Inconvenient Truth can't be shown without advisory notes

A recent report on High Court ruling in London. I noticed that most of the papers in the world online had the same stories. Interesting how one story can be "the news" all over the world. Anyway:

British court pokes holes in Gore's environmental 'truth'

Judge rules former U.S. vice-president's Inconvenient Truth documentary filled with 'alarmism, exaggeration'

Lewis Smith, The Times, London

Published: Thursday, October 11, 2007

LONDON - 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 scrutinized in the High Court in London.

Justice Michael Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate's documentary, as he assessed whether it should be shown to schoolchildren. He agreed that Mr. Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change, but said that some of the claims were wrong, and had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Email to a friendPrinter friendly

Font:

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the classroom, Judge Burton 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.

The film, he said, "is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice-president, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

"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."

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the British government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown, but on condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore's "one-sided" views.

The government's decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dimmock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr. Gore, said Judge Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps. The claim that sea levels could rise by more than six metres "in the near future" was dismissed as "distinctly alarmist." Such a rise would take place "only after, and over, millennia."

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by "no evidence," the judge ruled, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an "exact fit" overstated the case.

Mr. Gore's suggestion that the Gulf Stream, which warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change's assessment that it was "very unlikely" to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro's snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr. Gore on climate change, but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with Mr. Gore for attributing coral bleaching to climate change.

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