Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment

[Lonan3]

LINK

 

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

 

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

 

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

 

To be fair, the judge did say that many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science.

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.

 

I'm not going to bother with a comment - but I think I know some of those who may!

[Chinahand]

Should I be the first of Lonan3's predicted commentors - doesn't alter the scientific evidence one jot that there is overwhelming theoretical and evidential reasons to believe human emissions of CO2 will have a profound influence on our climate in the next 100 years.

[ans]

Seems like he's just been found guilty of some exaggeration when you look at the actual nine errors.

 

Good to see that he agreed with the fundamental theme and argument of the film though.

[Mike]

oh, no. What it actually means is that, seeing as he made a couple of slight errors, that means the entire theory of Global Warming is wrong, people who believe it are seriously misguided & should be made to wear sack cloths, & we as a people are free to drive 4 ltr humvees to our hearts content

[ai_Droid]

It shouldn't be news to anyone that a film by a politician contains political bias eh? Some things were overstated, some things were believed true at the time (the gulf stream for example) which have since had a rethink. The important issues have been verified once again though.

[Pragmatopian]

A bit embarassing certainly, and not quite sure why exaggerated claims were made when the underlying issue is so powerful in itself... once a politician, always a politician I suppose

[Slim]

A bit embarassing certainly, and not quite sure why exaggerated claims were made when the underlying issue is so powerful in itself... once a politician, always a politician I suppose

 

I think the public opinion towards environmental issues was very different while the film was being made.

[Pragmatopian]

A bit embarassing certainly, and not quite sure why exaggerated claims were made when the underlying issue is so powerful in itself... once a politician, always a politician I suppose

 

I think the public opinion towards environmental issues was very different while the film was being made.

 

Not sure what you're saying here - that it was a shock tactic to wake people up to the issue of climate change?

[Albert Tatlock]

Some of the 'errors' were judged to be 'distinctly alarmist' - such as a 20ft rise in sea levels (likely to take millenia - and which has happened many times before), that polar bears drowning trying to find ice was a load of rubbish (4 polar bears were found drowned due to a storm), and that the dissapearance of snow from mount kilimanjaro was not linked to global warming at all etc.

 

However, I'm glad that the judgement was sensible enough to state that both view points should be presented in schools. All educational debates should be balanced and not pseudo-scientific, and most certainly not political. Al Gore is likely to be standing as a democratic candidate in the US election next year. I'm very cynical about his motives surrounding the highly personalised 'an inconvenient truth'.

 

Anyhoo, after the next 100 years the world will be a far different place, with a raft of new technologies and solutions most of us can't yet imagine - and if you don't believe that, then just look back at what's happened over the last 100 years.

[manxman8180]

Was lisntening to the radio yesterday when this film was mentioned (may have been in the same story so apologies if repeating).

 

But it was about Schools showing this film, and how there was now a directive that if this was shown, a similar presentation for the 'other' side of the story must also be shown.

 

Fine by me, providing that every time something from the Bible is taught, a similar lesson is given saying that the Bible is a complete load of tosh to represent the other view.

 

Personally, I think kids are a lot brighter than we give credit for.

[ans]

Oscar winner and now Nobel Peace Prize winner too.

[VinnieK]

That's a bit mental, I can't say that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Having said that the Nobel committee has been going a bit odd regarding the Peace prize over the past few years - Wangari Maathi (2004) and her belief that AIDs was deliberately created by scientists to wipe out black people is a prime example.

[ans]

He'll probably have it taken away from him after a recount so no need to worry.

[Chinahand]

Oscar winner and now Nobel Peace Prize winner too.

That's a bit mental, I can't say that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Having said that the Nobel committee has been going a bit odd regarding the Peace prize over the past few years - Wangari Maathi (2004) and her belief that AIDs was deliberately created by scientists to wipe out black people is a prime example.

Basically agree with VinnieK - this is just grandstanding and politics - picking out Gore for "special mention" on this undercuts the work of thousands of people who have worked equally tirelessly to creat the science that Gore has used (and slightly abused) in his campaign.

 

I'm glad the IPCC has been jointly honoured with Gore - would rather it was just them.

 

Resource competition and blame sharing for environmental damage are very very important geopolitical issues and attempting to get a consensual, rules based way of dealing with the effects of Climate change could not only save large numbers of lives due to reducing Climate change, but also defuse tensions between countries - that is a genuine effort for peace - ask someone living Darfur and they'll tell you that people will fight and kill over these issues.

 

So I don't think it is too odd for giving the prize to the IPCC - the world is a sad place at the moment - can anyone honestly say there is a more deserving effort at the moment in trying to bring peace to this world? I can't obviously think of one?

[Chinahand]

Just to give some multimedia stuff on the Impact of Climate Change etc - Check out this: LINK

 

There are video streams of the presentations and discussions by Nobel laureates etc directly talking about climate change and sustainability.

 

It even envolves Wangari Maathi - though doing her day job concerning forestation and sustainability and not HIV denial!!!

 

RealClimate has this to say:

 

Sustainability: A Nobel Cause

 

I would like to share with you some impressions from a remarkable event taking place today and tomorrow in Potsdam: 15 Nobel laureates are meeting with top climate and energy experts and politicians to discuss global sustainability.

 

After opening remarks by PIK director John Schellnhuber, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri presented an overview over the main findings of the latest IPCC report.

 

Next speaker was the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself a theoretical physicist by training. She pointed out that inaction on the climate issue would be at least five times more costly than reducing emissions, and she called for a reduction of global emissions by 50% by the year 2050.

 

Next to speak was Sir Nicholas Stern, who explained the CO2 problem as a "flow-stock" problem - our emissions continually add to the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making climate stabilisation at a certain level more costly the longer we wait. Delaying climate action by 30 years would make it 3 times more expensive. He also spoke about the ethical problems - "economists shy away from the ethics", he said, but they need to be discussed.

 

This was a good lead to Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai (peace prize 2004) who joined by video link from Nairobi. She presented a passionate plea to preserve forests and plant a billion trees, and spoke of "carbon justice" in the relationship of the developed and developing world.