From the long and turgid annals of the Society of Silly Social Science Studies comes a paper by two academics at the University of Maine. Bridie McGreavy and Laura Lindenfeld have been examining three examples of the cinematographer's art as applied to the global warming debate, namely The Day After Tomorrow, Sizzle and An Inconvenient Truth.
All three films had their critics. All three have their factual errors and distortions. All three have their hidden agendas. None of the films is peer-reviewed science...obviously. Nevertheless, such storytelling does have an impact on popular culture and public perception regarding a given issue. McGreavy and Lindenfeld suggest that dominant representations of race and gender in these films fail to align with the key sustainable development goals of equity, freedom and shared responsibility. Instead, their position as "entertainment" influences our sense of the world, guides our relationships and may well affect, in a detrimental manner, our collective abilities to create a sustainable future.
You thought that the problem with An Inconvenient Truth was that it was a lot of scientific baloney. But actually the film's big failing is that it reinforces "racial, gender and sexual stereotypes". Who would have thought it?