Tim, the inconvenient truth is that the film has some factual errors. That does not mean it has been robbed of its purpose.
If its core arguments are sound then the message will survive. The arguments’ scientific basis is sound. The High Court ruling only requires nine errors to be highlighted and for teachers to explain the political context — hardly a bad thing in itself.
Do we have to accept messages entirely without question because someone influential says they are important? I’m glad that important ideas such as climate change are held up to scrutiny because it makes it that much harder for self interested, short sighted politicians like Bush to deny.
Tags: environment, films, politics