That’s the problem. If I thought Al Gore’s movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I’d say, everyone should go see it. But why go see propaganda? You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore’s films to see the truth about global warming.
I take it that he's one of the conservatives who are working hard to bring this much-vaunted "new civility" back to the public debate?
Actually, "debate" is the wrong word. Because, simply put, there is no debate about global warming. It's about as "controversial" as evolution...because all the evidence is on one side of the "debate." From Science:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
See? It's a consensus. And no amount of Nazi comparisons or right-wing smears will change what the reality-based community agrees upon.
ADDENDUM: This link may prove useful, too...