UK Court: Al Gore lies
October 9th, 2007
| Tags:
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.How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
* 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. newsbusters
Temperatures here in Victoria are just returning to normal after Al Gore’s short stop to tell more lies and show his resoundingly inaccurate bit of alarmist propoganda.
You failed to mention that the judge quite clearly expressed that the movie won’t be banned from schools, as Dimmock demanded, because the detected errors were minor in nature and that the movie contains four messages that are very well and truthfully documented: That climate change is made by man, that temperatures will rise further, that the climate change will have bad consequences and that it is possible for governments and individuals to do something about it.
I would hope that no film or book was banned from a school. We can learn a great deal from error and propaganda provided that it is correctly labeled.
As for your other points:
1. That climate change is made by man.
Only in the sense that people like Mann faked things like the “hockey stick” graph. More seriously, there is certainly some evidence that man may have something to do with climate change but the mechanism for such effect and its magnitude are not at all well understood.
2. “That temperatures will rise further”
That is certainly possible. Solar output is on the upswing, there are long cycles in temperature which are not well understood but may cause temperature to rise. Conversely, there are lots of indications that temperature will continue its current trend downward. And you would do well to look at how the general idea that temperature is rising has arisen. Fair number of biased data manipulations and extrapolations – I would be very cautious in asserting much about the trend and magnitude of global temerature change.
3. “that the climate change will have bad consequences”
Possibly. Or it may be benign or insignificant. Warmer winters reduce death rates from cold. Longer growing seasons can increase food yields.
4. “that it is possible for governments and individuals to do something about it.”
Not really. Or at least cost effectively. If climate change is not entirely man made – as I believe the science is beginning to show – then obviously there is not a lot gov’t or individuals can do about it. Can’t turn down the Sun.
But even if a portion is man made the question is what the trade offs are. What is avoiding a 40cm sea level rise worth? What is avoiding a degree temperature rise over the next century worth? Is it worth killing literally millions of children who are alive today and might be alive tomorrow if we spend our money on malaria nets rather than carbon sequestration?
Plus, and sorry to burst your bubble, at the rate China and India are industrializing – mainly using coal fired electricity to do so – any savings the West might make will be overwhelmed more or less before they are made.