Al Gore speaks with Bob Edwards about politics and the end of the world.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
BOB EDWARDS: Al Gore probably needs no introduction but we have to do one in any case. He was the vice president of the United States under Bill Clinton and won the popular vote for president but lost that election in 2000. Since that time he started a cable channel and serves on the board of Apple Computer and is an advisor to Google. He also has a new film version of a slide show he’s been delivering since 1989 about climate change. That may sound dull, but it isn’t. The film An Inconvenient Truth is now in limited release nationwide. Gore begins the film by introducing himself as the man who once was the next president of the United States. I spoke with him last week in our New York studios and here’s what he had to say.
AL GORE: Yeah, I often begin my speeches by saying I used to be the next president. People laugh. And then I try to catch them by saying that I don’t really find that to be funny.
BOB EDWARDS: At the Cannes film festival you said that you should be introduced as Your Adequacy.
AL GORE: Well, we had come up to this very formal situation with the World Press Corps in attendance and the moderator was trying to be as proper as proper can be and began everything by saying, “Now first of all, how is it that we should refer to you?” and they’re all waiting, and I said, “Your Adequacy.” Royalty has more purchase in Europe so they liked it.
BOB EDWARDS: You say you don’t plan on running for President but you’re not saying never.
AL GORE: Yeah, but the distinction is not intended to signal coyness or an effort to leave the door open—it’s more an internal shifting of gears. I’ve been in politics for a long time. I’m actually enjoying not being in politics. And I actually really do not ever expect to be a candidate again. But I’m not at the point where I’m willing to say, or feel the need to say, “Never again in the rest of my life would I ever consider such a thing.” But there is so much about politics that I really don’t like. It’s a toxic environment out there now, particularly if you’re focused on ideas, the public interest and the future dimension. It’s a sound-byte culture—that is not what it was when I first got into politics decades ago.
BOB EDWARDS: I cannot imagine you wouldn’t think of doing it again knowing you won the popular vote in 2000. You just can’t not think about it. Were you angry about 2000?
AL GORE: No, well…I don’t dwell on the past. I really do not. And I don’t think it’s healthy to cultivate or wallow in anger. I really don’t. So I look forward. And, look, there are millions and millions of people who’ve been through so much worse than I’ve been through. The greatest damage was done to the people who’ve suffered because of the policies that were, in my view, mistakenly adopted since that election. But as far as I am concerned, of course I was disappointed. I strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision. I accepted the rule of law. There’s no intermediate step between the Supreme Court’s decision and violent revolution, in that situation. So I decided to do the best I could to move forward and be of service in other ways.
And I’ve been very fortunate in my life, Bob. I’ve been able to start two new businesses that are both very successful. I’ve enjoyed being on the board of Apple and being a senior advisor to Google. And Tipper and I love living in Nashville. I spend the majority of my time now giving my slide show on the climate crisis and now talking about this movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and the book of the same title, and urging your listeners to go to the Web site climatecrisis.net.
BOB EDWARDS: And watching you in that film it seemed like you got a personality transplant compared to candidate Gore six years ago. Now we see some passion. We see your humor. What happened?
AL GORE: Some of it may be in the eye of the beholder. I think the beholding of political candidates takes place through a lens of skepticism, which is not unhealthy but also occurs in an environment where your opponents are trying to paint a negative image of you every hour of every day. And you are obligated really to speak to the American people not just about one issue, but about the full range of issues that voters have a right to hear candidates for president discuss in full. And so I think there is a difference in perception—but I also believe there is another difference. I have learned something from the experiences I have gone through. And the last several years have been a time of learning for me. It’s an unfortunate part of the human condition that some of the greatest learning comes from the most painful experiences.
BOB EDWARDS: I interviewed Joe Kline recently; he’s got a book out about political consultants. He cites your 2000 political campaign as an extreme example of a good candidate put in an emotional straightjacket by consultants.
AL GORE: Well, I haven’t read Joe’s book. He’s a very smart guy and a good writer. What I have read of it seems to overstate the reality of that situation, but I should read it first.
There’s no doubt that when you’re in the midst of campaigning, and the candidate feels passionately about an issue, that all of the instruments of modern campaigning can hardly detect a ripple on when it’s discussed. That causes the people that are part of the campaign to say, “Hey, look, you should spend your time on things that are gonna move the needle.” But I insisted on talking about the issue of the climate crisis anyway. Now, this was in a time when the majority of the news stories in the US were expressing doubt as to whether it was even an issue.
It was also at a time when my opponent, then-Governor Bush, was pledging to legally reduce CO2. He broke the pledge, but he gave the impression that he was a, what was it, a “compassionate conservative.” And specifically said that he really cared a lot about global warming. And that turned out not to be entirely accurate.
But during the campaign the press perceived there to be very little contrast between our positions and proposed remedies and there was very little conviction on their part that this was a legitimate issue for covering. So you can hardly forgive some of the people on the campaign for wondering why I would want to continue to talk about it under those circumstances.
BOB EDWARDS: You gave a fiery speech a year after September 11 denouncing the Bush administration’s plan for Iraq. Is the rest of the country just catching up with you now?
AL GORE: I don’t know that they’re catching up with me, but I think that the reality that seemed clear to me at the time, and a few others as well, is more visible to more people now. It’s bizarre that the majority, almost more than three quarters at the time, that Congress voted on that war genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 when, of course, he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And I gave a series of speeches before the war trying to warn against what I felt was a horrible mistake that would trap the country in a difficult and nearly insoluble situation, but it happened anyway and I’m sorry that it did.
BOB EDWARDS: So what do you say to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who supported the war?
AL GORE: Well, there were an awful lot of people who cast a vote that I would not have cast. But look, they’re good people and smart people. Maybe I had the advantage of not getting the classified intelligence briefings, although I have friends in the intelligence community who were keeping me advised about it. I think there was an atmosphere of political intimidation that affected people in both parties. But I really don’t know. I think that people voted according to what they thought was best for the country.
BOB EDWARDS: I bet you know that there was another vice president who narrowly lost an election, sat out the following vote and then came back to win big eight years later during an unpopular war.
AL GORE: Yeah, when some people cite that to me I often say, “You mean I could end up like Richard Nixon?”
BOB EDWARDS: You said yourself, you’re uncomfortable as a campaigner.
AL GORE: I’m not sure I said that specifically. But there are things about politics I don’t like and I’m not a natural extreme extrovert, and I don’t necessarily draw energy from the back-slapping element of politics. I don’t dislike it, it’s just that I draw energy more from the discussion of ideas with people who are looking for what is best for the country.
I used to absolutely love going around my Congressional district and around my state, Tennessee, talking with people in town hall meetings, or open meetings, as I call them. I would sometimes do six or seven of those a day. I just absolutely love that and got a lot of energy from it. The sound-byte culture that reduces the conversation of democracy to these little 30-second TV ads and seven-second video clips, that’s a development of recent decades that I don’t think has been good for American democracy.
BOB EDWARDS: How would this country be different, how would the world be different, had you taken office five years ago?
AL GORE: I could see George W. Bush going on Saturday Night Live (laughs). You know, it’s hard to spell out what that alternate course might have been for the country but it surely would have been very different. And our policy on global warming would be very different and would be like the one that I outline in An Inconvenient Truth.
BOB EDWARDS: So arguably the man who should most see this film won’t.
AL GORE: Yeah, he said he doubted he would see it, but President Bush should see it. And I have offered to come to the White House and give my slide show to him and his advisors any time of any day. And I really wish he would take me up on that and let me bring the movie or send the movie.
I really and truly believe this should not be a political issue. It should be understood as a moral issue and an ethical issue. In the largest sense, it’s almost a spiritual issue, because our survival is at stake. The habitability of the only planet we have is at stake.
It’s a challenge to our moral imagination to realize that we human beings are now capable of destroying important characteristics of the ecological balance of the entire planet. It’s really hard to realize that we have grown in numbers to that extent, but we have. And we are doing that damage. We’re now the single most powerful force of nature. We’re completely changing the relationship between the earth and the sun by trapping so much more of the incoming solar energy that it’s cooking the vulnerable parts of the ecosystem, drying out the mid-continent areas, causing, ironically, more floods as well as more droughts, causing stronger hurricanes and ocean-based storms, causing radical changes in the distribution of ecological niches, threatening agriculture, melting the North Pole, threatening to destabilize and melt the enormous amount of ice in Greenland and west Antarctica, raising sea level potentially 20 feet worldwide.
These and other consequences sound like a nature hike through the book of Revelation. Honestly, just realizing how serious it is is the first challenge. Once we do, we will have the ability to solve this crisis. We have everything we need, except the will to act, which we can see as a renewable resource.
BOB EDWARDS: How did the slide show start?
AL GORE: It started in the late ‘80s. I had begun to investigate global warming when I first went to Congress in 1976 because I’d had a legendary science pioneer as a college professor and kept in touch with him, and when I went to Congress in the ‘70s helped organize the first hearings, and continued to learn about it and tried to communicate about it. But it was in 1989 when my family and I went through a traumatic experience that shook up my own personal priorities and caused me to look freshly at how I was going to spend my time, personally and professionally.
BOB EDWARDS: Your son got hit by a car.
AL GORE: Yes, and it was life-threatening. Thankfully it had a happy ending. He’s fully recovered in every way, thank God. Tipper and I have been blessed with a wonderful family.
But during the time of uncertainty and during the trauma of all that terrible crisis, I really re-examined everything. It was then that I started putting the slide show together and started writing a book called Earth in the Balance and started trying to understand and communicate about this crisis in a very different way. I started with Kodak slides and an old-fashioned projector and I did that for many years. After the 2000 election, early 2001, I got the slides out.
BOB EDWARDS: Upgraded the gear.
AL GORE: Well, first of all I put them into a single carousel. And I went down and gave my slide show at Middleton State University, Murphysburgh, Tennessee. And every slide was backwards. And if you know how those carousels work, you cannot stop in the middle of your presentation and say, “Wait just a moment while I turn all of these hundred slides around.” It just doesn’t work that way. So I had to go through it and verbally flip them around for my audience. It was painful. And I went back to my home in Nashville and Tipper said, “I knew I should have put those in for you.” And then she said, “By the way, Mr. Information Superhighway, we have computers in the 21st century.” And that’s when I made the transition, much as many photographers are switching to digital. And after I did that it got easier to upgrade it.
And after every showing I would change it and I began to understand its internal logic a lot better, and I went on the board of Apple Computer, and the technical folks there were of tremendous help in shifting over to their keynote program, which is terrific.
Then I really started getting a qualitatively different reaction from my audiences. And I guess that encouraged me to expand it quite a bit.
And in an audience to whom I gave the slide show in Los Angeles, some movie producers saw it and came up and began a dialogue about making it into a movie. Laurie David had hosted and organized that particular gathering, and she and Lawrence Bender subsequently became two of the three producers of the movie along with Scott Burns and Leslie Chilcott. They recruited Davis Guggenheim, the director.
And I was skeptical that a slide show could be a movie or that science could survive in the foreground. But they reassured me on both those points and I’m glad I listened to them because what they have made is a very entertaining and persuasive movie.
BOB EDWARDS: So why do some public opinion polls show that two thirds of Americans don’t think that global warming is a problem?
AL GORE: The polls show that they are aware of it and they do think it’s a problem, they don’t feel a sense of urgency—you’re right about that. I think that’s changing now, but the fact that it is the way it is, that’s the reason for the movie and the slide show and the book. And at the end of the summer I’ll start a training program to train others to give my slide show in their voices. There is a sharp contrast between the public view and the scientific view. There is a global scientific consensus on this. But on the other side of that contrast, the popular press has up, until recently, portrayed this very much in doubt. And “on the one hand…, on the other hand.” And that is due to a lot of reasons.
It’s a complex issue, it is a new reality, this new relationship that the human civilization has to the earth is itself new, and nothing in our history and culture prepares us for it.
BOB EDWARDS: So we’re trying to present two sides of a one-sided issue?
AL GORE: Yeah, that’s right. There was a massive study of all the scientific peer review journal articles on global warming for 10 years. They took a big sample of almost 10 percent of all of them, 928. And zero percent of them disagreed with the consensus. But a second large study of 14 years worth of major newspaper articles in the US showed that more than half expressed doubt as to whether this problem is even real or not. Now that’s the contrast I was referring to earlier. The title of that second study was “Balance as Bias.” With reporters being fired and news budgets being cut, and more pressure from advertisers, and more infusion of entertainment values into what used to be called news, there is a temptation for overworked reporters to say, “OK, on the one hand; on the other hand…”
BOB EDWARDS: Creating artificial balance.
AL GORE: Yeah, particularly when you have a well-funded propaganda or disinformation campaign that is waged by a few of the largest polluters, spending millions of dollars a year to put false pseudo-scientific studies out there, and to try to browbeat all the news organizations into including their views on an equal footing with the entire global scientific community; the news media, I think, are now waking up to the way they have been manipulated and misled. I do see signs of them standing up for journalistic values and I hope that continues.
BOB EDWARDS: Not everyone agrees. There’s a fellow at MIT, Richard Lindsen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science.
AL GORE: Yeah. If you want to go into the details on this, there are world class scientists at this organization that can be reached at realclimate.org that just dissect his particular contributions. He’s taken money from OPEC and from oil and coal companies, and I’m not saying that that is the reason for his views, but I think that he has lost a great deal of respect among his fellow scientists, particularly for his more recent presentations—for example at the House of Lords in London, where he has just misstated what is, to others, scientific fact.
BOB EDWARDS: The right is coming after you. I’ve got the National Review here, “Snow Job: The Truth about the great over-hyped glacier melts.”
AL GORE: Oh, I thought that might be about the new White House spokesman.
BOB EDWARDS: Here’s one from the National Center For Policy Analysis, “Polar Bears On Thin Ice. Not Really.”
AL GORE: There is a scientific consensus. The so-called IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, is the most thorough and respected scientific collaboration in the history of human civilization. Two thousand scientists from a hundred countries, for 20 years, have arrived at a consensus on several points: Global warming is real. We human beings are largely responsible for it. The results are bad and headed toward catastrophic. We need to fix it and it’s not too late. And the consensus extends to some of these details that the oil company folks quarrel with—polar bears, for example. There’s a very specific set of findings there. They’ve just been listed on the endangered list.
Look, we’ve lost 40 percent of the artic ice pack in 40 years. It is thinning rapidly. I’ve gone up to the North Pole; I went to the ice cap twice, in fact, in order to directly engage the Navy and the CIA in an effort to get their ice records released, and they finally released them. There is a great danger that part way through this century, the entire north polar ice cap will completely disappear. And that’s bad not only for polar bears, obviously, but also for us. Because that huge expanse of ice, almost as large as the continental US, now reflects 90 percent of the incoming solar energy like a giant mirror—but as it melts, the open ocean absorbs 90 percent of the incoming energy.
So that’s a big jump from one relationship to the sun to another. And that makes the artic the fastest warming part of the entire planet. And if it becomes ice free, it will not refreeze, and it will radically alter the radiative balance between the earth and the sun.
To have it treated by these outfits that get money from Exxon Mobil and some of the other worse polluters to put out phony pseudo-scientific statements that directly conflict with these very careful rigorous scientific reviews that have taken years in many cases, and then to have them treated in many cases as if they have equal weight—it’s really outrageous.
BOB EDWARDS: Why do you think the public is more receptive now? Why do you feel that they should be or do you feel that they are?
AL GORE: I do think that they are and there are several reasons for it. A new voice has been added to the debate. Mother Nature has been speaking very loudly and clearly. Hurricane Katrina, for example, was heard by many of millions of Americans as a wakeup call. People who had heard the scientists had linked global warming to stronger hurricanes in a row and then all of a sudden we have a lot of unusually strong hurricanes in a row and then this one virtually drowns one of our major cities. I hope that we’ll have a policy of bringing New Orleans back. But I think that’s made a difference. I think that the growing strength of the consensus and the willingness of scientists to enter the public debate, albeit reluctantly because they have themselves been so frustrated that their findings have not produced the kind of response they think they should. And I think that a lot of people have been thinking about this. I mean, 85 conservative evangelical ministers who were supporters of Bush broke with Bush on this issue and asked their congregations to take it on. Several of the Republican leaders of Fortune 500 corporations have also broken with Bush on this issue and have made fighting against global warming a top priority of their business plans. It’s a great opportunity and that’s a good sign.
BOB EDWARDS: You quote Winston Churchill’s line on the eve of the second World War about myopic leadership: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent, the era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we’re entering a period of consequences.”
AL GORE: God, I wish I could write like he wrote. That is precisely the meaning for many Americans of Hurricane Katrina. It marked for them the beginning of a period of consequences. And our national leadership has been procrastination. And Churchill went on to say after the appeasement at Munich by Neville Chamberlain, that it was understandable in some ways, that people would be reluctant to try to gear up for the struggle that was clearly ahead. But in referring to the appeasement, he said that “this is the first sip from a bitter cup, the first foretaste from a cup that will be proffered to us over and over again year by year until we reclaim our moral authority.” And you know, just three weeks after Katrina we had another category five hurricane, Rita. It hit a less populated area but was devastating nonetheless, and then Wilma, which briefly became the most powerful Atlantic hurricane ever. And then they ran out of names and we had Alpha and then Beta and then Gamma and then Epsilon and then Zeta.
BOB EDWARDS: And the first hurricane in South America.
AL GORE: And the first one to ever hit Brazil, that’s correct. They had to rewrite the textbooks. And this year, Bob, even though our season hasn’t begun, they’ve had three category five cyclones in Australia and the leading CEO of the biggest insurance company in Australia, IAG, said, “Wait a minute, this is clearly related to global warming, we’ve got to do something about it.”
BOB EDWARDS: When you were negotiating the Kyoto protocol for the US in the early 1990s did you ever imagine that there would be so little action on the issue so many years later?
AL GORE: No, I didn’t. I had faith that we would respond more fully by now. I’m still an optimist because I do see signs of a turnaround, but I have to say that I did not in the ’90s think that we would be here in the year 2006 and be one of the only two nations in the entire developed world isolated in a little bubble of unreality refusing to join the world community or even to acknowledge the reality that we’re facing. That’s why I titled the book An Inconvenient Truth. It’s the truth, but it’s inconvenient for the polluting interest that control policy in the Bush-Cheney administration. You know a lot of companies are making billions by developing the new technologies that are going to help us solve this crisis. The auto companies in the US said that we couldn’t afford to have tougher emissions standards and tougher mileage requirements. And they got what they lobbied for, the weakest standards in the advanced world. And what’s happened? They’re near bankruptcy and unfortunately their fortunes have been falling. And who’s doing well? Toyota and Honda. Toyota has a waiting list for every Prius that they make. Was it completely unpredictable that oil prices might go up? That American car buyers would rebel at Hummers and low mileage behemoths? That they would want better made, more efficient automobiles? No, it was clearly predictable. But the auto companies were able to use their lobbying political power to bludgeon the Congress and the administration into giving them the lowest standards in the world and it’s hurt them.
That’s an example of how accepting the challenge of reducing pollution can lead to higher profits and often does. Pollution is waste. We are in a time when greater efficiency and greater attention to the elimination of pollution and waste yields higher profits.
BOB EDWARDS: I think that the strongest part of your film is clearly the sequence of photos of Kilimanjaro. Over time, soon there may be no snows of Kilimanjaro, maybe no glacier in Glacier Park. It’s very dramatic stuff.
AL GORE: And it’s worldwide. How can it be a coincidence that mountain glaciers on every continent in every part of the world are melting dramatically, simultaneously? It’s not a coincidence. It’s global warming. And it has so many consequences. Take the great rivers of Asia, for example.
Forty percent of all human kind gets the majority of its drinking water from seven rivers that all originate in the ice of the Tibetan plateau: the Indus River, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Salween and Irawati, the Mekong, and then the Yangtze and the Yellow, the two great rivers of China. And all of them are in dire jeopardy of losing an enormous percentage of the fresh water they now get because of this rapid melting of the ice in the Himalayas. These are consequences that we cannot blink away. There are many others, unfortunately, but if you look at the pictures of the ice fields and the glaciers and you see the same thing happening right before your eyes and your eyes aren’t fooling you and it’s everywhere in the world. How do we react to that? Do we say, “Oh, Exxon Mobil’s right, there’s nothing to this.” No. I mean it’s like that old country music song: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
BOB EDWARDS: One of the debunkers says, “Oh sure, it’s melting around the edges but it’s higher in the middle.”
AL GORE: That comment refers to east Antarctica and sometimes they say the same thing about Greenland. When they say that, first of all it’s just absolutely false. The total balance is negative and the overall loss of ice and the ice mass in both Greenland and Antarctica is negative—overwhelmingly so. I guess they just think that as they often do that by repeating something often enough they can convince people it’s true. It’s not.
BOB EDWARDS: What about rising sea levels?
AL GORE: They are real. And they are threatening. They have been rising fairly slowly but very steadily. But the real danger there, Bob, is from Greenland and west Antarctica. Virtually all the mountain glaciers are melting and that has contributed, but the big increases would come if Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea. By itself that would increase sea level 20 feet worldwide. West Antarctica, which is the smaller portion of Antarctica, is especially vulnerable because it’s wedged up against the undersea islands so that its mass is resting on land, but it’s also open to the ocean which comes in underneath the ice mass and the warmer water is now destabilizing it quickly. That would raise sea level another 20 feet. So if either went, or if half of each went, then the World Trade Center Memorial here in Manhattan would be under water and 60 million people would be evacuated from areas around Calcutta and Bangladesh, 40 million from Shanghai, 20 million from Beijing, millions from Mumbai and Manila, areas like Louisiana and Florida, Texas and San Francisco Bay.
BOB EDWARDS: There’s autobiographical material in this film. Why?
AL GORE: That was actually not my idea and had I known that the director, Davis Guggenheim, was planning to do that at the outset, I might not have gone forward with this. But by the time he had explained to me, he had already long since gained my trust, and I knew what he would do would be done sensitively and done well. And here’s what he explained to me. The slide show connects with people and sustains attention partly because it’s a live presentation and yet on the flat screen of the cinema that doesn’t automatically take place. He said, “You have to recreate that connection by supplying enough narrative to allow the people in the audience to connect with the person or people on the screen.” And he said, “That’s gonna be you.” And it made sense to me.
I had seen years ago when I was going to Shakespearean plays because as a student I had to—I’m not quite cultured enough to just do that on my own, I’m sorry to admit. But I’d gone to those plays and enjoyed them and I’d seen experiments where people had set up film cameras to just film the stage presentation and it didn’t work. And Davis Guggenheim had explained how it could work if it was done differently. And that’s how those biographical vignettes got into the movie and I think he did a very sensitive job.
BOB EDWARDS: You even have a skit from Futurama or is it The Simpsons?
AL GORE: It’s Futurama. My second oldest daughter, Kristin Gore, worked for three years on Futurama for Matt Groening. Your audience knows, I’m sure, Futurama is to the Simpsons as the Jetsons were to The Flintstones. It’s a great series, albeit cancelled. She had heard my slide show for so many years, and as a member of that small group of writers, participated in the creation of that cartoon segment in the movie, and Matt Groening and Fox allowed me to use it in the movie for free, I’m very grateful. Matt Groening was at the screening last night, by the way, or he came in immediately after, he’s become a good friend and I am a huge fan.
BOB EDWARDS: What do you want your legacy to be?
AL GORE: Oh gosh. You know, I haven’t even thought of that. I want it to be said of me that I was useful, that I served a larger purpose. And, at least in this stage of my life, that I told an inconvenient truth in ways that allowed the American people and people elsewhere in the world to see it and absorb it and then to act upon it. I see this movie, by the way, as an action movie because it’s designed to encourage the audience to take action.
BOB EDWARDS: In fact it instructs them on how to do that.
AL GORE: Yes. Before we added those elements people said, “Tell us what to do.” And so we did. And we give not only the Web site where you can find everything you could possibly want to do, but we also put 10 specific suggestions on what you can do to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
BOB EDWARDS: Al Gore’s new film is called An Inconvenient Truth and there’s a companion book too. You can get more information by visiting climatecrisis.net.
This interview was used with permission from Bob Edwards Weekend, which airs on KAZU 90.3 FM Saturday and Sunday at 1pm. The Bob Edwards Show airs weekdays at 5am, 6am, 7am, 5pm on XM Public Radio, XM Channel 133. The Weekly and Osio Cinemas present a free premiere screening of An Inconvenient Truth on Thursday, June 15 at 7pm. (At press time, all tickets have already been given away.) A panel discussion following the movie, “Global Warming and its Consequences,” will be broadcast on KAZU 90.3FM on Saturday, June 17 at 4pm. It will be rebroadcast on Monday, June 19 at 8pm.