When Al Gore was announced as a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, the honor seemed to do little to end the international debate over whether his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” should be shown in schools.

While the immediate reaction in the U.S. centered on whether the former vice president will run again for president—or whether the Nobel committee has secret ties to Osama bin Laden, depending on where you get your news—the honor has not vindicated perceptions that the film and the global warming issue are too politicized to teach in public schools.

In Britain last week, a judge ruled that while the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,” there are several significant errors, from sea levels rising 20 feet in the near future to bleaching of coral reefs (most of his criticism centered on insufficient evidence to support the claims). High Court Judge Michael Burton ruled, in response to a lawsuit by a parent, that showing the film in schools violates a law that bans promoting partisan political views in the classroom.

There have been a few similar incidents in the U.S., where school boards and administrators have faced criticism from parents who either don’t want “An Inconvenient Truth” shown or want opposing viewpoints presented. The Federal Way, Wash., school board got bashed by critics and supporters of the film in January when it temporarily placed a moratorium on showing the film, then later said teachers must present other viewpoints.

One thing is for sure: there’s a growing drive to educate students about the environment in U.S. schools, including public, private, and parochial schools (some are using their newly built sustainable facilities as a demonstration tool). And even though the mere mention of Al Gore seems to, well, make a few heads explode, more conclusive scientific evidence will become available over time to either further prove or disprove the disputed points in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Just in time for a sequel.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor