« Racism DecriedBig Development and a Poll »

Verdict: Full of it

That’s a Brit court. The Nobel jury’s still out on the Goracle. Corner:  

While Al Gore is the favorite to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a British court has found that his film is both partisan and contains no fewer than eleven material inaccuracies that need to be drawn to students’ attention if it is going to be shown in schools.  The details will be on Planet Gore soon, but for the moment, you can go to Globalwarming.org for the full embarassing truth.  One would hope that this result will provide impetus for legal challenges to it being shown in schools over here.

Wheels of justice grind slow, but exceedingly inconveniently:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

* 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.

How, you might ask, did the BBC report this? “Judge Backs Gore Film in Schools”

Secondary schools in England are free to show the climate change film by former US Vice-President Al Gore, a High Court judge has confirmed. 

A school governor from Kent had attempted to ban the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in schools, saying it was biased.

But 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.

That sounds more like free with an asterisk. Maybe more like, “Judge Backs Gore Film in Schools as Propaganda Case Study.” 

I scanned the Beeb for the words “false claim,” ”scientific impossibility,” “in fact increasing” and “Greenland will not melt for millenia,” but they appear to be conveniently absent.  “Political” and “indoctrinated” make it in, as part of a quote by the plaintiff, who is strangely unaware that he lost.  His oddly exultant quote comes right before the very end, where Beeb notes that the defeated plaintiff, Mr. Dimmock, is awarded two-thirds of his 200,000-pound legal costs against the government.  

Welcome Catmeat Blairites! You brought your waterwings, I hope. Floaties, if you prefer.  Come on in. Mulling choices: back Bush, or human doo on the doorstep? Please refrain from speculation. If racism is bad, is faux racism worse? I bet this lady could tell those guys what Islamo-fascism is. It’s a question for the ages. Meanwhile, here’s Australia’s own Unconventional Warfare Whizkid.

Topics: warmalism

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:34 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2007

8 Responses to “Verdict: Full of it”

1. tanstaafl Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am

   I’ve had the impression for quite awhile that many Nobel awards have come to be made on the basis of ideological compatibility with the thinking of committee members.

   As opposed to anything more substantive.

   Thus it’s still entirely possible the apple cheeked Goracle will get the prize.

2. The Thunder Run Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm

   Web Reconnaissance for 10/10/2007

   A short recon of what�s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

3. saltydog Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

   They have been degrading the prize for years. It now means nothing substantial, except as a representative of corruption in the intellectual life of the west.

4. MikeH Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   The truth will out about Athropologically induced Global Warming (otherwise known as Climate Change) with tiny bits of info such as this.

5. MikeH Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

   Errata: Anthropologically rather than Athropologically.

   I used to know how to spell, but I’ve since surmounted that obstacle to effective communications. I kan cummunikate reel gud now.

6. Vanguard of the Commentariat Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

   wach owt mik, u’l git stuk in irak!

7. MikeH Says:
   October 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

   I tryed to go but I cudnt tell them whut happened after 1960 ‘n they sed I wuz to old. We now return you to your regular programing. :D

8. davidp Says:
   October 11th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

   From the judgement http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

   The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC: (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (”climate change”); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (”greenhouse gases”); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects
   These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.