backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Oct 19 at 6:00 AM


Al Gore shown in a scene from "An Inconvenient Truth".
High Court ruling says film contains key scientific errors; breaches education law

Al Gore's controversial documentary on climate change, which earlier this year had been distributed to all secondary schools in England, has been judged unfit for viewing by students.  The United Kingdom High Court ruling found the film as "representing partisan political views," a conclusion which means it can legally only be shown if accompanied by a warning about political indoctrination.

The case was brought by Kent school governor Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film was politically partisan, and contained serious scientific inaccuracies.  Dimmock's lawyers argued that showing the film was an attempt at "political brainwashing" of pupils and is in breach of the 2002 Education Act.

After hearing testimony from both sides, the High Court agreed, calling the film "alarmist and exaggerated".  The ruling labelled nine specific points as factual errors in the documentary:

  1. Sea levels may rise "up to 20 feet" in the near future.
  2. Low-lying Pacific Atolls have already been evacuated.
  3. There is an exact fit between CO2 rises and past increases in the Earth's temperature.
  4.  The Gulf Stream will shut down due to global warming.
  5. Climate Change is causing Lake Chad to dry up.
  6. The snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to Global Warming.
  7. Climate change is causing widespread bleaching of coral reefs.
  8. Hurricane Katrina blamed on Global Warming.
  9. Polar bears are drowning due to inability to find arctic ice.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, said the errors identified in the ruling are just the tip of the iceberg. "The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science. Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science," Taylor added.

A spokesman for the UK Government declined comment.  However, prior to the ruling, Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was "crucial" to developing a long-term public view on the environment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/2007 5:12:28 PM , Rating: 4
Michael,

Isn't it rather convenient that you left out another, rather significant part of the judges ruling?

Let me quote the judge:
quote:
climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’)

You either accept the judgment or not. If you pick out certain parts of it and leave out others, you're doing no different than Al Gore was when he misused research to further his own view.




RE: Left something out?
By porkpie on 10/11/2007 5:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
The judge simply based his ruling off the official IPCC position, which itself is nothing but a biased, political process. Gore, however, took that biased position and inflated it into sheer, lunatic fantasy.

Thank god for at least a little bit of rational thought in the British legal system.


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/2007 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, I realize that its not up to the judge to determine what is really the cause of global warming, etc.

However, I find Michael's reporting to be no different from Al Gores. He's selecting only parts of the judgment that support his claim, while ignoring everything else which contradicts his view.

Unless he holds himself to the same standard as Al Gore or George Bush when he's pushing his own goal, but that's not saying much.


RE: Left something out?
By porkpie on 10/11/2007 5:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's selecting only parts of the judgment that support his claim
The only 'claim' I see in this story is that An Inconvenient Truth was judged unfit for viewing in British schools, a statement that you and I both agree is correct.


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/2007 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree it is unfit as an "educational" movie.

My entire problem is that the story on DT (unlike all other stories I've read on this subject on news sites, and there's quite a few of those) is presented without giving a full account of the judge's position.

The judge did not disagree with the main premise of the movie. He disagreed with certain claims that were made in it, and requested that this is pointed out to students as they watch the movie.

We both know that if Michael presented the Judge's decision in full, it would contradict Michael's view on global warming.


RE: Left something out?
By Oregonian2 on 10/11/2007 6:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
Title is that it was judged unfit, and this article listed reasons why it was judged so. That seems perfectly reasonable. It wasn't an article about global warming, it was about Gore's political film.


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/2007 6:29:40 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the ruling was that the movie was judged unfit to show without supplementary information provided by the teacher.

The man who sued the government sued to ban the movie from schools. The judge did not fully agree with him, because the judge considered there to be valid arguments being made in the movie.

Michael presented only the judge's conclusions against the movie, while ignoring the arguments that the judge used to allow the movie to be shown in schools.

It is simply not a full account of the judge's decision.


RE: Left something out?
By NullSubroutine on 10/11/2007 10:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The United Kingdom High Court ruling found the film as "representing partisan political views," a conclusion which means it can legally only be shown if accompanied by a warning about political indoctrination.


He indicated that it Court decided it couldn't be shown without above disclaimer. So I don't see how he was ignoring arguements.


RE: Left something out?
By clovell on 10/11/2007 5:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a link to where you pulled that quote from?


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/2007 5:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law...

I couldn't find the full transcript anywhere. Either its not crawlable or the UK doesn't publish them on the web... or I'm not very good at searching. :)


RE: Left something out?
By clovell on 10/11/2007 6:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, thanks. It seems the judge really walked the line on the verdict there. While I am a little disappointed at the concessions the judge made, I don't think it is his job to critique IPCC findings, so I can see why he made them.


RE: Left something out?
By pliny on 10/13/2007 1:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Left something out?
By Keeir on 10/11/2007 6:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You either accept the judgment or not. If you pick out certain parts of it and leave out others, you're doing no different than Al Gore was when he misused research to further his own view.


Whether the judge agrees or disagress that greenhouse gases is not the important issue.

At issue is that Al Gore's film made several claims to which there was no scientific backing. The judge in his statement is simply refering to the fact that there is actual scientific papers and studies that conclude that manmade global warming exists. Not whether these papers are good science or "correct" science.

M. Asher notes the ruling concerned nine specific instances (and lists them) where the film has no direct scientic factual support (not ruling that global warming does not cause the nine points). One could reasonably assume and should assume the judge found nothing wrong with the rest of the film. Ergo, failing to mention the agreement is not a serious breech since nothing in the article implied the judge found any issues with the scientific support of the rest of the movie.


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Left something out?
By Oregonian2 on 10/11/2007 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the topic was the judgement of the film being unfit, Michael wasn't judging the film. He presented a list of things that justified the judge's action. That action was the subject, not global warming.


RE: Left something out?
By Murst on 10/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Left something out?
By Keeir on 10/11/2007 6:54:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You can continue to believe that Michael presented the Judge's full judgement.


Absolutely no one is saying that.

What I am saying is that you take a rather small omission and start a personal attack.

If I were to publish a textbook, and it contained an error... I would expect the story to be, Textbook found with Error! since the assumption is that the textbook was published correctly. I wouldn't expect there to be explicit coverage that the rest of the textbook was without error (since again, the primary purpose of a textbook is to relay verifiable knowledge) and the reasonable assumption of a reader would be the rest of the book was found without error.


RE: Left something out?
By Strunf on 10/12/2007 2:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Small omission? Masher posted something completely biased... the same Judge would probably force Mash to put a warning about political indoctrination...

About your text book example, propaganda works just like that you post a whole book or whatever with verifiable knowledge while completing omitting what doesn't suit you...


RE: Left something out?
By Keeir on 10/12/2007 3:17:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Small omission? Masher posted something completely biased... the same Judge would probably force Mash to put a warning about political indoctrination...


The omission is very minor.

Get over it. The judge in this case was not ruling on the legitimacy of science, but rather on whether Al Gore's film was a documentary summery of current science or not. The statement ommited was the Judge said the IPCC was a legitimate science organization. Note, the judge specially stated that for some of the nine points, NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER exists, even extremely poor ones, that comes to the conclusions. Thats the story. Al Gore took science and stretched it to the breaking point to create spin while portraying it as a factucal documentary of science.

Again, it this issue was not a political issue, no one would be concerned with the omission of the judge's entire statement. Certain people feel the need to "stay on target" with the message of global warming.

Now that Al Gore's camp has offically responded, that would be an appropriate thing to include. IE the response to the inaccuracies found.


RE: Left something out?
By Strunf on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Left something out?
By Keeir on 10/12/2007 4:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny... again omission is the greatest tool of the propaganda masters, and yet here you are trying to make it slide like a mistake on the author side.


I am not. It was not a mistake because journalistically the addition of a statement saying that the judge did not find fault with the rest is not needed in this post. By listing each and every one of the 9 mistakes/errors where the judge rules Gore did not have sufficent scientific backing, the rest of the film was found to not contain places of significant error in repersentation of scientific finds. No specific statement needs to be made.

However, if you feel that

"BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling ... But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change."

and

"Then-Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long-term public view on the environment."

A statement is very important, because any questing of man-made global warming would be "wrong" or "distracting" from the real issue of forcing people to vote green.

Omission is a powerful tool. Not the greatest though certainly. The question is was whether something significant was omitted.

Most main stream media don't list the 9 specific errors. Thats a pretty serious omission. Most mainstream media does not allow the plaintiff to make a statement but gets significant Gore/UK government/Pro-AGW opinion writers reactions...


RE: Left something out?
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 9:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Strunf, why are you ignoring the message and attacking the messenger? The important point here is that most of the film was judged to be pure fiction. Does that mean every single point in the film is incorrect? No, but it means its not nearly accurate enough to be used to teach children.


RE: Left something out?
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 10:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
The judge ruled no such thing according to the AP article regarding this case http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21103729/
For instance "Judge says Gore film 'broadly accurate,' but lists nine problems with claims". Moreover, the UK government has already revised the written guidance in accordance with the ruling and so the judge has already stated that "With the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown" (although it seems he's not much of a fan of showing it).


RE: Left something out?
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 11:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance "Judge says Gore film 'broadly accurate,' but lists nine problems with claims
The AP, of course, gets it wrong. The judge says no such thing, which the link to the full judgement elsewhere in this thread reveals.

What the judge DID say is that the film's "central premise" (that climate change exists and is being influenced by mankind) was "broadly accurate". but that the film contained many significant errors and omissions, to the point that the film became a vehicle intended to promote a political viewpoint, and so, without warning notes, should not be shown to children.


RE: Left something out?
By pliny on 10/13/2007 1:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
The judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/228...
In Para 22:
quote:

# I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

seems to be what the AP is saying. I've talked about the judge's limited criticism of the nine specific matters below.


RE: Left something out?
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 5:24:55 AM , Rating: 4
Of course you have trouble. You desperately want to believe that people are behind global warming, that all scientists support global warming, that Al Gore is a hero for raising these issues.

We all know that Michael Asher wants to encourage debate on global warming. That meaning, he wants to challenge the consensus on it. To that end, he has a number of factual arguments supporting his position.

However, that isnt the issue here. This has nothing to do with global warming, or mashers position on it. It has everything to do with a politician using people's fear of global warming to his own ends. The movie is not factual enough for educational purposes, and that is the sole aim of this article. My cousin wanted me to see this movie, and when she had, she was taken in hook line and sinker. Shes in her 30's. And thats the whole point. How easy would it be to indoctrinate a child?

If you really care about both the planet and scientific integrity, you would condemn things like this. A politician is misrepresenting science for his own ends! If you really care, you would make sure this kind of thing doesnt happen. Make sure that science is unbiased and fair. Make sure it isnt used for the wrong reasons - for indoctrination.


RE: Left something out?
By Strunf on 10/12/2007 2:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
Let me laugh... Masher doesn’t want to discuss anything have you ever seen him concede a point? he never did and it won't happen... till the end of time.

How easy would it be to indoctrinate a child with this movie? Far harder than indoctrinate a whole nation about something when all the major media corporations are on your side… actually it’s not with just a movie that kids will see once that you indoctrinate them, for that you need to keep repeating it all day long and I doubt it will/does happen. What camp has the biggest share in terms of media highlight?...


RE: Left something out?
By onelittleindian on 10/12/2007 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How easy would it be to indoctrinate a child with this movie?
Pretty easy, according to the judge in this case.

quote:
What camp has the biggest share in terms of media highlight?...
The pro-GW camp, by far. Any other questions?


RE: Left something out?
By Strunf on 10/12/2007 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
"Pretty easy, according to the judge in this case."
Yeah but this judge also supports the GW and yet not a word about it, so where do you stand is his opinion valuable to you or not?

"The pro-GW camp, by far."
Not if you look to DT... let along CNN and others major news channels.


RE: Left something out?
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 3:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the judge does sound convinced in AGW after watching the movie, but kudos to him/her because he/she did their job anyway and reached the right conclusions despite the personal views and bias. It is as it should be.


RE: Left something out?
By Keeir on 10/12/2007 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
The mainstream media has spun the story to indicate the judge supports manmade global warming. So they "stay on message".

However, the judge was not ruling on the science. The science was not considered to be accurate or inaccurate. The judge was ruling if there was enough scientific papers to support points that Al Gore presented as being "science fact".
Last I checked, most judges are lawyers/law degree trained. They are usually smart enough not to pretend to be sciencists.


A Scientist's view
By PhD2 on 10/12/2007 12:46:38 AM , Rating: 5
Unlike some of the folks here, I saw the film. I've also seen some of the studies. The problem that most non-scientists have with films like this is that they fully expect science to give a definate answer. Well I'm sorry science never deals in certainties. Lets look at the points that were listed as 'false'
- Sea levels may rise "up to 20 feet" in the near future.
Hard evidence shows that sea levels are rising faster than almost any of the current models predict. Some of the models DO predict a 20 foot rise. Historically sea levels have been more than 45 feet higher than they are not, so 20 feet isn't much of a shock.

- Low-lying Pacific Atolls have already been evacuated.
They showed film clips of this in the movie. Hard to argue with. No one in the film claimed the evacuation was permanant.

- There is an exact fit between CO2 rises and past increases in the Earth's temperature.
Mr. Gore was wrong on this one. Granted he was pointing to the chart which showed a strong long term correlation; but the phrase 'exact fit' is at best literary license.

- The Gulf Stream will shut down due to global warming.
Most of the models do agree with this prediction. However, it is a prediction and not an established fact.

- Climate Change is causing Lake Chad to dry up.
- The snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to Global Warming.
- Climate change is causing widespread bleaching of coral reefs.
All three of these can be attributed in significant part to rising surface sea level changes. Our weather is largely driven by the oceans. If you accept that the sea temperature rise is due to global warming and you further agree that human activities are contributing to global warming then we're indirectly at fault for these changes. To his credit, Mr. Gore states his case with exactly these caviots. He then presents compelling although not conclusive circumstantial evidence for his case.

- Hurricane Katrina blamed on Global Warming.
Don't blame this one on Gore. He says that some people even think that Katrina was due to Global Warming. He then says that you really can't tell anything about an individual weather event. However, he states hots oceans can be expected to lead to more powerful storms. (he's right about that). He's also right that we're seeing more storms than we used to - may just be better storm detection.

- Polar bears are drowning due to inability to find arctic ice.
Well, we know that there is 30% less ice floating on the ocean than there was 100 years ago. And we know that ships are reporting more drowned polar bears. Is his point proven? No. But it's a reasonable conclusion.




RE: A Scientist's view
By Murst on 10/12/2007 1:53:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Most of the models do agree with this prediction.


Saw an interesting story today... I guess these models really aren't that accurate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/11/94854/280

Guess we were wrong about global warming after all.


RE: A Scientist's view
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 6:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well I'm sorry science never deals in certainties


Statistics doesnt deal in absolute certainties, only likelihoods.

Computer Science? Mathematics? Most parts of physics and chemistry? Its not certain that a ball is attracted to our earth, under a force known as gravity?


RE: A Scientist's view
By PhD2 on 10/12/2007 8:07:29 AM , Rating: 4
My PhD is in elementary particle physics and I taught as a visiting professor in the computer science and engineering department at Notre Dame for several years, so I'll work with those two examples that you provided. One of the surprising things that I would tell my students is the best theories in Physics are often the ones that have been disproven. That normally gets them to sit up and pay attention. I then 'accidently' tip a small bag of apples off the edge of my desk while flipping up an overhead slide with the phrase 'Newton was wrong - A. Einstein'.

The point I'm making is that Newton's law of gravitation was incomplete and it was only when we had Einstein's theory in hand that we fully understood where it was safe to work with Newton's version and where we had to discard it. Until we truly understand the theory of everything, our knowledge and theories will be less than 100% accurate.

Computer Science and Mathematics are logic systems. Many of these have built in internal consistancy -- the sum of two positive numbers will always be positive, etc. However, other logic systems work purely in terms of probabilities. These systems while not exact are great for working with natural systems which tend to involve an incredible number of varibles.

Let me switch tracks for a moment and talk about the issues of global warming is it human caused, and is it 'bad'.

The short answers are most likely yes and yes.

The truth is that many factors contribute to global warming. But science would be in a real pickle if the amount of carbon and other compounds that we've tossed into the air were not having an effect. Scientists really love the 'cause and effect' model of events. If we see a strong 'cause' or 'push' on a system in rough equilibrium (like the climate) and don't see an 'effect' it worries us. In this case, we do see the changes we'd expect, we're just arguing about the size of the effect.

Is it bad? Probably in some ways yes and others no. Certainly if sea levels rise, folks on the current coast line are going to see declining property values as their homes become submerged. Other the other hand, folks who used to live inland and who will now have beach front property will see a rise in property value. On a more global level, certain countries are almost entirely less than 20 feet above sea level. Those people are going to want to move and the folks in the adjoining countries may not want them. Finally, there is a tremendous amount of frozen methane buried in shallow waters off the coast of many countries including the USA. If the water above these deposits warms then this methane will come bubbling up. Its a strong green house gas itself. Worse, it displaces O2 which makes it hard for the ocean critters to live. When it makes it up to the air, it makes it hard for us to live. Similar gas belchs have occurred in volcanic lakes which then rolled downhill and killed entire villages. Imagine the same thing happening to large sections of the gulf coast. No body is predicting this. To do so would be alarmist. But the potential is there and the probability that this scenerio could play out is no where near zero.

So yes, I'd say the smart thing to do is to error on the side of caution and treat Global Warming as a real problem.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.


RE: A Scientist's view
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 9:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure global warming is "most likely" human caused? You didn't state how you reached that conclusion.

I agree that global warming will have an effect on many species, including humans. But that is really no different than the situation that has always existed on Earth since the beginning of life. In other words, it's normal, not something to be alarmed by. In addition, since human activity cannot stop it, we should instead focus on adapting to the changes, if we see significant risks associated with those changes. And that's a big "if."


RE: A Scientist's view
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 9:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "My PhD is in elementary particle physics and I taught as a visiting professor in the computer science and engineering department "

This is the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority".

> "The point I'm making is that Newton's law of gravitation was incomplete "

Exactly. Newton's laws are best described as incomplete, not "wrong". They proved themselves to have strong predictive powers and are actually extremely accurate in the realm for which they apply.

Contrast that with global climate models, which have utterly failed to ever predict future (or indeed, past) changes in climate.

> "certain countries are almost entirely less than 20 feet above sea level"

You're ignoring the fact that even the IPCC itself is only predicting a ~25 centimeter rise in sea levels. And, even if one does accept an anthropogenic cause for global warming, most of that rise would occur in any case. Sea levels have been rising since the earth came out of the last ice age.

> "science would be in a real pickle if the amount of carbon and other compounds that we've tossed into the air were not having an effect."

I don't know where you get this. By far the vast majority of GHG emissions are natural in origin (some 97-97.5% of all CO2, for instance). Substantial evidence now exists that CO2 levels begin to rise naturally as the earth warms, and thus the rise we're now seeing may be primarily natural in origin.

Additionally, there's substantial evidence to show that CO2's forcing factor saturates easily. It absorbs only in a narrow band of the infrared and, once levels reach a

Previous columns here have demonstrated research showing CO2's forcing factor may *already* be saturated, and still other research showing its less than half a degree from maximum forcing effect.


RE: A Scientist's view
By clovell on 10/12/2007 11:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
I generally defer to someone with more letters behind their name, and you make a good point. I'd just like to add to the following comment:
quote:
If we see a strong 'cause' or 'push' on a system in rough equilibrium (like the climate) and don't see an 'effect' it worries us. In this case, we do see the changes we'd expect, we're just arguing about the size of the effect.
But, you're not seeing causes. You're seeing correlation. I work with this stuff everyday as a statistician. Observational experiments, by nature, have a very difficult time showing causation.

Now, I understand you're worried. It makes sense that for every effect there is a cause. My field uses randomness to model uncertainty in complex systems, and we don't doubt that cause and effect, rather than sheer numerical voodoo are what's actually going on. The problem is, that in complex systems that cannot be controlled, it's near impossible to show causation. The best you can do is show correlation and then allow the arrow of time to work out the order and imply causation.

With climate change, there are many factors to consider. Of course all the things you stated are possible. Your point that we should be cautious is not without merit. However, the situation is delicate, as deciding against or in favor of AGW has its own ramifications.

In this situation, though, causation is integral. Without showing that humans have been a significant cause of Global Warming, there's not much we can do about it. Personally, I think the smart thing to do is to continue to be critical of AGW as more data pour in. The mere fact that we're conducting studies, debating them, and actually seeing preliminary data has worked to make many of us more aware of the potential problem. By continuing to leave the debate open, I think everyone wins.


RE: A Scientist's view
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 7:01:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Guess we were wrong about global warming after all.

You're being sarcastic, but I think you're actually just practicing for the point in time when AGW gets disproved. It will be a sorrowful day for people like you. :o)

One question, where's the proof that "man" caused the excursion on that graph? Another question, what's the harm that will come due to that change?

As I'm sure you must realize by now, the debate is not whether global warming is happening, it's whether it's caused by "man" and whether it's effects are really any problem at all.

One final comment: most climate models seem to be complete garbage - not worth the CPU cycles they consumed. Creating an entire system of fear based on these models is practically insane, especially when climate change is the norm, not the exception.


RE: A Scientist's view
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 9:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "Hard evidence shows that sea levels are rising faster than almost any of the current models predict"

No. The evidence is that sea levels continue to rise 2-3 mm/year, the same as they've been doing since at least 1850.

> "Most of the models do agree with this [Gulf Stream]prediction"

On the contrary, none of the major GCMs show the Gulf Stream shutting down entirely as Gore claimed. There are some that predict a slight slowdown, but that's a far different matter.

> "They showed film clips of [island evacuations] in the movie. Hard to argue with"

Easy to argue with, as the people "evacuated" were from a small village in Vanuatu. The island itself wasn't evacuated -- the villagers simply moved to higher ground on the same island, and the "evacuation" had nothing to do with global warming. They left because their low-lying village was continually being swamped by tropical cyclones.

> "Don't blame [Katrina] on Gore"

Gore's the one who chose to include that tidbit in the film, despite the fact that no serious hurricanologist believes the claim.

> "However, he states hots oceans can be expected to lead to more powerful storms. (he's right about that). "

This ignores not only the models that imply the exact opposite, as well as the direct evidence that land-falling storms have actually decreased over the past 100 years.

> "And we know that ships are reporting more drowned polar bears."

The judge found only one credible report of 4 "drowned polar bears" and that was due to a major storm, not the absence of ice. The fact is that polar bear populations are actually increasing, an inconvenient fact Gore didn't mention.

> "All three of these can be attributed in significant part to rising surface sea level changes"

No. Lake Chad has been drying up since (at least) the 1850s. Several studies have put the blame on local water use and grazing factors, not global warming. The same is true for Kilimanjaro; studies have demonstrated clearly its due to local factors.


RE: A Scientist's view
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: A Scientist's view
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 11:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
A couple decades from now, the documentaries winning Oscars will be the ones claiming scientists never really predicted global warming in the first place, and therefore we shouldn't hold that against the next great environmental scare-story...whatever it may be.


RE: A Scientist's view
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 11:59:35 AM , Rating: 1
The next oscar winning documentary will be made by an aspiring politician who wants to highlight how dangerous global cooling can be.

or, ironically, how we were all misled 20 years earlier, and we should therefore not put our trust in science.


RE: A Scientist's view
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 2:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. Lake Chad has been drying up since (at least) the 1850s. Several studies have put the blame on local water use and grazing factors, not global warming. The same is true for Kilimanjaro; studies have demonstrated clearly its due to local factors.


Can you point to anything that backs up those statements? I've heard the Killimanjaro bit before, but haven't seen any scientific data backing it up.


RE: A Scientist's view
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 2:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one study on Kilimanjaro, which points to drier air as the culprit behind its receding icecap:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/kas...

And a link to a story from Nature, which blames that drier air on deforestation around the base of the mountain:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.environment/...


RE: A Scientist's view
By Keeir on 10/12/2007 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 3
Killmanjaro was studied by a team of scientists from the University of Innsbruck, Otago, and Massachusetts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6561527.stm

A news article that summerizes thier findings. The discovered the primary cause of retreating ice is lack of moisture. Global temperature rising itself would not cause significant falls in Ice.

As to Lake Chad, just read the wikipedia entry. Lake Chad is an extremely shallow lake which means even small changes in percipitation, water uses, or evaporation due to local temperature can have extreme effects. Here is a link to a National Geographic article in 2001
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/04...
and even an old NASA goddard news release
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/environ/lakech...

Both conclude that a dry climate that started in the 1960s (reducing input and increasing output) and an increasing usage of water for irragation (reducing input and increasing output again) are the primary factors in the Lake's dramatic shrinkage since 1973

There is little evidence (none that I have ever discovered) that point to an increasing temperature or imbalance in climate over the past 20 years as a major source of reducing in size of Lake Chad although this may and certainly is a factor.

Humans are destroying Lake Chad, but moving humans away from the region would help much more significantly that reducing CO2.



Glad I don't live there.
By Misty Dingos on 10/11/2007 3:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was "crucial" to developing a long-term public view on the environment.


This has got to be one of the most frightening things I have seen quoted by someone in a position in power. Obviously the truth means nothing to the Education Indoctrinator er, sorry Education Secretary.




RE: Glad I don't live there.
By SirLucius on 10/11/2007 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Shouldn't we be teaching children to question the world around them and base their decisions off of reason and facts? Molding them to develop a "long-term public view" of just about anything is wrong in my opinion. Turning children into sheep is not helpful to anyone.


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By RubberJohnny on 10/12/2007 12:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
True that, and yet some schools still have religion classes !?!?


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
That's a good point. Religion is one of the most unscientific things in the world, where you are taught to go on 'faith'. I have a thing that I say everyday that is my catchline: Faith distorts reality!

It's time to realize that religion is the cause of 99% of the problems on this planet, including this alarmist global warming thing. Why? Because the Christians and others want to believe that an "apocalypse" is coming and that 'god' is magically going to fix the earth.

They don't want to believe that the earth is not broken and that..... well, the only things that are broken about it the religionists have made broken because they won't do things that would benefit all mankind, like putting lots of funding into finding STD cures and vaccines, realizing that no sexualities are 'mental illnesses' but are totally normal, and realizing that the time on this earth is all you get and there is just a 180 back into another body on this planet when you die, so you had better start trying to make this world into a paradise!


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no sexualities are 'mental illnesses' but are totally normal

No, sex with children is not normal for example, and such desires played out are clearly the result of a mental problem, in addition to having long-term negative effects for those who are victimized as a result.

Again, I'm hoping for a special place in he11 for child sexual predators.


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By jabber on 10/11/2007 3:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well for once I'm glad I do live there.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make a point but all the courts have done is challenge some of the 'alarmist' factors the film stated as fact, when there was no basis/truth in it.

Just because its on film and presented by a politician (got the hint yet) doesnt mean its all true.

If we give over to the 'global warming hysteria' without taking the odd break to just think about things and challenge some of them, who knows where we'll end up.


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By Ringold on 10/11/2007 6:48:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This has got to be one of the most frightening things I have seen quoted by someone in a position in power.


You must not listen to Hillary very much? :)

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

"The unfettered free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation."

"Other developed countries…are more committed to social stability than we have been, and they tailor their economic policies to maintain it."

"Too many people have made too much money."

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe."

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people"

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power"

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."

"We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Regarding taxes)

Or how about this high-brow jewel to a State Trooper:

"Fuck off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too! Just do your god damn job and keep your mouth shut."

And.. I just can't let it go without three anti-Hillary quotes:

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Rand

"'Fair' is in the eye of the beholder; free is the verdict of the market. (The word 'free' is used three times in the Declaration of Independence and once in the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with 'freedom.' The word 'fair' is not used in either of our founding documents.)" - Friedman


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By smitty3268 on 10/12/2007 12:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Is that you Rudy?

Hillary sucks!!! 9/11 !!!


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 7:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
Those quotes of Hillary are pretty damning, though, you must admit, since they contradict many widely-held American beliefs. Unless you are a socialist, then these quotes probably sound pretty good.


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By jak3676 on 10/12/2007 3:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is that the pro-Hillary crowd won't even see them as damning. They'd have no problem in agreeing that free markets are a bad thing.

You can't shame the shameless


RE: Glad I don't live there.
By Ringold on 10/12/2007 3:23:51 PM , Rating: 4
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

-McCain


The judgment
By pliny on 10/12/2007 10:23:47 AM , Rating: 3
is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/228... .

It doesn't say the film is unfit for schools. It doesn't require a warning about political indoctrination. In fact, it endorses the current distribution procedure. And it doesn't label any factual errors. It does raises 9 matter, and in introducing them, the judge says:
quote:

# 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.

The 'Errors'

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
...


He actually never refers to them as errors except in quotes, and the quotes relate to the fact that the complainant had referred to them in that way.




RE: The judgment
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's hard to reconcile with the original entry. Ouch!


RE: The judgment
By clovell on 10/12/2007 2:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for finding the judgement. It is interesting that the judge uses quotes around the word error. It seems more to me that he is trying to keep his feet out of science and firmly within law than he is trying to make a statement about the errors.


RE: The judgment
By clovell on 10/12/2007 2:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant's agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application, save in relation to costs, on which I shall hear Counsel.
The judge clearly indicates that in its current form, the film is not, under law, fit to be distributed. The defense conceded to make the appropriate alterations, and , as aresult, the film is now good-to-go.


RE: The judgment
By pliny on 10/12/2007 6:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
He says that, since the defendant has modified the Guidance note etc, the film can be distributed and he doesn't need to make an order. There's a suggestion that he might have made an order in the original circumstances, but he doesn't explicitly say so.


RE: The judgment
By pliny on 10/12/2007 6:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, mea culpa - I guess he is pretty explicit in the section M Asher quotes below.


RE: The judgment
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "It doesn't require a warning about political indoctrination. In fact, it endorses the current distribution procedure"

No. Let me quote from your link:
quote:
I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website ...The Defendant does not intend now to continue with the old position, but has already amended the Guidance Note on the website, and stands ready to distribute it in hard copy...

I am satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the more one-sided views of Mr Gore, and, to some extent, by silence in the Guidance Note , those views were adopted, or at any rate discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was given), there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated...In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant's agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application
The defendant (the U.K. Government) made changes to the guidance notes for the film, and agreed to distribute those with the film. The judge deemed that suffiicient.


RE: The judgment
By pliny on 10/12/2007 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is very different from your headline "ruled unfit for British schools". And there is no indication that the guidance note is a warning about political indoctrination.


RE: The judgment
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 9:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its the same thing. Even the stories in the British papers said the same -- the film needs a warning about political indoctrination.


RE: The judgment
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2007 2:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "And it doesn't label any factual errors"

Both misleading and incorrect.

From your link, Par. 25: "the Armageddon scenario [Gore] predicts...is not in line with the scientific consensus."

Par. 26: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened"

Par. 28: " the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."

Par. 29: " it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. "

Par. 30: "The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing"

Par. 31: "Hurricane Katrina...is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. "

Par. 32: "[The scientific study quoted by Gore] plainly does not support Mr Gore's description."

As for the judge never using the word error except in quotes, that statement is wrong as well. Look at paragraph 19 for just one example:

quote:
However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis...


RE: The judgment
By pliny on 10/12/2007 7:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
The judge says that "It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions", and on the occasion when he did drop the quotes about "error", he qualified to say that he meant "departures from the mainstream". He does seem to say that he thinks these 9 points are not sufficiently established, but he doesn't label them "factual errors". And he does say, elsewhere,
quote:
# I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."


Mainstream Coverage
By Keeir on 10/11/2007 3:44:26 PM , Rating: 6
Link to the BBC story

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

A little more detail on the judge's rational is documented.




RE: Mainstream Coverage
By Keeir on 10/11/2007 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and here's another good link (again from an organization that is tilted to human caused global warming)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6561527.stm

to explain in more detail one of the nine errors for those that don't follow these sorts of things.

Kilimanharo Ice has been retreating since 1800s. Most significantly in the relatively small temperature change regions of 1900-1940. Apparently less rainfall is primarly to blame with increasing temperature only a small addition. However, the researches/reporters still want to blame humans so

"The team stresses that the drying of the East African climate around Kilimanjaro may itself be a regional impact of global climate change."


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 6:02:41 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, check out how CNN has spun the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap...

Absolutely amazing how the same story can be told from another angle, making it jive with the pro-AGW beliefs.


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 9:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
I also noticed now, 3 hours later, that story is completely buried. There are no links from the CNN home page, nor the Technology page. Completely buried.


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 11:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
Someone at CNN have a sudden attack of journalistic ethics?


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
And here is another one about Anti Global Warming PR:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek...


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By Keeir on 10/12/2007 3:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
I read it

I recommend going through the article with a red pen and circling alot of the "facts" presented and then double checking them. You will find a signficant number of the hard facts presented are just wrong or exaggerations. In the same way the Al Gore's film stretched science, that article is stretching science and policy facts.


RE: Mainstream Coverage
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 3:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Same as most mainstream articles about GW... CNN is pretty bad about this in particular - they run story after story that includes a built-in bias/assumption that AGW is a proven fact. Drives me nuts.


Gore Wins Nobel
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 6:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am amazed to hear the news this morning that Gore and the IPCC have won the Nobel Peace Prize. I lost a lot of respect for the Nobel Peace Prize today. I guess it goes to show the level of hype that has been amassed for AGW.

This leads to the question, can a Nobel be stripped later, if the reason for winning the Prize turns out to be completely wrong?




RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/12/2007 7:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
No.

But in any case, the nobel prize seems much like a publicity contest. I mean come on, Yasser arafat one it a few years back and he never had anything to do with peace or prosperity. It's just turning into another popularity contest.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 9:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I had a higher opinion of the Prize than it probably deserves.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 11:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
The Nobel's Peace and Literature prizes both have long been primarily politically-motivated.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
Don't the great works of fiction usually have fairly strong political overtones? The Bible, Dickens, Hawthorne (Scarlett Letter at least), etc? Likewise, I think most attempts at Peace are quite controversial to begin with, and often have to attack the source of the problem rather than being a blunt force attempt at making peace (witness the endless disagreements over how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem).

However, the Nobel Prize in most sciences are given only after decades of further work have shown the significance of the prize winner's ideas. Why can't the Peace prize be the same? Being pro-active can be good, but I think the Nobel Prizes are supposed to reward people after it has been clearly established that their work was successful. Give Al Gore the prize in 20 years, or Wangari Maathai the prize after it becomes fairly certain that tree planting has actually led to more peaceful relations between African nomads + farmers and/or between countries.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By Frallan on 10/12/2007 9:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well there is a Huge difference in how the climat change and the riscs i perseeved (sic?!?) in Europe and the US obviously. Sweden is one of the most enviromentalfriendly countries in the world and have one of the broadest educational bases in the world. (The goal: 50% of all growing up should become college Grads). This has obviously had something to do with the decission and it is not something I would expect any nonscandinavian to understand and therefore Im writing this.

Now personally Im swedish and therefore predissposed towards to hang out with the GW-crow´d. However I try to reject that predisposition when reading about it and to be honest it doesn't matter if GW is happening or not - we consume WAY to much resources and we Are making a mess of our world and therefore any means to reduce this is a good thing in my book.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 9:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
Who is this "we" who are consuming too many resources. I'm not consuming too many resources, are you? If so, then reduce! If not, then just live your life and forget about the guilt.


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 11:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you feel guilty for being human? Your leaders have made you feel ashamed of being human.

The EU is much more concerned about climate change, and I do applaud them for it - we need to look after the environment.

But I dont like the fact that its a fad now. Everyone wants to brag about how green they are. Because being green costs money, they are really bragging about how rich they are. So nothing has changed.

And we dont need political movies like Al Gore interfering with people's perception of science. It seems the media and politicians chose a definitive position on GW, and ran with it. The one they chose was the more sensationalist - "Humanity is Doomed! (tm)".


RE: Gore Wins Nobel
By Strunf on 10/12/2007 3:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
If you put some effort into something why shouldn’t you brag about it?

Being green doesn’t cost you more... it just requires a greater effort on your side by for instance using public transports, or going to work in a bicycle, or by using less electricity... etc etc etc actually I'm pretty sure at the end of the day you would save some money. This without really taking into account that a lot of people have SUV and other less economic cars and so on, these people could probably reduce the pollution they produce by 75% if they change of vehicle…


Even better.....
By HueyD on 10/11/2007 3:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is word floating around the web that Al Gore is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for this movie and his efforts on Global Warming....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301175,00.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?...




RE: Even better.....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/11/2007 4:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I sure hope not, its a farce.


RE: Even better.....
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/12/2007 12:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but yes, the Nobel Peace prize is a farce, ever since it was awarded to terrorist Yassir Arafat. Also, of course Al Gore is and his propaganda film is a very unfunny farce.


RE: Even better.....
By jhinoz on 10/12/2007 4:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
Now i'm just a simple minded bloke from sydney but i would have thought a peace prize would be awared for efforts towards peace, and not a video about global warming.

is michael moore nominated for any of his work?


RE: Even better.....
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 11:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Michael Moore is not a politician, he just uncovers dirty laundry in the US they would far rather you didnt know. Hence why he isnt special enough to win one.


Party On!
By Griswold on 10/11/2007 3:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
I bet somebody here threw a party upon hearing this news!




RE: Party On!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/11/2007 4:00:51 PM , Rating: 5
Yea, I did. =)


Complaint #6.
By ted61 on 10/11/2007 9:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
How dare Al Gore say "The snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to Global Warming.", Doesn't Al know that snow just melts becuase it feels like melting?




RE: Complaint #6.
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 4:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
The American Scientist magazine has an interesting article on this explaining the process by which the glaciers on Kilmanjaro on disappearing:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDet...

Basically the point is that while glaciers are melting in many places due to GW, the snows at Kilmanjaro are disappearing due to other causes. Makes an interesting read regardless of any pre-conceived notions for or against GW.


RE: Complaint #6.
By ted61 on 10/12/2007 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
Great link. Thanks for the info.


...
By totallycool on 10/11/2007 3:36:48 PM , Rating: 5
Now Mr Gore, this is what you call an "Inconvenient Truth"




Welladay..
By Grabo on 10/11/2007 4:18:52 PM , Rating: 1
It's with mild amusement I watch Masher make article after article trying pointing out flaws in the great puddle that is Global Warming. To 'believe' in it is to allow oneself to be lullabied to hysterics by the likes of braindead alarmist ever-changing celebrities..or something? It seems a bit Twilight Zone, but then I'm not in the U.S.

There was already one BBC article posted regarding this, well, here is a more recent one :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm




RE: Welladay..
By Keeir on 10/11/2007 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think M. Asher would disagree with the idea that humans contribute to climate change and that the world is experiencing a climate shift to a generally "warmer" climate. What he seems to be disagreeing with is the concept that Mankind is primarily responsible and that the results will be a disaster.

Day after day, we keep hearing the radio, TV, internet, etc that all science says we are doomed unless we reduce our output of CO2. Yet at the same time, we also have day after day explanations or new research that points to a generally warming climate that existed before 1950 (a reasonable cutoff point for the current "cause" of human induced global warming). Lake Chad has been shrinking since the Europeans first measured the lake in 1823. It has even completely dried out several times in the past 1,000 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1...
Lakes in Siberia show signs of significant warming from around 1800s as well.
As linked else where, Eastern Africa has been drying out since the mid 1800s.

Meanwhile, real harmful pollution is pouring into the world. Rainforests are being destroyed at rates far above what global climate change could do even at its worst. Ironically, some of the clearing supports growth of palm oil to "Save the Planet". Humankind keeps expanding its population and the required infrastructre of roads, buildings, farms, homes...


RE: Welladay..
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 4:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
Funny thing, but the AP article on this case comes to exactly the opposite conclusion of Masher's article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21103729/

For instance "Judge says Gore film 'broadly accurate,' but lists nine problems with claims". Masher also 'forgot' to tell us that the UK government has already revised the written guidance in accordance with the ruling and so the judge has already stated that "With the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown" (although it seems he's not much of a fan of it).


Miffed
By clovell on 10/11/2007 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 5
I suppose you can call me a close-minded, pronvicial redneck - I never watched this movie. I'd heard enough about it to avoid it. I knew if I saw it, I'd enter a phase in my life that would be devoted to in-depth research of AGW. Having just recently finished grad school, you might understand that it wasn't in my best interest to get involved in something so time-consuming.

All that to say I haven't seen the movie, but the following caught my eye:
quote:
Hurricane Katrina blamed on Global Warming.
Which pisses me off big time - because I was there - I lived on the Gulf Coast and I worked and went to school in New Orleans. Irresponsible comments like this just make me step back and wonder how anyone can actually believe this crap. It's the same reaction I give to the guys on the street corner beating their bibles against their chests and shouting at the top of their voice howhow myself and everyone unfortunate enough to be in earshot are the ruin of humanity and will burn in hell.

Making such broad, baseless and ill-informed generalizations is demeaning; it's used to push a political platform and detracts from the crap hundreds of thousands of people are having to deal with. It is unfathomable that this guy is up for a Nobel Prize for this same ---- he calls a documentary.

Sorry for the rant. I'm glad that the UK has called a spade a spade here.




Alarmist headline
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think the headline of this blog is the misleading and alarmist thing.

The judge ruled that the film could be shown if the 9 contested conclusions were shown to be such.

The judge did agree with the basic premise of the film. If the scientific premise was questionable, then the entire film would be thrown out.

Does Michael Asher work for an anti Global Warming PR firm?




RE: Alarmist headline
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
The court said that the movie is unfit for viewing in British schools unless a number of disclaimers are told in order to balance out the bias and point out the scientific errors. I think the headline is an accurate summary of that.


it doesn't seem like propaganda to me...
By dflynchimp on 10/15/2007 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
I saw the film and found it very convincing. I think labeling the documentary as "political propaganda" is a load of B.S. If you as me a more fitting counter-argument is to make a documentary that refutes everything Al Gore has said. An you know what? I know no such documentary is ever going to be made, because you really can't go against logic and say that global warming isn't happening due to human induced pollution.




By porkpie on 10/15/2007 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know no such documentary is ever going to be made
Actually, it was already made. It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", its full of interviews with climate scientists, and it reveals Gore's work to be the total bundle of tripe it is.

The BBC was showing it just a few months ago.


An Inconvenient Al
By johnsonx on 10/12/2007 12:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
RE: An Inconvenient Al
By johnsonx on 10/12/2007 1:49:56 AM , Rating: 1
oh, and here's a little song for your listening pleasure:

http://www.paulshanklin.com/mp3_samples/BALLOFFIRE...

Sorry, it's only a 45 second clip, but it's still enough for a good chuckle.


By winterspan on 10/19/2007 6:00:31 AM , Rating: 3
I don't care to go into points already made by others.

What I will ask is why the author of the article inserted a baseless attack on Gore's movie from a heavily partisan and biased organization that has no connection to the article.

For those that don't know what the "Heartland Institute" is, it's a United States based "think tank" that was created with the SOLE INTENTION OF INJECTING DOUBT INTO THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE.
They are actually well known for being a clearing house of conservative ideology for Big Business to influence policy.
The CEO of General Motors is on their board, and they have been receiving HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR for EXXON MOBILE .
Does this sound like a reliable, neutral source to quote in a story on a science/technology website???

SHAME on the author of this and SHAME on DailyTech for Intentionally injecting misleading partisan crap into a report. This author should be FIRED immediately.

You have just lost a reader and I will be sure to make note of my disgust with your website on my blog.




By Chocolate Pi on 10/11/2007 3:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
The nature of Al Gore's FUD campaign is becoming widespread knowledge now. This could set more rational conservation concerns back substantially in the public's eye... great job, Al Gore.




Good
By f1r3s1d3 on 10/14/2007 3:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad this is finally brought to peoples' attention. The whole movie is an exaggeration. It shouldn't be used as a credible source for anything.




Rediculous
By Holytrinity on 10/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Rediculous
By Holytrinity on 10/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Rediculous
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 4:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
If you knew anything about science you would know that EVERYTHING in science is precluded by the term "theory". As in "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Quantum Mechanics", "Theory of Gravity", "Grand Unified Theory", etc. etc. By your train of logic science should not be taught in schools because it is all "theory".


RE: Rediculous
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 7:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
If you are willing to scientific evidence like that, both in the case of arguments for and against global warming, and evolution (for which there is almost overwhelmingly conclusive evidence), then what are you doing using a computer?

Some of the brightest minds, in science and business, worked incredibly hard, put humanity first, just so that you could have a computer to work on. And here you go, saying you basically dont believe in science.

So put your computer back in its box. Live in a hole in the ground. Stop using modern health care - its all based on irrelevant and evil science.


RE: Rediculous
By porkpie on 10/11/2007 10:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sometimes scientific proof is irrelevant
I find most of the fans of "An Inconvenient Truth" feel the same way. They don't care whether its true or not. They just like believing in it because it makes them feel good to "make a difference".


RE: Rediculous
By johnsonx on 10/12/2007 1:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's also a similar attitude among the nutjobs that believe all the 9/11 conspiracies. Scientific proof just doesn't matter to them; even a basic understand of scientific principles seems to elude them. At least they're far less dangerous than the adherents of AGW.


RE: Rediculous
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 5:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
Just admit the truth, that 99% of the things you are either for or against are because you want them to be right or wrong. If evidence agrees with your pre-existing opinions then that's just a bonus, but given the tone of most of your postings here I suspect you've never actually attempted to comprehend opinions that disagree with yours other than at the depth of a Sean Hannity level cliche of the god hating socialist liberals who are always "on the wrong side of history".

In other words, supposing for the moment that the evidence were overwhelmingly that human caused GW is happening, I suspect you wouldn't want to believe it and would simply latch on to any small alleged flaw as a way to weasel your way out. While many pro-GW folks are just as flawed, you appear to be no better than they are.


RE: Rediculous
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 7:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, supposing for the moment that the evidence were overwhelmingly that human caused GW is happening

But that evidence doesn't exist. There is overwhelming evidence that "global warming" is happening, but the evidence that it is "human caused" is completely missing.

When this topic is presented to the public in movies like Gore's, by other politicians, or by the mainstream American media, the real scientific evidence about global warming is intermingled with the unfounded conclusion that it is human-induced. So it is no wonder people come away with the wrong conclusion - they've basically been tricked into "action."

Because after all, if climate change is not caused by humans, then there's no need for a political movement, is there?


RE: Rediculous
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
Did you see the words "supposing" in italics? The though experiment is nothing original, and the point in this case is only to consider whether your opinion would change even if the reality were different than you want it to be.

In any case, my remarks were commented at porkpie specifically. Although I disagree with you on many if not most of the politicized topics on Dailytech, I would not accuse you of being the hypocrite that is porkpie.


RE: Rediculous
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 11:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
So now I'm a hyprocrite because you "suppose" that 99% of the things I believe in are wrong? Without being able to cite even one example of such?

Are you trying to make yourself look foolish here, or is it accidental?


RE: Rediculous
By Kuroyama on 10/12/2007 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that even 1% of the things you believe in are wrong. But this is a moot point anyways, because it seems that one particular statement of yours some time ago stuck in my mind, and I will now admit that after looking over your past posts I was wrong and must have recalled other people's posts as having been yours. Everyone feel free to mod my OP down to -1 and think nasty things about me (ah, the irony).


RE: Rediculous
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
I not only forgive you, but grant you kudos for having the guts to own up to your mistake, minor as it was. Most people wouldn't do that, whichever side of the issue they're on.


RE: Rediculous
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 6:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.

Scientific proof is irrelevant, and yet "scientific" proof swayed your beliefs on global warming.

So lets recap, scientific proof in favour of global warming is relevant, but scientific proof not in favour of global warming is irrelevant? I'm struggling to understand, please explain this to me.

They cant prove the universe is infinite, but they know how it was created, how quickly it is expanding, and how old it is. Not good enough for you? They are starting to understand the roles that black holes play in the formation of new galaxies. But I guess you knew none of that, did you?

quote:
I don't need to know anything about science to know that if I let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground, because I've done it before and I know the outcome. Similarly, I don't need a Harvard degree in Environmental Science to know that human-induced climate change is causing damage to this planet.


Cause and effect are very complex. Do you know that the reason for the current drop in crime across america is due to abortion being legalized two decades ago? Its true, its been proved. You wouldnt think it, would you? Look up Freakonomics and read it - it explains it pretty convincingly.

So to say that human behavior directly and massively aids global warming is assuming entirely too much. You said scientific proof is irrelevant, but every scientist out there disagrees.

You say its a certainty, you have watched one propaganda movie, and have shut your mind. Remember, the wisest men on earth believed that the earth was flat.

I'm not saying we should all pollute as much as possible. We need to care for the environment. What I am REALLY sick of, is politicians using global warming to further their own agenda, raise taxes, make us feel guilty, and control us. Being "green" is the new fad, and we arent even sure how best to do it. If you want to remove the human stain from the planet, nuke every inch of it. the flora and fauna will recover, eventually, but we wont.


RE: Rediculous
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 7:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
You may have misunderstood the OP. He/she is stating that people should have faith and believe in AGW, just like one is asked to believe in God. In other words, the presence or absence of scientific evidence regarding AGW is irrelevant - we should just "have faith" that AGW is correct and act accordingly.

It's also the most stupid argument for AGW I've ever heard.


RE: Rediculous
By clovell on 10/12/2007 11:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
The difference, though, is that traditional faith systems are generally built on a set of axioms regarding right and wrong. Here, we're still dealing with science - something that facts address much more than traditional faith.


RE: Rediculous
By glitchc on 10/12/2007 12:24:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you know that the reason for the current drop in crime across america is due to abortion being legalized two decades ago? Its true, its been proved. You wouldnt think it, would you? Look up Freakonomics and read it - it explains it pretty convincingly.


Sorry to rain on your parade, but that particular claim in Freakonomics has been proven to be false, by various other economics/statisticians. Even Levitt himself has admitted to there being a flaw in his reasoning.


RE: Rediculous
By Bruce 1337 on 10/12/2007 7:00:49 AM , Rating: 3
I don't pretend to know if AGW (that stands for Al Gore Warming, right :P ) is correct or not, but you're spouting complete nonsense.

Scientific "proof" is very important. What if it turns out that this warming trend is a cyclical event and even if we somehow halted all man-made CO2 emissions (at the cost of trillions), the temperature continues to rise? Could that money have been better spent preparing for the inevitable, instead?

Just because you observe something doesn't mean there is a cause and effect relationship. People used to believe all kinds of interesting things in the middle ages based on what they observed. I don't doubt humans are causing major environmental damage, but I don't know if we are the sole (or even a major) contributor to global warming, and neither do you... And neither does Al Gore.

Yes, many people will, and should, criticize a politically motivated movie that presents misinformation with "no proof." Your argument that we shouldn't need proof is ridiculous. Why should we blindly accept what a politician (of all people) tells us? Why believe Al Gore over a scientist, anyway? Who do you think has an agenda?

It is NOT generally accepted that the universe is infinite. Maybe you just decided that since it is very big, it must be infinitely big. Is that theory based on any kind of evidence, or just the fact that you can't see the edge? Of course it's possible that the universe is NOT infinite. So does that mean it is possible that humans are NOT responsible for global warming?

I believe the Earth managed to heat its way out of the last ice age, and that was long before I started driving my H2 (I kid, I can't afford gas for an SUV). So to summarize, the climate is a pretty complicated thing, this movie is fear mongering, and you have a typo in your subject line.


RE: Rediculous
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 7:16:22 AM , Rating: 3
As for cause and effect, do you know that tomatoes were considered poisonous until recently? Seriously.

People ate tomatoes, got sick, therefore tomatos are poisonous. Do you eat tomatoes? Do you get sick after them?

The real reason they were "poisonous" is because they were kept in lead containers, with which they reacted. People were getting lead poisoning.

So cause and effect can be very misleading.


RE: Rediculous
By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point. "Cause" and effect can appear to be two thing, but when you look closer they are actually two different thing.

One of the things is that 'children who are sexually abused have mental problems because of the sexual abuse'. They are finding out now that is not the case, more and more studies that they do are finding out now that the mental problems that children have from 'sexual abuse' come more from the reaction of parents to finding out that their children were 'sexually abused'(basically telling the children that they were used and damaged so they act accordingly!) and the high-pressure tactics of the police that are used on children to get them to tell them who 'abused' them.

Of course, all of these studies proving that cause and effect were buried by the government because pedosexuals and 'child sex abuse' are good things to harp on to get people to vote for you.

I can believe that it could and does happen in other areas as well, most specifically in the Global Warming studies.


RE: Rediculous
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 3:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Will you please give it a rest with the adult-child sex thing!

Children need to reach mental maturity before they have the ability to consent to participate in such activities. That is why people who share your views are called "predators" - because they prey on children who cannot defend themselves physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. They are innocent victims.


RE: Rediculous
By Pythias on 10/18/2007 11:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
Why is this mud flap still breathing? Someone put a bullet in his brain.


RE: Rediculous
By clovell on 10/12/2007 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 1
Glad the movie helped you come to that realization. Shedding your reliance on oil is not a bad thing.

However, it is not generallly accepted that the universe is finite. As for your views on science - reducing a complex issue of such a magnitude as Global Warming to personal experience is irresponsible. You may have dropped the ball and seen it fall. But, have you pumped millions of tons into the air across the globe and measure the temperature all over the globe? No. So the analogy is simply crap.

I think we'll all agree that humans damage the planet in many ways. AGW, though, is unproven at best. Furthermore, you polarize the issue as though damaging the planet is inherently evil. Everyone does it - in varying degrees - to survive and maintain a standard of living.

You, sir, may take unproven science of faith. You may even create a religion around it. But, don't expect me to believe you. I know better.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki