An inconvenient truth (An Inconvenient Truth) is a film released in 2006. It features Al Gore, former vice president of the United States of America, to present the causes and consequences of climate change. This film had a considerable audience and probably contributed to Al Gore receiving, jointly with the IPCC, the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. This film was the subject of controversy to such an extent that its broadcast in British schools have been contested and the subject of legal debate [1]. The community of climate denialists who deny the human contribution to current global warming attacked the partisan side of the film, and claimed that it was only intended to promote a new candidacy for Al Gore for president (after his narrow defeat by GW Bush in 2000). The film has also been criticized for its exaggerations and errors.
However, An inconvenient truth was it a lying documentary aimed at deceiving the public as claimed by the plaintiff’s lawyer in the trial mentioned above, the majority of the arguments put forward are false, or falsely exaggerated [2] ?
Reactions from the scientific community have been overwhelmingly positive. The few criticisms focused on the one hand on the speed of rise in sea levels (Al Gore speaks of several meters but does not clearly specify the time frame at which this could happen) and the frequency of cyclones which is presented as in link with global warming although there is no consensus on this.
As part of the legal debate mentioned, nine “errors” were discussed. These focus on the link between climate change and its alleged impacts (polar bears, corals, Hurricane Katrina, Lake Chad, glaciers of Kilimanjaro, Gulf Stream) and on the speed of rise in sea levels and its impact on the habitability of small Pacific islands. The judge estimated (October 2007) that the film did not provide enough nuance on these aspects. Its distribution in schools was able to continue, as desired by the Ministry of Education, but accompanied by a document which provides additional information on these aspects.
The inaccuracies that have been highlighted do not call into question the general message of the film. There is clearly a bias to obtain public support, but there is no desire to deceive. The scientific community especially insisted on the educational qualities of the film at a time when the reality of climate change and its anthropogenic causes were strongly contested.
So no, An inconvenient truthdespite some shortcuts and approximations, cannot be described as a lying documentary.
