I have previously said all I have to say about Al Gore’s mockumentary An Inconvenient Truth, or so I thought. In fact I have posted several rebuttals, critiques and rebukes of his pet film. It is these critiques which are now making a small, mostly ignored noise.

His scare tactics and demagoguery depend on loose interpretation and misrepresentations more then hard science, and that is what his critics claim makes his Oscar Nomination either a deliberate fraud, or a case of selective enforcement of Oscar Standards for political gain.

Via CNS News:

Al Gore’s movie on climate change is likely to win an Oscar for best documentary on Sunday even though it arguably violates the Academy’s own criteria and should be disqualified, critics say.

But, they argue, the way in which the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has handled the issue in the past shows a clear political bias.

Documentaries that distort reality and shade the truth are insulated from criticism so long as they advance left-wing causes like global warming and gun control, said independent filmmaker Dan Gifford, a former Oscar nominee and Emmy Award winner.

According to the “rule 12″ standard for documentary films established by the Academy, while it is permissible to employ storytelling devices such as re-enactments, stock footage, stills and animations, the emphasis must be on fact and not fiction.¹

The critics argue that in the case of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the criteria are not met.

One might be tempted to shrug and say “Who Cares” on hearing this. It is just an Oscar, it is not like it is a big deal.

But it is for a couple reasons.

The movie is staunchly supported and defended by Al and others as being 100% factual and accurate, and therefore it must be headed because it’s conclusions are so desperate and dire. If the movie is proven to be an exaggeration or inaccurate it also challenges the conclusions at the core of the movie.