British Court Rules Gore's Convenient Lie Wrong on 11 Counts

[Solly]

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

You could say we knew it all along.

[Tim_Augustus]

Hey mate - it usually helps your cause when the link you provide doesn't massively contradict your quoted text...

The linked article:

[q=BBC]
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine scientific errors".

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

# Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

# Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

# Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.

Mount Kilimanjaro
Mount Kilimanjaro has had its snow reduce in recent years

"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling would be "embarrassing for Mr Gore" but would not affect the government, which said it was happy that the judge did not dismiss the film's mainstream argument.

But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

He had previously said the updated guidance made "it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film".

Notes to teachers on the guidance, on the government's Teachernet website, say: "An Inconvenient Truth is a film that has had a big impact. Its aim is to make the science and the arguments about global warming and climate change and its effects accessible to all audiences. It also presents a powerful case in favour of one particular type of political response to climate change.

"However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion. This guidance points out, on a scene by scene basis, the areas where further input will be required from teaching staff. This guidance is designed to help teaching staff encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "This is further evidence of the Government being all over the place on climate change.

"Instead of grabbing the first thing they could think of and then shooting it out to schools, the Government should put together a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence."
[/q]

[DRoseDARs]

lol LOL

[Agathon]

Yeah, the anti climate change idiots seem to ignore the fact that the judge found the basic theses of the film entirely correct. But no, the idiot news media has to report it as "Gore wrong!" rather than "Gore mostly vindicated!!"

As I said in the other thread, we need a list of all the climate change deniers and people who effectively slowed down a solution. That way, if the climate changes and the food supply dwindles, we will know who to kill first.

It's like when the Chinese make public officials take responsibility for safety by making them travel on the systems they are responsible for. We need to make people responsible for what they say.

[Patroklos]

How does this in any way change the fact that Gore is wrong, probably lied deliberately in several cases, in his supposedly fact based film?

If Gore's premise is correct, fine, but if there is proof of it that he could have presented instead of the drival he actual put forward he should have.

Academic honestly Agathon, I figured you might be familiar with it

[Dracon II]

As I said in the other thread, we need a list of all the climate change deniers and people who effectively slowed down a solution. That way, if the climate changes and the food supply dwindles, we will know who to kill first.

Maybe we should kill all the Russians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans who, prior to 1989, were telling us that Communism would work? I do hope you're joking there Agathon.

[Dracon II]

If we start trying to censor and gag people for promoting error... we'll end up with a Ministry of Truth. And we all know what that means. Totalitarians always start their work by applying totalitarian solutions 'reasonably'. Like censoring the loonies, or only stripping "teh terrorists" of their rights and dignity as human beings.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dracon II
If we start trying to censor and gag people for promoting error...

Not what I am claiming. I claimed no censorship. People can say what they want... they just ought to be held accountable for what they say.

I am not claiming that we should hold people accountable for honest mistakes.

On the other hand, we should have absolutely no mercy for those who make dishonest "mistakes". It's not like most of the professional climate change deniers actually believe the bull**** they spout. A lot of them are paid shills for carbon emitting industries.

People who deliberately spread bull****, in full knowledge that it is wrong, in an attempt to feather their own nest against the interests of society, should pay a penalty. Unlike people who make honest mistakes, these people are deliberately profiting from misery and mayhem.

The fact that we do nothing about this crap just encourages it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Maybe we should kill all the Russians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans who, prior to 1989, were telling us that Communism would work? I do hope you're joking there Agathon.

Agathon still believes Communism will work

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Agathon still believes Communism will work

Oh I missed this. Of course it will, and if you disagree I'm happy to kick your ignorant American ass again in a debate about it. You are a particularly easy beat.

I can't say that I'm a big fan of the Soviet Union, but please don't let that stop people assuming that I must be, or that I must be a Stalinist. You know, it is perfectly possible to be a communist whilst disagreeing with all examples of communist regimes. Take the Trots for example.

[Arrian]

People who deliberately spread bull****, in full knowledge that it is wrong...

Do you intend to prove this in a court of law before having the ungoodthinkers shot?

I like the idea of accountability, but it strikes me as rather difficult to prove that someone was dishonestly wrong as opposed to honestly wrong.

Unless, of course, one is, say, a communist who doesn't really intend to deal with courts...

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Not what I am claiming. I claimed no censorship. People can say what they want... they just ought to be held accountable for what they say.

I am glad we are in agreement concerning Gore.

[Wezil]

I love the communist excuse/defence for their failed experiments. "They weren't really communists", "They were the wrong type of communists" "It was the dirty Americans fault it failed", etc, etc. It couldn't be that the philosophy is faulty.

[Dinner]

The court did rule that Gore was mostly right and that the movie could be shown to students in the UK as part of their education though the judge took exception to Gore's use of phrases such as "the very near future" et al and ordered students be read a disclaimer to notify them about 9 areas of disagreement.

Honestly, how can you folks spin this into some kind of "climate change isn't real!@!1" sort of thing? That is clearly not what the judge said; the opposite in fact.

[Patroklos]

that the movie could be shown to students in the UK as part of their education...

...with guidence from educators to point out the bull****. It is amazing spin on your part to somehow think this is a victory for Gore's craptacular flick. If there is evidence of your position, and there is, present THAT instead of hyped sensationalism.

Ask yourself, why was the Kent school govenor challenging the film in the first place? What was his actual objection? Did the court agree with his (not your superimposed) objection?