I refer to the much ado about nothing, which has nothing to do with Shakespeare's play but with all the negative hype around Alfred Sant's performance at a recent Labour Party meeting reproduced on YouTube.

I came across the story in reverse when I read that the Opposition Leader was suing Minister Austin Gatt for libel.

Dr Sant's lawyer has filed a complaint with the police accusing Dr Gatt of making false and defamatory allegations "when he alleged that he (Dr Sant) had a drink problem and that he took drugs (jiblaghhom) while making decisions".

During his speech at the Nationalist Party general council, Dr Gatt inferred that Dr Sant was under the influence of some addictive substance when addressing his supporters at Birzebbuga on Independence Day.

Dr Sant's performance "could have qualified him for a feature on Altered Statesmen, a documentary series on Discovery channel, which investigates political leaders who have had bouts of alcoholism or substance abuse," said The Times, reporting Minister Gatt's remarks and stating it "was defined as a joke at the moment it was made".

According to the report, Dr Sant's alleged "bizarre delivery stunned those who saw him live or in recordings" and he behaved "in an embarrassing way in a mass meeting" (the latter being one of the reasons given by Dr Gatt's Ministry for the minister's remarks).

I was intrigued. I thought we had a repeat of the 1998 performance of Dr Sant (then Prime Minister) when, having reached the end of his tether with Dom Mintoff, he had blown his top in Cottonera?

So I logged on to YouTube to see what all the fuss was about. From what I had read, I was expecting slurred speech, hysteria, wacky or weird behaviour, or at least a few facial ticks like the Pink Panther's hapless fall guy.

But anyone looking for a laugh will be very disappointed.

Dr Sant looked like any normal politician addressing the faithful. The Viva il-Labour chant is a bit outdated and will not entice swingers, and it does seem that Dr Sant has given up on the 'modern' and 'neutral' politician image that he based his electioneering on in 1996, when he came to power.

But there was certainly no odd behaviour. He was trying to amuse his audience by making fun of the Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, a sport all politicians indulge in, especially with an election on the cards.

The thing is, politicians are not comedians. They are not very good at making people laugh, when they intend to. None of them are 'funny' when they try to be. Their 'jokes' are only appreciated by the sycophantic.

Dr Sant is an abysmal comedian. However, he looked smart and alert, but he was trying to do a bit of stand-up comedy and failed miserably. That was the mildly embarrassing (for him) element in his performance as seen on the video, certainly nothing "stunned" me as "bizarre".

Now politics is dirty, politicians are drama queens and their spin doctors will give us watered down or exaggerated tales, depending on which side they are spinning for, so we can expect to see more and more outlandish allegations as the election gets closer.

It is therefore up to right thinking people to filter the amount of hogwash we are going to be fed.

If there are serious accusations to be made, which could affect a future leadership of the country, they are not to be 'joked' about.

What's the truth?

The widely acclaimed and highly profitable documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore has come under scrutiny by a British judge, who had to assess whether the film should be shown to schoolchildren.

The online UK Times reported that Mr Justice Barton agreed it could be shown, but on condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views.

The judge "identified nine significant errors within the documentary" while agreeing that Mr Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change.

But how can the documentary have "nine significant errors" and be "broadly accurate"?

He said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration", reported the UK Times.

Mr Justice Barton found that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

He claimed "it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but it is a political film."

I do not remember a partisan bias in the film, but of course it is a political documentary because it is based on a highly political issue and the judge concedes "it is based substantially on scientific research".

Yes, the film is hyped. It is American, for God's sake. Everything is larger than life in the country of Disney World, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Jerry Springer.

Among the untruths listed is the claim that sea levels could rise by 20 feet in the near future. This was dismissed as distinctly alarmist by the judge, who said that such a rise was not in line with the scientific consensus and would take place "only after, and over, millennia".

So will people care now what will happen then?

There was some contradiction in the judge's comments.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro's snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

Yet, he then said: "The melting of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro was mainly attributable to human-induced climate change". So is there a direct link or isn't there?

The judge also said that Mr Gore's suggestion that the Gulf Stream that warms up the Atlantic Ocean would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) assessment that it was "very unlikely" to happen.

So we have a perfect example of spin here. Mr Gore exaggerates to push his point home on climate change and the IPCC waters it down. How ironic that they have both just won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness of the risks of climate change. The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Gore and the IPCC to share the $1.5 million prize from a field of 181 candidates.

The IPCC's "very unlikely" "unlikely" "likely" and "very likely" are as changeable as the climate.

In a report released in Paris last February, a day after the Eiffel Tower was 'switched off' for five minutes, as was the Coliseum in Rome, as a gesture in recognition of global warming, the IPCC said that it would use "stronger language" to assess humanity's influence on climatic change than it had previously done.

From stating that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the problem in 2001, ("likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66 and 90 per cent), it has now progressed to "very likely" (greater than 90 per cent).

At the same time scientist Tim Flannery, voted Australian of the Year, said that the IPCC report grossly underestimates the speed at which global warming is affecting the planet.

Although that report projected rising seas, extreme heatwaves, worsening droughts and stronger hurricanes (repeating Stern's findings) it made no recommendations on actions to slow global warming.

The Stern report last year concluded that unless action is taken to tackle climate change, the world could be plunged into an economic crisis comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Apparently, the controversy of whether An Inconvenient Truth should be shown to British secondary school children all started because a school governor in Kent, also a member of political group the New Party, decried the decision and accused the government of brainwashing children.

Considering that secondary school children can read, and possibly read newspapers and magazines, and that they definitely watch television and surf the Web, where exactly does the brainwashing start?

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com