So she cancelled the operation, set her mind to it and when she went back to the doctor 3 months later the cancer was gone. The point of this is her doctor was not using fear-based motivation telling her she had cancer. She absolutely needed that information in order to understand she needed to heal herself. Ignoring his diagnosis or refusing to listen to the scientific data would have killed her. However, she didn’t have a fear-based reaction thinking, “I have cancer I’m going to die.” She simply acknowledged the information as “what is,” and then overlaid that with a dream of health.
If, in fact, Global Warming is real, with the consequences described, humanity is the patient with terminal cancer. Therefore we must first get real, and then effect the changes needed to reverse it. As the film makes very clear, this can be done!
The outraged group focused mostly on personal attack, ranging from accusations of a political agenda on my part, to the use of chemicals in developing film in What the BLEEP as being hypocritical. Some were pretty hateful.
And finally, the supportive group got the purely informational intent.
Now – finally – to the Film!
Essentially centered around Al Gore’s slide show presentation on global warming, the film presents study after study showing warming trends and the results of these warming trends on Earth. There are pictures of glaciers – and example after example of how they have changed in the past 20 years. Gore definitely addresses the arguments made by opponents, such as “all temperature changes are cyclical.” I won’t mention how – it’s best seen with the accompanying data.
As a film, it showed impressive restraint in delving into any political overtones. Gore’s presidential defeat occupied about 4 minutes of the film, and was necessary in showing the journey he has made with this issue. Other aspects of his life which affected his passion about the global warming are also included. These brief portraits help ground the film in the very human drama of someone encountering problems, and moving from simply perceiving the problems into taking action about them.
For me the most telling statistic is as follows (quoting here from the book An Inconvenient Truth):
“A University of California at San Diego scientist, DR. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the previous ten years. She and her team selected a large random sample of 928 articles representing almost 10% of the total, and carefully analyzed how many of the articles agreed or disagreed with the prevailing consensus view…. Of the three-quarters that did address these main points (as to the causes of global warming), the percentage that disagree with the consensus? Zero.” Next > 1 2 3 4 5
