Gore makes two key claims, which are related to each other. On the science he says the debate about humanity’s impact on the climate is over. To the extent that there are people who do disagree well they must be paid dupes of the oil industry or lackeys of his political opponents.

On the politics of climate change he says it is a moral rather than a political issue. This would means that there is no room for debate about the extent of the problem or the solutions to it and that normal “due diligence” need not be undertaken.  It is absurd for a politician to claim that no one has a right to challenge his conclusions.  Would we accept a scientist arguing that his conclusions are beyond challenge? No I do not think so because scientific debate is an indispensable element of science. Likewise political debate in a democracy is an indispensable part of the determination of public policy.

What follows here is just a small sampling of Gore’s hobgoblins and demonstrates that he is biased, disingenuous, overstated, speculative and sometimes just plain wrong.

My criticism is not intended to be definitive it is meant merely to indicate the complexity of the debate and point out some of the weaknesses in the science in Al Gore’s video and coffee table book of the same name. Clearly if the science is wrong then the conclusions on public policy must also be wrong.

With the exception of some commentary that I have included to stimulate debate I leave the ethical and moral judgements to the individual reader.

I have used the term "greenhouse gas" throughout because it is in common use.  However the term "so-called greenhouse gas" would be more appropriate since greenhouses do not behave as the atmosphere does.