an inconvenient truth

I'm noticing interesting phenomena with regard to reviews of Al Gore's seminal documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Firstly, critics and reviews almost unanimously sing praises for this film; not the film-making, nor the Gore, but the timing, the research and the relevance. Perhaps then this is not worth noting, but the others are interesting.

Those critical of the film make their arguments in political or personal terms, sidestepping the sincere idealism and moral ground that is the film's purpose. Here are two particular forms (well... four):

1) Legislation is the way to manage the global warming problem. Blame politicians for not legislating and creating laws to force people into enviornmentalism. Indeed, blame Al Gore himself for not doing enough when he was in office. Just don't blame me, Citizen Jim, for the global problems--I just live in the neighbourhood. Have a look: Kyle Smith

2) Undercut and sidestep the entire issue by blaming 'left-wing' for 'creating' and perpetuating the whole notion of Global Warming in the first place. This denies the existence of the problem, based presumably on intensive research, the research done by the trusty 'right-wing' or the energy conglomerates themselves. In this instance blame someone else, ie. the 'left', whavever that is; and also question the issue itself on account of 'political affiliation'.
(By the way, I hate 'left/right' distinctions; let's add a second axis that is responsibility and compassion. You can be left or right, but if you have no sense of personal responsibility and or compassion towards the people of this earth, that's the real problem.) This is a worthwhile article: Tony Medley

3) The film was boring. Maybe they would prefer if there were more car chases or low cut dresses.

4) 'I don't like Al Gore, so I don't like this movie' reviews.

There you have it, but other than those, I hear the film is quite good.
Ride a bike and recycle.