The greatest movie ever made..!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Expected more

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

I saw this on cable, twice now. The first time it was on in the background while I was working and I found that I couldn't work; it was just too interesting. The second time I sought it out, set a reminder to ensure I didn't miss it, and set aside undisturbed time so I could pay attention and LEARN.Unlike most modern documentaries, which contain barely disguised sarcasm (think Michael Moore) rather than factual discussion, or which lecture without informing (think Al Gore) this film is a combination of facts (with references) and lectures with a common sense approach rather than Al Gore's "I know more than you do" doctrinal catechism.Starting with his own background and disfavor in the mainstream climate change community, the film agrees that climate change is a problem to address, but then moves through several climate change "remedies" which have been proposed, looks at the cost, and then uses the same amount of money to address the climate change issue as well as hunger, education and disease. Turn off the lights for an hour? It's a great feel good remedy but it doesn't do a thing to help the planet, and lighting a candle is actually worse. Buy a hybrid? It has almost no impact.The gist of the global warming debate, we learn, is fear. And taking on Al Gore point by point we learn that our fear is misplaced. Hurricanes cause more severe damage nowadays, but there's more people living at the beach and more high rise buildings to be damaged too. Was New Orleans flooded because of a global warming induced Hurricane Katrina, or because a levee was poorly designed? Moving on to solutions, we learn about alternative energies, alternative strategies, and more, and finally the final cost for all these strategies is so low that other world issues like hunger and disease are easily paid for with the same investment that Al Gore would ram down our otherwise-frightened throats.Before you pay a "carbon tax," and buy a Prius, see this movie. And don't be afraid anymore.

I watched this movie last night on Netflix. I had remembered reading an article about Bjorn Lomborg in one of the Popular Something magazines so I figured this would be something more than the propaganda of Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, and Algore's I'm Super Cereal! So I decided to give it a twirl.I don't necessarily agree with Lomborg across the board but it was so refreshing to see a movie about solutions instead of the usual misanthropic Neo-Christianity and doom and gloom of the eco-wacktovist movement.And just like Europe was at the point of deforestation when coal suddenly showed up, it is important to look for rational alternatives, or better yet, additions to oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, instead of constantly carping on how we are "addicted to oil" which is probably the dumbest slogan the misanthropic eco-wacktovists have adopted yet. One might as well say we are addicted to healthy, happy lives.

Like Inconvenient Truth, this documentary (and it is a very good documentary) should be watched if you wish to empower yourself with additional information on the whole climate change debate. Lomborg believes in global warming, so much so that he is advocating that we do something about it. The difference between his proposals and those of the alarmists and fear-mongers is that he is questioning the current high costs for carbon reduction (and as usual the political protection of big corporations) that result in very little benefit to the planet. Instead he presents scientists who are already tackling the same problem (of global warming) but in different, non-mainstream ways that could also improve health, education, reduce poverty and enable a better way of life for people on the planet. So why should people decry this documentary when all he's asking is for us to consider alternatives that may be more efficient but potentially less profitable for the folks protecting the status quo? Remember, we only need to protect Earth for humans to survive and thrive on it, otherwise the planet will take care of itself as it has been doing for millions of years. Even if Earth's environment becomes that of Mars, Earth would adapt and continue. It's mankind that will disappear. What Lomborg is asking all of us to do is to think of and support alternative solutions that are practical without bankrupting mankind (thus stopping anything from being done in the first place because of the high costs). If putting solar panels on your house while painting your exterior walls and roof white COULD cost no more than what you would pay for cable TV in one year and it helped reduce your dependence on fossil fuels by cutting your energy bill as well as cooled the planet, wouldn't this be worth doing and writing to your congress representative for? As he points out, turning your lights off for one hour per year and lighting candles so that you can see in the dark does not affect climate change whatsoever. In fact, your candles are probably making it worse. Change your tactics: Do good that really makes a difference (follow the money and the data) rather than do good that's only a facade (skin deep).

Lomborg, by focusing on how we can adapt, and how 'we can use our money for better things' is avoiding a solution to the problem. He has moved on to accept the science, but now he is saying there is nothing to worry about, and we have better things to do. His agenda is revealed by what he *doesn't* say. His goal is to avoid penalizing fossil fuel for as long as possible. Of course, such a penalty will not be a significant cost on the economy. There are free market solutions to the problem which can utilize the market to remove fossil fuel from the economy in a quarter of a century or less. This would create a good return on investment many times over, in terms of energy security and technological innovation (fossil energy is *old*), and of course avoiding some of the immigration and starvation that will be caused by warming.