I'm not buying this guy's thesis. He has a valid point in his critique of the "political" portions, where they show Al Gore looking sad and try to offer a fawning biography of his career. Those portions of the movie don't work that well, and could detract from the much more important message it is trying to get across. However, his criticisms of the science and factual content seem totally off-base. Al Gore made a speech that could reach as wide an audience as possible. As such, it isn't going to cover every fact in exact scientific detail. This critic is definitely losing sight of the forest for the trees on this point. The same is true for Gore's criticism of the Bush administration's environmental policy. We should be outraged that individuals representing the interests of oil companies are having a hand in shaping our response to environmental issues, and that he attempted to re-write the science. Whether he was the head of the agency or not seems irrelevant - he was in a position of power with regard to the government's stance on global warming, and he was in the pocket of the industry. The other issue I had with this critic's essay was his argument that Gore should have done more to discuss solutions to global warming and call for more sacrafices by the audience. This was not the focus of the movie. He touches on this question toward the end, in an intentionally cursory way. I think the goal was for the film to be optimistic and hopeful regarding solutions, and to spark political action from the audience, not to give a laundry list of remedies. And I don't see what the alleged hypocrisy of individual environmentalists has to do with Al Gore's larger point, either - it just wouldn't have fit into the movie. This movie is not about placing blame on a single cause of global warming, but more just creating awareness and advocating change across the board.

peace,
murph