My impression is that Gore's message is essentially in line with everything I know from the primary sources. He employs some theatrics, and he's definitely an advocate vs. an arbiter, but I think he's responsible in terms of the information presented.

Some people have nitpicked individual points, but most of it's from crackpot amateurs (Michael Crichton) or paid amateur shills (Steven Milloy). The editorials in Nature and such were basically "Good film. A little later that it should have been, though." I've seen no opposition from the professionals-- actually, Gore's gotten a lot of help from climate scientists who see him as a good source of PR for their work.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com