News

By Hilary White

TORONTO, June 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Former US Vice President Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, criticized by many in the scientific community as a piece of environmentalist agitprop, will be distributed to schools that request it by the Ontario government, the National Post reports today.

Gore has remade himself the world’s most prominent spokesman for the radical environmental movement, with his film becoming the focal point of the environmental movement that proposes human overpopulation as the central factor in “climate change.”

The Ontario initiative was spurred by the donation of hundreds of DVD copies of the movie by the Tides Canada Foundation, an environmentalist organization that channels private donations to environmental projects and “progressive social change”. The Tides Foundation made a similar donation of copies of the film to the government of British Columbia, to be distributed to all the schools in the province.

Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s Minister of Education, told media that the distribution of the film is not an endorsement. “It’s just a resource that will be available. The teachers can choose to use it or not.”

Critics of the film, however, have identified it as little more than propaganda for the extreme left with many reviewers echoing one who called it “quasi-religious doom and gloom.” Patrick J. Michaels, writing in the National Review said Al Gore should get an Academy award for his “riveting work of science fiction.”

The Post quotes Albert Jacobs, the founder of Friends of Science, warning that with its one-sided polemical approach, “the [school] boards should see to it that the schools are instructed to offset the Gore movie with alternative interpretations.”

The Education minister’s claim of government neutrality on the debate was contradicted by the announcement by Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten who said, “Today’s announcement is moving Ontario forward in the battle against climate change by inspiring students to reduce their environment[al]impact.”

The film offers various technological methods supposed to reduce green house gases, but concludes by repeating the movement’s central thesis that such solutions can only be feasible with a drastic reduction in the world’s human population.

The connection between the environmental movement and population control is well established and recognized. In 2004 Russian presidential economic advisor Andrei Illarionov called the Kyoto Protocol – a UN sponsored treaty to reduce greenhouse gases – an “undeclared war against Russia” since it required depopulation. Illarionov said, “As long as you reduce your population, you can meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements.”

The insistence of environmentalists on population reduction is increasingly open. A report published May 7 this year by one of the founding organizations of the environmental movement, said, “The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has…The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”

Read LifeSiteNews.com editorial:

Care for Creation Yes, But Why is the Vatican Backing Climate Change Theory?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07052406.html

Read Patrick J. Michaels’ review: https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.