Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth gave climate change a prominent documentary platform in 2006. Studies later found that viewers gained knowledge and concern, and reported greater willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. But those findings do not show that the film alone changed public opinion or produced lasting behavior: one study found that stated willingness did not necessarily become action a month later.
The title’s “ten years on” frame belongs to 2016, a decade after the film’s release. Looking back from that anniversary, its clearest mark was as a forceful piece of climate communication—not proof that one movie transformed society or that every forecast it presented came true on schedule.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
An Inconvenient Truth | $14.60 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, An | $8.58 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
An Inconvenient Truth | $19.27 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
An Inconvenient Truth | $10.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
An Inconvenient Truth - A Global Warning / Une Verite Qui Derange | $7.16 | Buy on Amazon |
What was An Inconvenient Truth?
Directed by Davis Guggenheim, An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary built around Al Gore’s presentation about global warming, interwoven with aspects of his personal history. Paramount describes the film as making the case that global warming is real and caused by human activity; that is the distributor’s description of its argument.
The presentation gave Gore’s climate message an unusually visible documentary platform. Its public role was later captured by glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, who told Science News in 2016: “It got climate change on the radar.” That is an expert’s qualitative assessment of the film’s prominence, not a measurement of how much it independently changed public views.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- DVD
- Color, Subtitled, Widescreen
- French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
- 1
What impact did the film have on viewers?
Studies found short-term shifts
Jessica M. Nolan’s 2010 article, “An Inconvenient Truth Increases Knowledge, Concern, and Willingness to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,” reports two studies: one involving community moviegoers and another involving students. Across both, viewing the film increased knowledge about the causes of global warming, concern for the environment, and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases.
Those results describe changes observed among viewers in the studies. They do not by themselves establish how large or lasting the effects were across the wider public. In the student study, willingness expressed just after viewing did not necessarily translate into action one month later. That distinction matters: a documentary can prompt learning or intention without ensuring sustained behavior.
Public concern rose, but the movie’s role is hard to isolate
In a March 21, 2007 report, Gallup found that the share of Americans who said they were “highly concerned” about global warming rose from 36% in March 2006 to 41% in March 2007. The share who believed climate effects had already begun was 59% in 2007, compared with 54% in 2005.
Gallup cautioned that it was not straightforward to credit Gore or Hollywood for the increase in concern. Concern had already risen by 10 points between 2004 and 2006, and the report noted other possible influences, including Hurricane Katrina. The figures show a shift in polling over time; they do not estimate the film’s causal effect on American opinion.
Rank #3
- Factory sealed DVD
Did the film get the climate science right?
The most useful answer is neither that every claim was right nor that the film was simply wrong. A 2016 Science News retrospective said the central understanding that carbon dioxide warms the planet had held up, while scientists had made substantial advances since 2006. Some forecasts were tracking as expected or faster; some of the most dire warnings needed revision.
Thompson put the enduring scientific foundation this way: “The physics and chemistry that we’ve known about for over 200 years is bearing out.” His comment is an assessment of the underlying science, not an exhaustive verification of every example, prediction, or timeline in the movie. A broad scientific direction and a specific forecast are different claims, and the latter should be assessed on its own evidence and timing.
Rank #4
What specialists said about the film’s treatment of ice
A contemporary National Snow and Ice Data Center Q&A, last updated July 7, 2006, praised the film’s broad outline while clarifying details about polar ice. NSIDC scientist Ted Scambos said, “I think An Inconvenient Truth does an excellent job of outlining the science behind global warming and the challenges society faces in the coming century because of it.” Walt Meier added, “I agree. I think Gore has the basic message right.”
Their discussion also showed why broad agreement does not settle every detail. Tidewater glaciers naturally calve, but calving is distinct from retreat and mass loss, which are separate indicators. Arctic sea ice was declining, while the Antarctic situation was more complex. And in 2006, observations of mass change in Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were not equally conclusive. These were period-specific observations and should not be mistaken for a current summary of polar science.
How to understand the film’s legacy
The evidence points to a documentary that helped make climate change more visible and could influence what some viewers knew, felt, and said they were willing to do. It does not establish that the movie caused the contemporaneous rise in public concern, changed behavior durably, or accounts for the wider history of climate action. Nor do the reviewed assessments provide a complete scene-by-scene audit of its forecasts.
A later figure illustrates why dates matter when judging its legacy. UCLA Newsroom reported that Earth’s heating imbalance increased by nearly 20% between 2006 and 2017, and discussed the growth of research attributing extreme events to climate change. That finding covers 2006–2017, not the decade ending in 2016, and it describes climate developments—not an effect caused by the film.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
