British judge disses Al Gore's award winning movie.

[Abdul Alhazred]

From The Register

Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/)

A UK judge has ruled that schools are allowed to show Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but only if the film is accompanied by guidance highlighting the areas where the ex-vice president of America strays off the scientific terra firma, the BBC reports.

Mr Justice Burton said teachers could show the film, but must highlight nine assertions in the film that are not supported by mainstream scientific consensus, including a claim that polar bears are drowning on long swims between icebergs.

...

Click the link for more details.

I suppose the judge is an oil company stooge?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Did you really just type "disses" unironically?

Nice strawman.

Already in Science Forum.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It's not a science issue, it's a political issue.

[Darth Rotor]

It's not a science issue, it's a political issue.
Some people need that spelled out for them. ;)

DR

[Architect]

OP overlooks the fact that the Judge - it was an English court, btw - supported the underlying thesis that anthropometric warming was real.

[Darth Rotor]

OP overlooks the fact that the Judge - it was an English court, btw - supported the underlying thesis that anthropometric warming was real.
That rather misses the judge's point. The point isn't that the film does not cover a matter of some gravity, it was that its errors detract from its use in an

EDUCATIONAL

setting.

The judge would be the sort who would want to put the E into JREF, as you have done so dutifully on the CT forum. I would think you'd be in accord with the judge's point.

DR

[fagin]

It only seemed to relate to some hyperbole and a few vague facts, the film was considered acceptable overall.
As it will be shown in schools I think this is fair enough, but seems a bit of a petty case to me.

[dudalb]

How dare the Judge question Al The Messiah?
Frankly,the amount of worship that Gore seems to inspire among his supporters is enough to make me cringe,regardless of how right Gore is on the topic.

[Architect]

That rather misses the judge's point. The point isn't that the film does not cover a matter of some gravity, it was that its errors detract from its use in an

EDUCATIONAL

setting.

The judge would be the sort who would want to put the E into JREF, as you have done so dutifully on the CT forum. I would think you'd be in accord with the judge's point.

DR

You're assuming that I disagree with the English judgement. Rather I was just pointing out that the judge had not set aside the underlying message of the film, but instead identified a series of supplementary inaccuracies.

I wonder how the costs got awarded, which is the normal way of telling who the Judge thought won....

[Giz]

You're assuming that I disagree with the English judgement. Rather I was just pointing out that the judge had not set aside the underlying message of the film, but instead identified a series of supplementary inaccuracies.

I wonder how the costs got awarded, which is the normal way of telling who the Judge thought won....

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

from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

[Gurdur]

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


Not good for him then. That kind of judgment shows usually that the judge thought the plaintiff had legally proven his case but was still a real git.

Or IOW Gore hasn't really lost here, not on points.

[damien pastaume]

OP overlooks the fact that the Judge - it was an English court, btw - supported the underlying thesis that anthropometric warming was real.

"The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist."

and:

"The judge said Mr Dimmock has "substantially won" the case. He found 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". These sections cover political indoctrination and the treatment of political issues in schools."

I see nothing in the article stating that the judge "supported the underlying thesis that anthropometric warming was real".

The fact that "the judge had not taken issue with the mainstream arguments in the film" is not support - merely a judgement that those aspects are not in breach of the above act.

[a_unique_person]

From The Register

Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/)



Click the link for more details.

I suppose the judge is an oil company stooge?

Take Kilimanjaro, for example.

http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm



Quote:

And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850). This is Mount Kilimanjaro (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/images/Kilimanjao.Ice.jpg) more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.lthompson.html) studies glaciers (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/lifescience/0,71272-0.html). Here's Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html).
This is happening in Glacier National Park (http://blogs.ya.com/noxxi/files/Resize_of_lake_grinnel_glacier_grinnel_1910_1997_2 .jpg). I climbed to the top of this in 1998 with one of my daughters. Within 15 years this will be the park formerly known as Glacier.
Here is what has been happening year by year to the Columbia Glacier (http://www.geog.utoronto.ca/info/faculty/harveynew_files/images/North%20America/Columbia%20Ice%20Field,%20Jasper%20%28Alberta,%20C anada%29,%201906%20&%201998%28ww.jpg). It just retreats more and more every year. And it is a shame because these glaciers are so beautiful. People who go up to see them, here is what they are seeing every day now.
In the Himalayas (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/asia_pacific/where/nepal/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=23717) there is a particular problem because more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm) from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers. Within this next half century those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a very serious shortage because of this melting.
Italy, the Italian Alps same site today. An old postcard from the Switzerland: throughout the Alps (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/2.stm) we are seeing the same story.
It's also true in South America. This is Peru 15 years ago and the same glacier today.
This is Argentina (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm) 20 years ago, the same glacier today.
75 years ago in Patagonia on the tip of South America, this vast expanse of ice is now gone.

Gore gives examples of eight glacier areas that are retreating due to global warming. The judge rules that one of the eight can't be directly attributed to global warming. What 'balance' is needed there?

[Abdul Alhazred]

OP overlooks the fact that the Judge - it was an English court, btw - supported the underlying thesis that anthropometric warming was real.

So Al Gore is supporting truth with lies?

The warming isn't the issue, it's the "crisis" and what to do about it.

Why should I trust a rich man who is hostile to my existence tell me what to do to "save the planet" and make him richer?

[damien pastaume]

Take Kilimanjaro, for example.

Gore gives examples of eight glacier areas that are retreating due to global warming. The judge rules that one of the eight can't be directly attributed to global warming. What 'balance' is needed there?

Global warming is an established fact. Man-made global warming is not.

That, in essence, is what the judge meant.

[Gurdur]

Global warming is an established fact. Man-made global warming is not.
That, in essence, is what the judge meant.
Really? Please point to exactly where in his judgment the judge said that in any way at all. Go on.
_______

So Al Gore is supporting truth with lies?
Hmmmm, you and I have been through the issue of lies before. Remember? Or IOW who are you to complain?
Why should I trust a rich man who is hostile to my existence
Funny, but of course fallacy of non-truthful hysteria.
tell me what to do to "save the planet" and make him richer?
Got any evidence it's to make him richer? Or was that merely one more non-truth?

[Gurdur]

Global warming is an established fact. Man-made global warming is not.

That, in essence, is what the judge meant.

Total untruthful rubbish. I'm still looking for the full text of the whole judgment, but I've already found this.

Source (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece)

.............Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “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”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

[corplinx]

As much as I hated some aspects of the movie (including a rather tasteless use of hurricane imagery perhaps implying katrina was caused by global warming), I have to say that this judge is silly.

Will we go through every documentary I watched in school and list all of the factual errors or unsupported suppositions in the documentary? For that matter, were we forced to read the errata lists for out textbooks?

Dumb de dumb dumb dumb.

[Gurdur]

As much as I hated some aspects of the movie (including a rather tasteless use of hurricane imagery perhaps implying katrina was caused by global warming), I have to say that this judge is silly.

Will we go through every documentary I watched in school and list all of the factual errors or unsupported suppositions in the documentary? For that matter, were we forced to read the errata lists for out textbooks?

Dumb de dumb dumb dumb.

Heh heh. I'm thinkiong of the War Of 1812 (let alone numerous bloody British history schoolbooks) . Corplinx makes a bloody good point.

[corplinx]

Heh heh. I'm thinkiong of the War Of 1812 (let alone numerous bloody British history schoolbooks) . Corplinx makes a bloody good point.

Exactly. Inconvenient Truth is being singled out here.

[damien pastaume]

Total untruthful rubbish. I'm still looking for the full text of the whole judgment, but I've already found this.

My - we're very excitable, aren't we? Do I detect an agenda?

"The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist."

Does. Not. Exist.

'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda.

Why are you so keen to be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?

Do you enjoy being the target of unelected think-tanks who view you merely as a fool to be exploited, taxed and legislated against?

[geni]

Will we go through every documentary I watched in school and list all of the factual errors or unsupported suppositions in the documentary? For that matter, were we forced to read the errata lists for out textbooks?


If they are sucessfuly challanged in the courts.

[a_unique_person]

So Al Gore is supporting truth with lies?

The warming isn't the issue, it's the "crisis" and what to do about it.

Why should I trust a rich man who is hostile to my existence tell me what to do to "save the planet" and make him richer?

The conspiracy forum is that way.

[Gurdur]

.... Do I detect an agenda?
Only if you're looking in a mirror. Are you?

"The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist."
Does. Not. Exist.
'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda.
This is where you greatly amuse me. :D

Since you're obviously unused to logic, law or science, allow me to illustrate your mistakes.

First: the quote you now put in only refers to whether the retreating snowline on Mt. Kilimanjaro can be attributed to human-induced climate change,

Have you got that? It is a very specific claim, dealing with only Mt. Kilimanjaro's snowline.

Second: That was not your original claim in the first place. To remind you; this is your original claim;
Global warming is an established fact. Man-made global warming is not.
That, in essence, is what the judge meant.
Your claim above is a general claim, not a locally-constrained claim.
And your claim turned out to be wholly untrue.
See the quote and source given in my post just above:
"In particular, he [the judge] agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

So you made a claim that turned out to be wholly untrue. it was a lie. Dearie me. :D

Why are you so keen to be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?
Oooooooooo, look!
Now that your claim was exposed for the lie it was, and that your attempt to shuffle it away was demolished, now you're trying red-herring tactics! Goodness! Who said I am keen to "be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?"
Why, nobody said that! You just threw it in in a completely bogus non sequitur manner! How silly of you!
Do you enjoy being the target of unelected think-tanks who view you merely as a fool to be exploited, taxed and legislated against?
Oh look. :D
Bogus non sequiturs, red herrings, moving the goalposts, fallacious appeals to emotion.
_________

Goodness, this debunking stuff is fun. So nice of people to make detailed claims for once instead of the usual vague rhetorical crap. So easy to demolish, this all was.

My lucky night.
:)

[a_unique_person]

My - we're very excitable, aren't we? Do I detect an agenda?

"The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist."

Does. Not. Exist.

'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda.

Why are you so keen to be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?

Do you enjoy being the target of unelected think-tanks who view you merely as a fool to be exploited, taxed and legislated against?

This link goes into a detailed discussion of tropical glaciers, including Kilimanjaro.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/

In fact evidence does exist. The point is, what proportion of it is attributable in the case of Kilimanjaro. You will also note the seven other glaciers/glacial areas that were mentioned appear to be accepted by the judge as being retreating due to AGW.

[damien pastaume]

Only if you're looking in a mirror. Are you?

Ah. The playground. Such memories!

This is where you greatly amuse me. :D

Since you're obviously unused to logic, law or science, allow me to illustrate your mistakes.

I'll certainly allow you to amuse me......

First: the quote you now put in only refers to whether the retreating snowline on Mt. Kilimanjaro can be attributed to human-induced climate change,

So far, so true.

Have you got that? It is a very specific claim, dealing with only Mt. Kilimanjaro's snowline.

Not only have I 'got it' - I posted it. Do continue..........

Second: That was not your original claim in the first place. To remind you; this is your original claim;

Your claim above is a general claim, not a locally-constrained claim.
And your claim turned out to be wholly untrue.
See the quote and source given in my post just above:
"In particular, he [the judge] agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”[/B]

I never claimed the judge wasn't an idiot - only that there was nothing in the original article supporting the idea that he believed man-made global warming was a reality. I completely and resolutely stick to that conclusion. It is the correct conclusion.

So you made a claim that turned out to be wholly untrue. it was a lie. Dearie me. :D

Dearie me? Dearie you!


Oooooooooo, look!
Now that your claim was exposed for the lie it was

Tee-hee!

and that your attempt to shuffle it away was demolished, now you're trying red-herring tactics!

Something certainly smells very fishy............it smells, in fact, exactly like your premature celebrations.

Goodness! Who said I am keen to "be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?"
Why, nobody said that! You just threw it in in a completely bogus non sequitur manner! How silly of you!

I look forward to witnessing your street protests. Although it seems rather more likely that you will 'cough up' like a good little 'citizen'.

Oh look. :D
Bogus non sequiturs, red herrings, moving the goalposts, fallacious appeals to emotion.

You're scared. Only a chicken would make such ridiculous accusations.
_________

Goodness, this debunking stuff is fun. So nice of people to make detailed claims for once instead of the usual vague rhetorical crap. So easy to demolish, this all was.

You remind me of Renfield. Enjoy your spiders!

My lucky night.
:)

You and me both.

Kissy, kissy.

[damien pastaume]

This link goes into a detailed discussion of tropical glaciers, including Kilimanjaro.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/

In fact evidence does exist. The point is, what proportion of it is attributable in the case of Kilimanjaro. You will also note the seven other glaciers/glacial areas that were mentioned appear to be accepted by the judge as being retreating due to AGW.

I appreciate the civilized tone of your reponse. The retreat of the snow caps of Kilamajaro was one of the big factors in first making me take global warming seriously. At least until I began reading material which made it very hard to believe 'we' were responsible.

A judge is not a climatologist. He gets the same propaganda as all non-climatologists.

When I get a free moment, I'll read your link and give you my honest response.

[a_unique_person]

Deltoid has a comment to make.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php#more



A UK High Court judge has rejected (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html) a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. Justice Burton agreed that
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie.
Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors. Let me name some of the journalists who got it wrong: Sally Peck (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3LC2F1QHTI3MLQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml) in the Daily Telegraph, Nico Hines (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece) in the Times, Mike Nizza (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/british-judge-bruises-al-gores-movie/?hp) in the New York Times, James McIntyre (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3047673.ece) in the Independent, PA (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22571056-663,00.html) in Melbourne's Herald Sun, David Adam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) in the Guardian, Daniel Cressey (http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/10/nine_slaps_on_the_wrist_for_al.html) in Nature, the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm), Mary Jordan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html) in the Washington Post, Marcus Baram (http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1) for ABC News, and (of course) Matthew Warren (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22572081-2702,00.html) in the Australian.
Let's look at what Burton really wrote (my emphasis):
Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.
In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.
If you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part -- Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists' attention. (And yes, that was Bob Carter (http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/) mentioned there.)




So it's a win for Gore. The aim was to get this film banned, and it won't be.



The New Party was behind the funding for the court case, and they were also behind TGGWS.

[Architect]

So it's a win for Gore. The aim was to get this film banned, and it won't be.


Not to doubt the accuracy of the article you quote, and at the risk of being accused of simply stirring it, this wasn't a British or UK case but rather a wholly English one. There have been no legal attempts to bad the film in the other UK legislative regimes, AFAIK.

[Oliver]

deleted

[Big Les]

Not to doubt the accuracy of the article you quote, and at the risk of being accused of simply stirring it, this wasn't a British or UK case but rather a wholly English one. There have been no legal attempts to bad the film in the other UK legislative regimes, AFAIK.

I don't follow. Fair enough that the OP should read "English" rather than "British", but how does this distinction affect the quoted article otherwise? It's not one that would be well understood outside the UK in any case, and the thrust of this story (whichever side you're on) is that a judge in a Western democratic country, decided that;

a) There was no case for banning the film.
b) There were 9 caveats where interpretations were not supported well enough by the evidence.

Regardless of which country and which court the decision was made in, the attempt to ban it failed, and the anti-AGW people are apparently trying to make mileage out of the 9 caveats.

The politics of this issue make my brain hurt.

[Gurdur]

Ah. The playground. Such memories!
.... {various stupid crap snipped} .... I never claimed the judge wasn't an idiot - only that there was nothing in the original article supporting the idea that he believed man-made global warming was a reality. I completely and resolutely stick to that conclusion. It is the correct conclusion.
You lied and you lie. You claimed the judge was saying that man-made global warming was not a fact. It turned out you were extremely easily disproved. You then tried wriggling around and being stupidly childish, seeing as to how your propagandistic dishonesty was shot down in flames.
You're scared.
But you are extremely funny, albeit you don't mean to be. :D
....A judge is not a climatologist. He gets the same propaganda as all non-climatologists.
Come off it, your propaganda and lie were exposed for what they are and now you're retreating faster than Saddam. You were ever so happy to accept the judgment when it looked it might support your case, now you're simply being childish about it because it doesn't.
....I'll .... give you my honest response.
That would certainly be a first.

So: Back to your claim about what the judge was saying. Still want to try sticking to it?
:)

Tell us again, in factual language, what you think the judge was saying. Leave your stupid opinion crap out of it and just do the facts. Can you do that?

[CFLarsen]

If they are sucessfuly challanged in the courts.

Are you sure you don't want to rethink that one?

[pdw709]

Actually the latest scientific thinking is that the retreating ice-cap on Kilimanjaro has NOTHING to do with GW.

I, co-oincidentally this morning, was leafing through the latest copy of "Geoscientest" magazine which is the monthly publication from the Geological Society of London (I am a Geologist in the Petroleum Industry) when I came across this article:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page2522.html

To paraphrase a few lines:

"The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro inspired an iconic Hemingway story, but now its dwindling icecap is being wrongly cited as proof of human-induced global warming"

"Global warming has nothing to do with the decline of Kilimanjaro's ice, and using the mountain in northern Tanzania as a "poster child" for climate change is simply inaccurate. "

"There are dozens, if not hundreds, of photos of mid-latitude glaciers you could show where there is absolutely no question that they are declining in response to the warming atmosphere" says climatologist Philip Mote (University of Washington)."

"But in the tropics – particularly on Kilimanjaro – the processes at work are far different from those that have diminished glacial ice in temperate regions closer to the poles, he believes. "

"Mote and Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck (Austria), write in American Scientist that the decline in Kilimanjaro's ice has been going on for more than a century and that most of it occurred before 1953. Evidence of atmospheric warming there before 1970 is inconclusive. "

Phil

[Abdul Alhazred]

Very cute the implication that anyone was trying to 'ban' the film.

'Not part of the official curriculum' != banned.

A particularly mendacious smear.

[Gurdur]

...A particularly mendacious smear.

Someone using your tactics? Cry plagiarism.

[a_unique_person]

From the judgement.




I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"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. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:
"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions." For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.

[Big Les]

Very cute the implication that anyone was trying to 'ban' the film.

'Not part of the official curriculum' != banned.

A particularly mendacious smear.

Not exactly. AFAIK (in England) it was never intended to form part of the national curriculum. It's up to individual schools (with oversight from local authorities) as to what they use to augment that curriculum (e.g. my history teacher showed us a Blackadder episode!). Some schools were obviously impressed with it and wanted to make use of it. This guy was trying to prevent the film being shown in schools. Thus if the judgement had gone the other way, the film would not have been allowed to be shown in the schools in question. I would say that in context, it would have indeed have been banned.

[a_unique_person]

Very cute the implication that anyone was trying to 'ban' the film.

'Not part of the official curriculum' != banned.

A particularly mendacious smear.



Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film



:)

[Abdul Alhazred]

The conspiracy forum is that way.

In so far as I posit no secret connections, and only base my opinion on what the man does out in the open, I conclude that in this context "conspiracy" == imputing base motives to your little tin Messiah.

Goodness! Al Gore doing well by doing "good". :eek:

[Abdul Alhazred]

:)

But they'd still be able to see the film in the UK, just not at school, right?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Playing games with the phrase "part of the official curriculum", whether it's required or supplimental material.

:rolleyes:

[Gurdur]

Oh, stop whining and whining so much, Abdul. Prove miracles still exist and post something substantive for once instead.

[Big Les]

Playing games with the phrase "part of the official curriculum", whether it's required or supplimental material.

:rolleyes:

Well, I was wrong in my assessment of it FWIW. Having read further I don't think "banning" is the right word to use. I hadn't realised it was an official distribution of the film that was being challenged; the implication of that is that it's officially sanctioned and should be shown to pupils. Even without this, they could watch it elsewhere, individual schools could show it in Geography or Science lessons, and their libraries could still acquire it. So no, Dimmock wasn't trying to ban it.

However, if I strawmanned Dimmock by using the word banned, you did likewise by suggesting that AIT was going to be part of the official curriculum. It wasn't/isn't. Schools, local authorities and individual teachers will decide on whether it's shown or not.

Mind you, I was taught back in 1991 that GW was a reality and AGW also likely, so I think this particular horse has already bolted. There were other documentaries saying much the same thing before AIT came along, and I have little doubt that UK schools have been showing them in the meantime.

[a_unique_person]

But they'd still be able to see the film in the UK, just not at school, right?

Yes, the whole issue was showing it in schools. You've also noted the Judge agrees with the science as presented by the IPCC. Are you ready to do that, too?

[UnrepentantSinner]

My - we're very excitable, aren't we? Do I detect an agenda?

"The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist."

Does. Not. Exist.

'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda.

Why are you so keen to be subject to new and unnecessary taxes and legislation?

Do you enjoy being the target of unelected think-tanks who view you merely as a fool to be exploited, taxed and legislated against?

Someone needs to take his irony meter into the shop. It's clearly not working.

[Abdul Alhazred]

All for now.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95800&page=3