If I were to base all my views on climate change on either AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH or THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE I certainly found the latter far more convincing. But it is not quite that simple. Both films perhaps raised more questions than they answered.
Al Gore's film should have had the subtitle MY NAME IS AL, AND I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Why else would it have included the often emotional and tear jerking autobiographical scenes which had littlle or nothing to do with climate change? As a docu-film it worked rather well and certainly held the viewer's attention, but its weakness stemmed from Gore's apparent obsession with one of his teachers.
We have all had teachers whom we revere, but Gore's reverance for one of his university teachers bordered on hero worship. You just got the feeling that the whole film was made with the intention of achieving an A grade and a pat on the back. On the face of it many of Gore's statistics were compelling, but you always got the feeling that they were being used selectively. The shots of glaciers breaking up pulled on the emotions until you learned from the Channel 4 film that this has happened every Spring down the centuries.
Indeed the Channel 4 film debunked many of the assertions made by Gore, not by polemics, but by scientists. And that was where it triumphed over Gore. Gore knows his script backwards. A polemicist he may be, but a scientist he ain't. Scientists barely figured in Gore's film. The Channel 4 film barely contained anyone who was not a scientist.
What both of these films need is a good 'fisking'. I'd love to devote an evening of 18 Doughty Street to showing both films in the presence of scientists from both sides of the argument and go through them both almost line by line. It's an idea I might well pursue if I can get copyright permission.