That's too bad because when qualified *scientists* have reviewed the Gore film, they've found the material presented there to be generally scientifically accurate if simplified. Once again, reliable science gets crowded out by misinformation and misrepresentation.

ruidh, New York, New York

Simply have them also show the kids "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as a counter to the Gore film.

Jim Peel, Denver, CO, USA

Just wanted to point out - the caveman said "What?"

But besides that, it would be good for a change to see some widespread information dissemination about the many scientists who have data that refutes the human-caused-global-warming theory.

Personwhowatchesthecommercials, St. Louis,

Let me say this. The entire theory of global warming was invented by the same scientists/meteorologists who can't even seem to tell you with any degree of accuracy whether or not it's going to rain the same day in the town in which you live.

David Attanucci, Chesapeake, VA

If you want to make an informed decision about this issue that you would not deem political, do your own research. Read some of the many books published by scientists doing field work and critical thinking, who put their ideas out there to be debated. They just want to know the truth. I would suggest Under a Green Sky by Peter D. Ward Ph. D. It is a little more work than watching a movie, but worth your time. If earth really is warming and it really could result in our extinction (long after those now walking the earth are dead) don't we have a responsibility to do whatever is in our power to slow it down? I keep thinking of the eradication of the passenger pigeon which once darkened the skies for hours as a flock passed. When a few people sounded the alarm that they needed protection, most people laughed. How could they all be killed? There are too many for that. They were all dead a few years later.

Mary McAdam Keane, Hillside, New Jersey, USA

One of the posts had this anecdote:

"When you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything."...

In the inimitable words of the Geico Caveman after listening to the response of another debater on a news show interview (with excuses to those who don't get to see those commercials):

"Huh?"

...in other words, this anecdote would seem to mean non-believers are credulous dolts... I assume the fellow means the liberal left godless pinko atheist types... I for one am a political moderate, fiscal conservative, socially more liberal than right wing, and a conscientious atheist (not anti-religious nor pro) and just have to comment that I (and my ilk) certain DON'T just believe in "anything" but are some of the most skeptical exacting minds around... Thanks.

D C, Denton, TX USA

Lately I've been having second thoughts about all the stuff sorrounding the Climate Change and Global Warming's movement.
First of all, this is a scientific issue, we musn't forget that if we want to form a personal critic idea of it, and this community does not have an only interpretation of the phenomenon. Let's let them discuss.
Second, who (groups, social and political movements - i.e.: anti globalisation ones-) are behind the reivindications??
For me is easier to have faith in God than in Gore.

pablo, motril, Spain

Based on the comments here, those critical of the judgement that the climate is warming seem to be pretty wacky. I would be in despair if charged with the task of changing their minds using only the weak tools of reason and evidence.

Clyde Smith, Nashville, USA

Anyone who thinks global warming isn't happening is sadly deluded and probably uneducated. I enjoyed the film, it doesn't mean I blindly believe everything that is said, but it makes me want to think, research and decide for myself. This is probably what most students will do.

Children today are more than capable of deciding for themselves what is political and what isn't.. have you spoken to an 11 year old lately?

Amber Isaacks, Melbourne, Australia

There are certainly political parts to 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The criticism of the US Government's stance on the Kyoto Protocol is partisan (although many people would be sympathetic). However, the biggest problem will be, I predict, that the extremists who deny that climate change is happening or driven by greenhouse gas emissions, will use this ruling to propose that balance is created by showing schools the laughable programme 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which is extremely partisan and also completely misrepresents the science. Let's hope the judge makes clear whether he is criticising the presentation of the science in 'An Inconvenient Truth', or the way in which it portrays the political response to climate change.

Bob Ward, Hertford,

I haven't seen one thing in Al's movie that has proven to be true. The hockey stick has been proven to be false because it left out the little ice age and the medieval warm period. His graphs that CO2 has caused the earth to warm in the past has proven to be false because on closer look scientist have found that temperature rise happened before the CO2 levels went up. The prediction of more and meaner hurricanes did not pan out in 2006 and 2007 is about average. The global warming models called for hotter and dryer weather in England. Was 2007 warmer and dryer? NO. The average earth temperature has been falling sense 1998 not raising like Gore says. There is no science in Gore's move. It only tries to create a problem that only the solution from the political left can solve. The movie is nothing but political propaganda trying to pretend it is science.
The biggest Global Warming Skeptic is turning out to be mother nature.

Robert G, Rockville, USA/MD

If the film is not politically partisan then how can being opposed to it be politically partisan? Wakey-wakey people!

Global warming is political snake-oil, and just the sort of mumbo-jumbo that people who hate religious education absolutely love. When you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything.

Oliver McCarthy, London, England

Can someone please tell me anything in this movie, other than Al Gore's name, that is true? I mean anything at all. Everything he says is either a distortion, an exaggeration, or an outright falsehood. Regardless of whether one wants to argue if a political element is present or not is irrelevant; this is bogus and misleading information being provided. Why would you want to tell children things that aren't true?

Please, show me where I'm wrong and name one thing that is accurate.

Sam Prentice, Andover, CT, USA

As a former science teacher I watched this fillm and compared it to the Great Global Warming Swindle. There are one or two political areas in Gore's film which are unwise educationally. I would certainly ensure a questionong view in the classroom.

However it is far less misleading than the GGWS which misued data and clearly disinforms scientifically. A large majority of scientists accept the global warming hypothesis. Will we now have creationists challenging evolution in class. Why should a lorry driver with no science education have any control over thye curriculum. He could just as much argue for balance in the Darwinism debate

pete lee`, Exeter, Devon

I've seen the film and am struggling to think of any parts of it that were politically partisan i.e. promoting one political party over another?

Isn't Mr Dimmock being politically partisan by trying to have the film banned? I can think of far more partisan things taught in school that brainwash our kids - e.g. religious education!

Steve Wynn, London, UK