Climate change has joined a select band of issues where passions are at boiling point.
A few months ago a Channel Four documentary designed to debunk the "global warming industry" sparked controversy for having significant factual errors.
On Wednesday night's Ten O'Clock News we led the programme with a story about a High Court judge pointing out nine "errors" in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - a documentary which unashamedly argues that the world faces catastrophe if we do not address the issue. The fact that Al Gore was the hot tip to win the Nobel Peace Prize added to the topicality of the story.
Today he won the prize, and - unsurprisingly - it's a controversial choice, not least because the question being asked is: what has climate change got to do with promoting world peace?
The key point is that we live in a world where some documentaries are created to argue a very specific case - the producers marshal the facts to ensure their view is seen in the best light, emphasising certain points, while ignoring or underplaying “inconvenient truths”. This is a dangerous game - if you appear to be on shaky ground, your opponents will ask 'If you got that wrong, surely your entire case is wrong?' The truth is usually far more difficult, and more interesting.
Some may find it hard to believe - and I am already anticipating the response to this blog - BBC News will always try to give a full, impartial picture on climate change. That's why we have done pieces pointing out why the majority of scientists believe it is happening, why some believe it is happening but it may not be as catastrophic as Al Gore makes out, and others pointing to the flaws in Gore's case. It is a story - and a debate - that will run and run. And rightly so.