Please, let's not spread half-articulated insinuations here.
First, I'll say something amazing before I jump into the fray: I have not actually seen the movie! But a movie CAN be a documentary and still express a political opinion. Criticizing a movie on that basis is just ridiculous because it assumes that there is only one objective interpretation about reality. I can count numerous examples of good documentaries that present only one perspective and succeed beautifully. To expect that a documentary should account for all objective reality is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of documentary filmmaking; this criticism is especially unrealistic and unfair when the film's subject is about a complex problem like global warming. Whether you like Michael Moore or not (I do), his filmmaking/documentary skills are unsurpassed, and the political criticisms of his films (even if you accept them) don't diminish the power of his storytelling and his ability to present a single perspective.
From the sources I've seen most of the science as presented in the film was basically right. One controversy about the computer animation sequence was whether it was right to present the 20 feet increase in water level, but that was just one scenario.
Fortunately, several people have discussed the accuracy of the film
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...l-gores-movie/
(if you read only one thing, you should read this piece, which is very long. This post contains numerous comments is by professional climatologists with no ideological axe to grind) The scientist concludes:
Quote:
|
For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue — indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue — but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there.
|
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260014
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ths/print.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr..._the_nobe.html
(this is actually an article critical of Gore's Nobel prize, but I found this a reasoned criticism).
The problem is that naysayers usually end up citing
Richard Lindzen
or
Fred Singer or
Bjorn Lomborg
All three of them have their own agendas to push, so to speak and have received a lot of criticism themselves.
With regard to the British court ruling,
Media Matters (a media watchdog site) comments, "
Quote:
|
numerous media outlets reported that the judge found nine errors in the film but ignored the judge's finding that An Inconvenient Truth is "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."
|
If you have read this far searching for a reason to justify having done so, here's a quote from Al Gore which you will agree is one of the stupidest and silliest statement ever made by a politician:
“A zebra does not change its spots.” - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.