments.




Comments (12) »
1. Josh S.
September 4, 2006
7:14 PM
Tim, you should really differentiate between a theistic evolutionary worldview and an atheistic evolutionary worldview. You say, “Evolution teaches that humans, while we may be the most intelligent and capable form of life in the world at the moment, are merely as we are because of the long and random process of evolution.” But that is not what a theistic evolutionist believes — it is not randomness but the sovereign hand of God. So when you say, “I don’t see how it is possible for an evolutionary worldview to posit a moral responsibility to the earth,” you should really say a “atheistic evolutionary worldview” instead because a theistic evolutionist can believe in morality, biblical infallibility and inspiration, etc. (For the record, I do not consider myself a theistic evolutionist.)
2. The Aspiring Theologian
September 5, 2006
8:42 AM
I suppose Mr. Gore is more concerned with proving the “inconvenient” part of his message, rather than whether or not global warming is “true”.
I’ve never been impressed with global warming arguments. And even if global warming was solidly evidenced, we have to remember that the world is decaying. Decaying because of sin. Yes, as stewards we ought to take care of the earth, but we must remember that this old earth will pass away and a new one will come. So, of course the planet is going to have some problems.
Anyhow, just my thoughts.
God bless, A. Shepherd The Aspiring Theologian
The Aspiring Theologian Blog
3. Tim Challies
September 5, 2006
6:19 PM
I apologize that some comments in this thread were lost when I changed servers.
4. saultopaul
September 8, 2006
9:02 PM
I am bothered by this immediate assumption that Al Gore is wrong about global warming because he is from the left. Honestly, what does he have to gain by eliminating CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere? Global warming is an issue that should not be political. It will cost a fortune to stop it if its occurring but if we really want to stop terrorism them lets stop our dependence on foreign oil. I dont see how anyone can be opposed to this.
5. david
September 8, 2006
10:37 PM
I am bothered by this immediate assumption that Al Gore is wrong about global warming because he is from the left.
Who said that? Gore is wrong about global warming because what he believes, not that there is global warming, but that we are the cause of it and that it is a crisis, is fiction.
What bothers me is that so many believe what he says just because a bunch of tree-hugging moonbats say so. No real evidence is required, just a bunch of propaganda from people who are motivated by a political agenda whether you think they should be or not.
Global warming hype is entirely political. Actual global warming is real, if indeed it is occuring presently, and it will be followed by global cooling just like it always has been.
6. The Aspiring Theologian
September 9, 2006
10:01 AM
I never said I didn’t believe Gore because he was leftist. I said that I’ve never been impressed by global warming arguments in general. I wasn’t going on an ad hominem, just saying I disagreed with Gore on this.
Even though, yes, I am a conservative. But I don’t always agree with rightists on everything… so there you have it.
This remark: “I suppose Mr. Gore is more concerned with proving the “inconvenient” part of his message, rather than whether or not global warming is “true”.” was in referrence to my beleif that there is (as Mr. Challies’ said) mostly contradicting evidence for global warming. I was not attacking Mr. Gore, but what seemed to be the main focus of his book: “Global warming is blamed for flood and drought, heat and cold, freezing and melting, thick ice and thin ice.” That is, the results and not so much whether global warming itself is the problem.
Anyhow…
God bless, A. Shepherd The Aspiring Theologian
The Aspiring Theologian Blog
7. Jason
September 9, 2006
12:31 PM
Have you seen the movie?
I did.
It was great.
There are some questions that I have, but overall I found that Gore has a pretty good handle on the issue. He has a staff of scientists working on this. I don’t. You don’t, I assume.
I think it is a misguided argument to say, “This world’s old, because of sin.” That’s true, but creation is waiting and groaning for redemption. Revelation 11:18 promises judgment for those who destroy the earth. That’s a big enough deterent for me.
And to assume that those who believe in global warming are tree-huggers is arrogant and judgmental.
In the movie he gives plenty of proof that scientist agree. He and his staff gathered evidence from several hundred scientific publication. Only two of those publications disagreed with the assumption that global warming is a fact.
He does indeed take shots at the current administration, but I do not think it was in poor taste. Some of the posters here on this site have taken shots at Gore, so it seems hypocritical. Gore also took personal shots at himself and admitted his own short-sightedness. I see no duplicity.
What do you and I have to loose if we reduce CO2? It seems incongruous to me that it benefits anyone to increase the current rate of pollution.
SOmeone doubted that we are the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases. Who else lives here? Who else/what else to contribute to the exponential rise in greenhouse gases over all the earth? Surely not the whole—methane is from cattle bit. That’s true, but the last time I googled, I didn’t see any large ranches in India, China, or Africa.
I think that if we are going to dialogue with those in our culture, then this is a great starting point. They care about creation. Christians should care too—we need a theology of creation.
Thanks for the forum.
Great site.
Jason
8. The Aspiring Theologian
September 9, 2006
2:34 PM
I never said we don’t need to reduce C02 emissions or not be good stewards of the planet. I only said that I thought global warming was poorly evidenced. It seems there is no conclusive evidence to prove that global warming is going on. I do not believe that it is.
Just because I do not think global warming is happening doesn’t make me a poor steward of the planet.
“Revelation 11:18 promises judgment for those who destroy the earth. That’s a big enough deterent for me.”
I agree, and I’m sure it is a deterrent for all here - this actually isn’t the issue. I don’t have a problem with taking care of the planet, and have not made any such statements. All I did was critique the legitimacy of this book’s claims.
David (above) used the term tree-hugger. Not me.
It’s fine with me if y’all want to disagree with me. No problem. But please do not assert or imply in any way that I am somehow against taking care of the planet. I have never stated that. You don’t have to convince me of our duty as caretakers of the earth. :)
I hope you all have a nice day. God be with you.
Your brother in Christ, A. Shepherd The Aspiring Theologian
9. saultopaul
September 9, 2006
3:31 PM
you are not impressed by the arguments for global warming? You obviously did not see the movie. his arguments are compelling. I defy you to google and locate a single legitimate scientific article refuting that global is not occuring and that its not a crisis. Sure some say 20 years, some say 50 years some say 100 years. But even if its a hundred years that will be in my (as yet unborn) grand childrens life time. To me THATS A CRISIS!!!!.
10. The Aspiring Theologian
September 9, 2006
4:16 PM
I do not see how a Google search would prove anything one way or the other. There are scientists on boths sides of the issue, that is why there is a debate out there on global warming.
I am not saying that global warming is not true but that the evidence for it seems sketchy at best.
But, I did a Google search as you suggested and very easily found:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming6.htm
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280
See especially the cato and ncpa articles.
Those above are only a few of the articles I saw. Some articles I looked over during this search were from the proponents of global warming, but they admitted that there was great debate on the issue currently and that scientists are divided on it.
I personally think that the ‘evidence’ for global warming is unimpressive. I am not flat out saying that it is not happening, nor that we should not take care of our planet. But this planet has had a history of greatly varying temperature averages, and just because the last forty years ‘may’ have been hotter than normal does not, in my opinion, conclusively prove anything.
Thanks for posting, though. This looks like an interesting discussion.
God be with you.
Your brother in Christ, A. Shepherd The Aspiring Theologian
11. david
September 9, 2006
4:45 PM
SOmeone doubted that we are the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases. Who else lives here?
The question is not who [or what] else lives here, but what other forces of nature are involved? The ocean tides go in and out every day, and by your logic, we must be the cause of that, too. But we know we are not.
We also know that cycles of global warming ans cooling have been going on forever, before the evil capitalists came along with their fossil fuels, factories, and SUVs. How did Gore and his crack team of scientists explain that?
Who else/what else to contribute to the exponential rise in greenhouse gases over all the earth? Surely not the whole—methane is from cattle bit. That’s true, but the last time I googled, I didn’t see any large ranches in India, China, or Africa.
I’m not making any assertions about where greenhouse gases are coming from. However, if it is from cattle, your Google “research” is pretty meaningless. Do you suppose that our cattle are producing a different kind of gas than those in the rest of the world?
The world cattle population is estimated to be about 1.3 billion head, with about 30 percent in Asia, 20 percent in South America, 15 percent in Africa, 14 percent in North and Central America, and 10 percent in Europe. (source) Trying to blame the western world for greenhouse gases caused by flatulent cows doesn’t add up. Furthermore, cattle are by no means the only creatures on the planet with gas. India alone has an additional 90 million buffalo. Add the world’s wildlife population to that, and do the math.
The point I am making is that your suppositions are based on no real facts at all. You are just parroting the junk science of Gore and his band of merry environmental alarmists. Get some proven facts, and then you’ll have something worth listening to.
What do you and I have to loose if we reduce CO2?
Nothing. But attempting to shut down the businesses that feed the world hurts everyone. Everyone, that is, except those whose socialist agenda is furthered by doing so.
12. saultopaul
September 17, 2006
12:19 AM
did you really look at the sources you googled? CATO, the NCPA and fathers for life? You apparently have know idea who NCPA and CATO are. Saying they are legitimate science sources is like saying I can get an accuate take on history by reading an editorial in the Village Voice. They are right wing think tanks with cools names. NOTHING MORE. As for the pew foundation. Look at the article you found. It just says lots of people disagree about global warming down party lines. As far as cattle causing global warming? Wow can you really type that without laughing? Not even republicans deny that CO2 comes from fossil fuels.