A documentary that takes an alternative approach to dealing with the global warming crisis.A documentary that takes an alternative approach to dealing with the global warming crisis.A documentary that takes an alternative approach to dealing with the global warming crisis.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
Joe Barton
- Self - Representative, Texas
- (archive footage)
Ed Begley Jr.
- Self
- (archive footage)
John Boehner
- Self - Representative, Ohio
- (archive footage)
Larry David
- Self
- (archive footage)
Leonardo DiCaprio
- Self
- (archive footage)
John Dingell
- Self - Representative, Michigan
- (archive footage)
David Duchovny
- Self
- (archive footage)
Tom Foreman
- Self
- (archive footage)
Newt Gingrich
- Self
- (archive footage)
Storyline
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Bolt Report: Episode #10.133 (2020)
- SoundtracksIt Takes A Whole Village
Performed by African Children's Choir
Written by Paul Colwell, Herb Allen, Paul Murphy and John Kagaruki
Published by Up With People
Featured review
Someone has to tell it right
After reading the first 3 reviews I decided that a review from someone who has read Bjorn Lonborg - who is an economist (not "a poly-sci guy" as one newspaper reviewer referred to him) - and who has studied the science of global climate change for more than a decade might be helpful.
First off, Lonborg is not a GW skeptic: he thinks it is real, but that the severity has often been greatly overstated, which even the scientists at IPCC will admit. Also, he does not mean that if we spend a few trillion dollars and deprive (by creating large deficits of energy) poor people all over the world of the few things they currently get to enjoy (like adequate food) we will decrease global temperature by 1 degree: he means we will limit the increase by one degree. Big difference. He is pointing out that taking a sledge hammer to the world economy will not really make much difference in temperature, but a big difference to people who will not be able to buy energy at the intentionally increased prices.
Lonborg points out that we will be able to adapt to the climate change, as people and animals have been doing throughout history, as we gradually change from fossil fuels as more desirable technologies mature. Some parts of the world - equatorial zones - may change drastically, but those nearer the poles (Minnesota, Canada) will likely gain a longer growing season and more tillable land.
But, Lonborg's main point is that if we spent these large sums of money and resources on things we can change: hunger, diseases like malaria and AIDS, and clean water, we could bring about some real improvement in the lives of millions of people world-wide.
My studies, which include a discussion with one of the leading scientists at IPCC, lead me to think that Lonborg makes a very good case. I don't know why so many reviewers ridicule Lonborg. This movie, if you really watch and listen, does not deny climate change. It does state that global poverty is not the best way to counteract global climate change.
First off, Lonborg is not a GW skeptic: he thinks it is real, but that the severity has often been greatly overstated, which even the scientists at IPCC will admit. Also, he does not mean that if we spend a few trillion dollars and deprive (by creating large deficits of energy) poor people all over the world of the few things they currently get to enjoy (like adequate food) we will decrease global temperature by 1 degree: he means we will limit the increase by one degree. Big difference. He is pointing out that taking a sledge hammer to the world economy will not really make much difference in temperature, but a big difference to people who will not be able to buy energy at the intentionally increased prices.
Lonborg points out that we will be able to adapt to the climate change, as people and animals have been doing throughout history, as we gradually change from fossil fuels as more desirable technologies mature. Some parts of the world - equatorial zones - may change drastically, but those nearer the poles (Minnesota, Canada) will likely gain a longer growing season and more tillable land.
But, Lonborg's main point is that if we spent these large sums of money and resources on things we can change: hunger, diseases like malaria and AIDS, and clean water, we could bring about some real improvement in the lives of millions of people world-wide.
My studies, which include a discussion with one of the leading scientists at IPCC, lead me to think that Lonborg makes a very good case. I don't know why so many reviewers ridicule Lonborg. This movie, if you really watch and listen, does not deny climate change. It does state that global poverty is not the best way to counteract global climate change.
helpful•8812
- Fred-S
- Nov 16, 2010
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Охладите! Глобальное потепление
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $62,713
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $26,847
- Nov 14, 2010
- Gross worldwide
- $62,713
- Runtime1 hour 27 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content