Former Vice-President Al Gore (who would have been president if he had managed to carry his own state in 2000, Florida notwithstanding) has now been knighted as Planet Protector-In-Chief by the Nobel "Peace" Prize Committee. Isn't that special? He can get right in line behind Yasser Arafat.The Committee's convoluted logic for classifying Gore's movie as having something to do with "peace" was bad enough. But to ignore the growing criticism of "An Inconvenient Truth" as a heap of misinformation is just inexcusable.
Let's get something straight right off the bat. I am not one of those people who denies that global warming exists. It obviously does. The question is, "do man-centric activities disproportionately contribute to global warming?". On this point, the science is decidedly unsettled. Sorry, Al, for injecting silly things like facts into your political agenda.
Ironically, most of the criticism of Gore's movie is coming from abroad—since Americans are so conditioned to take the blame for every ill on earth. Consider the ruling of Mr. Justice Burton of the High Court in London who ruled that the movie was riddled with at least nine significant inaccuracies. Moreover, the judge stated that most of Mr. Gore's claims were the result of "alarmism and exaggeration”. And, the movie's “apocalyptic vision” was not at all impartial—and, indeed, partisan. No kidding.
As a result of the judge's ruling, "An Inconvenient Truth" can only be shown in UK secondary schools with a warning. Basically, it says to kids: "This is a political film, not a science film." It's a shame that we don't have equally courageous judges in the United States.