Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Court finds 11 inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

bigfish

Gone fishing
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

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

The inaccuracies are:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. 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.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. 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.

11. 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.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
 
Not.this.shit.again.jpg


In the High Court Thursday, Paul Downes, appearing for Mr Dimmock said, "Given the serious inaccuracies in the film and the misrepresentations it contains, the film is irredeemable". He added he would be seeking to convince the court the film was "just over half scientific material, 30% pure politics and about 20% sentimental mush - mush there to soften up the viewer for persuasion".


that's still 55% more science than a bigfish post. i have many issues with al gore's 'work' but at least it's based on real science.

fool.


*uses ignore button*
 
How is it political propaganda to claim that global warming is the cause of these things?

Even if a lot of stuff in the film is hyperbole, I think it's entirely justifiable owing to the unquantifiable and therefore possibly quite large feedback effects which we thus far have a very poor idea about.

Only a cunt would take legal action to attack the film, and I find it worrying that courts are weighing in on essentially scientific matters.
 
it's always been the problem that anti-pollution . global warming etc people face. see, science presents a load of statistics that show that it appears, on the balance of probability that these factors are responsible, but the courts demand actual smoking guns to convict. unless you can prove it to within all reasonable doubt there is no direct correlation in the court. if the question "is there no other possible way that this could have happened that didn't involve my client" cannot be answered using irrefutable evidence then no conviction. it's very depressing.
 
bigfish said:
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

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

The inaccuracies are:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. 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.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. 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.

11. 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.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

I knew that rich twat was lying!:mad:
 
Bigfish

How does this New Party that promoted the legal case differ from the Republicans? It seems to be about liberal economics and all that Republican stuff, what is it about and how big is it?

EDITED TO ADD: How weird, this is a British party. I thought Bigfish was a standard issue American Republican.

Are you British Bigfish - surely not.:confused:
 
I'd like to see the actual court reports on this, because - on a really quick skim-read - at least one of Bigfish's claimed "inaccuracies" is just cock, to whit;

bigfish said:
6. 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.

I mean - "the Claimants evidence"....says nothing whatsoever about whether it's true or not. When people post horseshit like this, you kind of know they are highly partisan.

Wonder what the court really did say though, it'd be interesting to know.
 
i don't believe that the court has actually made a final ruling yet, though i could be wrong.
 
bigfish said:
3. 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.

This is an interesting one. I'd totally agree that you can never actually attribute any given weather-event to GW per se. After all it could have happened anyway. But there is absolutely no doubt that if GW is happening (and I thought even the petrolheads had accepted this now, I'm intrigued by Bigfish's Last of the Mohicans-style defence of the Total Myth position) - anyway, if GW is happening then extreme weather events will become more common, of that I think there can be no doubt. So to that extent, attributing Katrina to GW is mistaken, but saying there will be a greater number of Katrinas if sea temperatures rise is correct.
 
co-op said:
I'd like to see the actual court reports on this, because - on a really quick skim-read - at least one of Bigfish's claimed "inaccuracies" is just cock, to whit;



I mean - "the Claimants evidence"....says nothing whatsoever about whether it's true or not. When people post horseshit like this, you kind of know they are highly partisan.

Wonder what the court really did say though, it'd be interesting to know.

You catch on quick! BigFish is a conspiraloon who thinks the sun is made of iron.
 
bluestreak said:
i don't believe that the court has actually made a final ruling yet, though i could be wrong.

The Judge is giving his full judgement next week - when we will see what he actually thought. The case however was a procedural one about whether the DCFS (dept for education in old money) were at fault in showing AIT to school pupils because it took a partisan political position. The Judge has therefore given a provisional indication of his findings in order to allow schools to know what they can/can't do. Basically, they can show the film but they have to point up the fact that it takes a partisan position and there are alternative positions possible. So - given that the New Party were trying to ban the showing of this film in schools - they have lost the case.

All the 11 alleged inaccuracies posted by BF above appear to have been cut 'n' pasted from the New Party website and don't appear to be confirmed anywhere. Indeed, at least one of them - as I have posted above - is just a repetition of NP evidence in court and to claim it as a 'finding' by the judge is horse shit.
 
co-op said:
the DCFS (.

Actually DCSF. Apols.

'Children, Schools and Families'; I still can't quite believe they managed to get the last two in the wrong order but they did. Anyway, that's another debate.
 
Fruitloop said:
You catch on quick!

:) sometimes...


Fruitloop said:
BigFish is a conspiraloon who thinks the sun is made of iron.


As I mentioned, it's been a while since I encountered someone who is actually arguing there's no such thing as GW. The fallback now seems to be yes there is, but it's not manmade, it's moose farts or whatever.

I still think what they post has to be addressed though, dull though this can often be. I like to pull a shift or two at the coalface now and then. It at least forces one to stay up to date with the debate.
 
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

Where were they looking, under the sofa? Because if they looked in, ooh, say a marine biology journal then they'd find truckloads of evidence for this effect.

E2A: Here you go, took me all of 2 minutes to find this.
 
Climate change film to stay in the classroom


I downloaded the updated guide notes for teachers mentioned in the article and it's nothing to get worked up about imo.

For instance for No.6 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 guidance notes say:

The Ocean Conveyor
(3min)
Note: The IPCC assess that it is very unlikely that the “ocean conveyor” (also known as the “meridional overturning circulation” or “thermohaline circulation”) will undergo a large abrupt transition this century, although it is very likely to slow down. Most scientists would regard talk of an imminent ice-age as speculation. [IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM p16]


For the Hurricane Katrina part of the film we have:

Note: There is insufficient evidence to establish clearly that particular one-off weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina, are attributable to climate change. However, the IPCC concludes that it is likely that there has been an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in some regions and more likely than not that humans have contributed to this. [IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ 9.1]


The only one that really bugs me is the 'CO2 lags temp in the ice core record' thing which is just typical sceptic peanut rolling imo and doesn't really need qualifying.
 
BBC reports that Gore deliberately made his movie one-sided!

According to the report, "Gore deliberately made his movie one-sided because any hint of ambiguity on climate change has been used by skeptics in the US to cast doubt on the need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

"That approach might work for a movie audience, but it didn't cut much ice in court!"

Clip: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7030000/newsid_7038700/7038767.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1

I wonder if anyone will be challenging the BBC in the High Courts over its deliberately one-sided coverage of the subject.
 
What in the name of envirocock is the New Party, and what exactly does this cretin stand to gain from banning the film in schools?
 
bigfish said:
I wonder if anyone will be challenging the BBC in the High Courts over its deliberately one-sided coverage of the subject.

Go on then, how is the BBC one sided in this subject...? :rolleyes:
 
mauvais said:
What in the name of envirocock is the New Party, and what exactly does this cretin stand to gain from banning the film in schools?

By banning this film global warming will stop, obviously. :rolleyes: (@ the person trying to ban the film)
 
Here we are - this is what the New Party are - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

BBC said:
Mr Dimmock is a member of the "New Party", apparently funded by a businessman with a strong dislike of environmentalists and drink-drive laws.

When asked on the BBC's World Tonight programme who had under-written his court costs, he paused long and loud before saying that "someone on the internet" had offered him support.
What excellent company you keep. I suppose The Lie Machine is spinning its cogs again or something.
 
Doh!!

The founder and chair of the New Party is Robert Durward, whose party is so right-wing it has been labeled “fascist” by the Scottish Tories.

More importantly, there is a cross-fertilisation between the New Party and Durward’s other pet project - he is the founder of the anti-environmental Scientific Alliance. Both the New Party and Scientific Alliance work closely with the PR company Foresight Communications.

The Alliance is one of the leading sceptic organizations in the UK, that campaigns against climate change, against Al Gore’s film and promotes the heavily criticized alternative film “Great Global Warming Swindle”.

It has also forged links with skeptics in the US. For example in 2005, the Alliance held a conference on Climate Change called “Apocalypse No: Assessing Catastrophic Climate Change.”

Leading climate skeptics such as Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer Nils-Axel Morner and Benny Peiser spoke. The keynote speaker was David Bellamy, the British naturalist, who believes climate change is “poppycock”. At the time the Alliance’s Scientific Advisory Forum also included Sallie Baliunas, one of the world’s leading climate sceptics.

same ol' names, wouldn't you know it... :rolleyes:
 
kerplunk said:
Doh!!



same ol' names, wouldn't you know it... :rolleyes:

Bellamy made such an arse of himself on the telly that even though I was pleased his arguments got knocked back, he was so out of his depth it was a massive cringe from start to finish.
 
Back
Top Bottom