Too Inconvenient to Watch?

I've noticed that Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has essentially been boycotted by the anti-global warming movement. In my experience it does a group on one side of a debate a lot of good to listen to the arguments of the other side. It allows for a counter-argument. Instead what we're hearing is a lot of talk about how this film is a tool for Al Gores political agenda and liberal America, despite Gore's claim that he is not running for office in 2008.

Not surprisingly, Bush said he will not be seeing the film. Likewise, the College Republican National Committee is suggesting that members host a "global cooling day" to "debunk the myths and cool the hyperbole surrounding the issue". This of course is accomplished (according to the CRNC) by setting up a snow cone stand and throwing a beach party. There have also been a lot of articles and editorials published this last week that address the "liberal hysteria", but provide no counter argument to Gore's claims. In fact, people who have not seen the film have written most of the criticisms I've read.

This is a topic that I've already written about at length, but unfortunately I have a 4000 character maximum, hence no in-depth analysis or cited sources (not that it's expected from a newbie like myself). If anyone is interested in my larger body of work (it runs about 6500 characters -- oh my!) shoot me a message and I'd be glad to share it, otherwise I'm just curious what you think.

That didn't stop Farenheit 9/11. Don't remember too many conservatives standing in line for that lie-fest.

I guess the public just got tired of phony documentaries?

I guess this post is "too inconvenient" to get some replies.

Or, my last post about phony documentaries hit a nerve!