The Guardian’s article “Gore’s climate film has scientific errors – judge” by David Adam explains how Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth was received in the UK. The short answer: “Presentation is ‘broadly accurate’ but lacks balance” (Adam). In the UK, An Inconvenient Truth was brought before a high court judge by a school governor who opposes a plan by the
government to include the film in secondary school curriculum: Stuart Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The full ruling is a bit verbose at about 7800 words, so “Gore’s climate film has scientific errors – judge” just summarizes it. Adam’s article mostly explores the “‘nine scientific errors’ in the film” (Adam). The author’s views are unbiased; the article contains direct quotes from the ruling, but provides no summary of the film, relying on the reader’s own knowledge of the film’s contents. There are many other articles on the topic of this court case; however, many of them strive either to use the mere case’s existence as the ultimate verification of their point of view or try to prove that the judge is crazy. This article does not use either of those tactics and thus comes across as unbiased. The article is an example of top-notch reporting since it successfully brings knowledge about the court case to the reader, without trying to impose an opinion on him.
“Global Warming Doomsday Fears Are Exaggerated” by Kevin Shapiro effectively points out the inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth. Although the piece does not have parenthetical citations, it is credible due to the reputation of and rigorous fact-checking of the organization Opposing Viewpoints in Context. The piece also displays sound logos or logic in its non-evidence-based parts. In his work, Shapiro points out scientific exaggerations, blatant alarmism, and the absence of a clear scientific consensus referenced in the film. It also covers some of Gore’s hypocrisies “One might note that An Inconvenient Truth contains more than its share of ironies and curious lacunae gaps. Gore suggests that viewers can help cut back on their own carbon emissions by taking mass transit. And yet, during much of the movie, Gore is shown either riding in a car or traveling on a plane—by himself. He berates Americans for our reliance on fossil fuels, but, chatting amiably with Chinese engineers, seems peculiarly unconcerned by Chinese plans to build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants… Touting “renewable” fuels like those derived from biomass (which at present offer no carbon savings compared with traditional fuels), he does not mention nuclear power or other practical carbon-reducing alternatives to coal, oil, and gas….” (Shapiro). This is one of the most compelling quotes in the piece, as it explains the inconsistencies that the author noticed without seeming attacking or severely berating. The quote that immediately follows the one given shows the fact that the author is still open to changing his mind, even knowing these inaccuracies: “Does Gore have a point? Is it really true that the threat of climate change impels us to take action?” (Shapiro). I believe that these questions are asked not in a sarcastic or rhetorical sense, but that the author genuinely wants to show a convincing argument instead of just bullying An Inconvenient Truth. This paper had the biggest effect on my point of view because it did not pressure me to make up my mind a certain way, instead letting me make my own conclusions.