The British government decided that it would be a good idea to send copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to all schools, with then Environment Secretary (now Foreign Secretary) David Miliband declaring that “the debate over science is over.” Well, it may be, but not in the way Gore portrays it. A truck driver and school governor, Stuart Dimmock, took the government to court, alleging that the film portrays “partisan political views,” the promotion of which is illegal in schools under the Education Act 1996.
The judge has decided that this is indeed the case and that the Government’s guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students’ attention:
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:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and – in one case – making things up. These inconvenient truths for the former Vice President have been covered up or obscured by the hype surrounding his film. Students will now realize that there are significant shortcomings and inaccuracies in the way the global warming scare has been presented to them. This is a victory for honest debate, a victory for science and a victory for education.
The comprehensive guide to Gore's innacuracies is, of course, Marlo Lewis' "Al Gore's Science Fiction."
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
Does anyone know what exactly Gore said about Hurricane Katrina in the film? I don't have a copy, nor do I have a transcript, but I know that in other cases, he's been careful not to place the blame for Katrina on global warming alone. For instance:
"Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming….Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes – because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle….But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger…makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger." Speech given to the National Sierra Club Convention on 9/12/2005 (before the release of the movie)
It'd be interesting to know what exactly Gore said in the film. If it's consistent with this speech, then it seems like Gore would agree that "it [is] 'not possible' to attribute one-off events to global warming," so it's hard to see what the contradiction would be. Here again, it'd be useful to have a transcript of the arguments or a copy of the order so we can see what's really going on.
Does anyone know what exactly Gore said about Hurricane Katrina in the film? I don't have a copy, nor do I have a transcript, but I know that in other cases, he's been careful not to place the blame for Katrina on global warming alone. For instance:
"Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming….Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes – because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle….But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger…makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger." Speech given to the National Sierra Club Convention on 9/12/2005 (before the release of the movie)
It'd be interesting to know what exactly Gore said in the film. If it's consistent with this speech, then it seems like Gore would agree that "it [is] 'not possible' to attribute one-off events to global warming," so it's hard to see what the contradiction would be. Here again, it'd be useful to have a transcript of the arguments or a copy of the order so we can see what's really going on.
Sorry for the triple post. Cat jumped on the mouse as I was moving to click on the post button.
Can we please differentiate between the term global warming and man made global warming. It is simple to show that the earth is warming but difficult to prove how much or little mankind contributes.
A few questions that man made global warming crowd never can answer:
1) why is it that it was much warmer 1500 years ago when there was actually crops being raised in greenland (unlike the sheet of cold it is today) prior to much influence from mankind?
2) Why is it that neighboring planets are experiencing similar warming cycles to our planet without mankind influences?
Is it possible that global warming is influenced by sun spot cycles?
It hardly seems reasonable to cause great harm to our economies when the left in the US see man made global warming fears as another great opportunity for increasing taxes for socialistic wealth redistibution. It is about the money and power of the takers in our society.
Hey quit picking on the engineer, you're defending a movie and statements that were made by someone who is not a even a scientist, think about that for moment.
Living where I do, in the liberal state of Minnesota, I'm assaulted daily by the sheep who call themselves Green. The term Green has become the battle cry for these hippies looking for a reason to control the rest of us. It's so refreshing to see Great Britian denounce this false prophet, with no experience as a meteorologist. I believe algore is nothing but a socialist looking to line his own pockets by introducing fear in our schoolchildren. It's interesting that the Democratic leaders in my countries Congress are convinced the only cure for global warming is higher taxes.
"There is no contradiction here. Both the film and the response agree that Greenland could melt. That aside, even a partial melting would affect sea levels."
Yes, but the unspoken accusation here is that it will do so quickly, because of man-made warming, not because it is a natural thing to do. And there was NO evidence of this. And Gore talks about twenty feet, when it's really more like ten or fifteen inches max, and the expected is less than that.
"That is astounding, given that a simple Google search yields several studies. For a brief review of some evidence, see the references cited in Graham et al. (2006). Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 8425-8429. This "finding" is evidence of the government's weakness in defending its position; it's certainly not reflective of any weakness in the scientific evidence."
Coral reef bleaching is caused by many factors, warmer water being only one of them. Water is made warmer and cooler all the time, and patterns change over time. The difference is that the movie claims that reefs will be damaged by global warming, but they are being damaged by simple warmer water, caused by natural phenomena. The problem we have with you scare-mongers is that ANY warming suddenly becomes evidence of GLOBAL warming, and all of is gets credited back to MAN-MADE global warming, which NONE of those studies you cited can prove is the cause of the bleaching.
"Hmm. I doubt that the claimant or the authors realize just how strong this assertion really is. Very little is "scientifically impossible"–that term is usually reserved for obvious violations of the laws of physics."
And, before ridiculing them, did you study as to what it takes to "stop the Gulfstream from flowing"? I'd say that qualifies as pretty damn near impossible by your own standard…unless of course you can show me where it shuts off and on regularly due to AGW, not natural cycles. I mean, just show me ONCE where we turned it off due to our lifestyles, and I'll give you this one back.
"For example, it's scientifically impossible to exceed the speed that light travels in a vacuum (and even then, some people will qualify this statement by saying that *as far as we know," it's scientifically impossible). Certainly there is evidence that this is *possible*; see, for example, Curry and Mauritzen (2005) Dilution of the northern North Atlantic Ocean in recent decades, Science 308, 1772. I don't know of anyone who argues that Gulf Stream shutdown is an inevitable, likely, or even unlikely consequence of global warming, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence that it's impossible. If the authors think otherwise, it'd be good if they cited actual evidence to support the claim."
Or maybe you could cite some evidence that someone believes it likely, or even possible, without sending us a shill for the Global Warming set. Or, you know, evidence?
"As a side note, I notice that the authors' claim is a bit different here. Instead of saying "The Court found…" or "The Government expert admitted…," they say "The Claimant's evidence…." Did the Court accept the Claimant's argument? Did the Government?"
Did you ever think that maybe the claimant produced evidence that made the court believe it was more likely that the Gulfstream couldn't be shut down? Or that, at least, the probability was so unlikely as to make it virtually impossible? Or is that exactly what you're arguing, that they said no chance, and you're trying to get that 'one-in-a-million chance put back in the forecast?
"I haven't had a chance to research the other claims; perhaps these purported "corrections" need corrections as well. A link to the court decision (assuming British courts release such things) would help clarify matters substantially."
And with not one shred of evidence, you then dismiss all the others as "needing corrections". That's like saying, "You're lying, but I'm not going to prove you are, since I've proved you already were about these things, I don't need to, I'll just raise suspicion, which is what I'm REALLY trying to do with no facts to back me up."
"Regardless of the truth of these claims, it's obviously good to examine the film for inaccuracies, and it's critical that these inaccuracies be conveyed to students."
Finally, ground we can all agree on.
"It's certainly best to rely on the science–but that requires, well, relying on *science*, not on a court decision or on the press releases of a nonscientific and partisan political organization like "Cooler Heads." "
In other words, it requires "science you agree with". Got it.
In short, Steven, like all AGW nutjobs, you find any warming, it MUST be man-made, and that MUST be bad. We get it, you hate mankind (or maybe you're just a dupe who is unable to listen to the truth, or maybe you're just a yellow-dog democrat who's been brainwashed by the socialist left, the perpetrators of this hoax), and you want us to stop driving cars, and go live with the little animals, apologizing for using toilets and toilet paper.
Get a grip. Go live on another planet if you don't like humans so much. Oh, forgot, they're having global warming on THOSE planets, too. Shucks, there's goes YOUR theories, huh?
Oh, and lest we mention that Gore makes money for selling carbon credits? Sort of like telling everyone that the sky is falling, then selling sky falling insurance.
It amazes me sometimes, just how far the Global Warming debate has gone. Opponents are so polarised (sorry about the pun) that you don't listen to the reasoned arguments that come from independant scientists, govt scientists, agencies, non governmental organisations.
It seems both camps are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs that nothing that I say will ever change minds (which makes me quite sad.
I think the film has polarised views even more so with many deniers using the innacuracies to hammer home the point that man-made GW is not happening (its just a ploy to raise taxes,to employ more scientists, to cause fear etc). We need to step away from the film and look again at the facts.
To my mind as a British subject, (not a left wing, tree hugger, lentil eater or other offensive defination right wing American, truck driving, rednecks (can you see what I mean) label us)) it seems to me the consensus has been proved. This doesn't mean that we should all get rid of our cars, kill all cattle abandon the cities and live in teepee's, eating grass for the rest of our days, it means we need to simply change our behaviour in ways that are managable.
I think everyone should be able to manage to change their lifestyle a little, just in case the tree huggers are right!
You never know!!!
At any rate, just my two cents worth, but the real problem in my mind is not whether the Earth is getting hotter. Heck, I am an outdoorsman and I can assure you it is hotter where I live than it used to be. The real problem is not whether humans contribute to warming – I find the notion that we do not contribute some rather silly. The problem to me is stifling debate. On virtually any other topic the notion of scientific consensus ending scientific investigation is sacrilege. At one time, the "consensus" was Dr. Oschner was a quack for linking lung cancer to smoking. The "consensus" once was that malaria was caused by bad air. The "consensus" once was the "sound barrier" was exactly that an impenetrable barrier that would literally destroy anything. For Heaven's sake, at one time the "consensus" was there was no such thing as solar wind. How dangerous is it to stymie SCIENCE (which by nature means to investigate, question or confirm) with consensus? How chilling is it to shout down those who seek to scientifically challenge the conclusions reached by others?
For my part, I welcome the debate itself. That is healthy. The truth has nothing to fear from the scrutiny. In fact, we cannot even get to the truth without the scrutiny. To those who challenge the former VP "consensus" keep the faith and keep up the fight, for science and the truth need you. Even if you are ultimately proven wrong.
Firstly, bush, you still have not managed to catch me. Second, someone says that the earth is warming, so the masses start sweating. I blow many people up, it creates co2. What are you going to do to stop that? I fart, what can you do to stop that?
The world is not all english speaking, nor is the whole world living in america. It is time that you filthy infidels started putting up or shutting up.
By that i mean, catch me if you can, and secondly, why does the rest of the world have to believe the crap that western cranks expound?
Bush lied about WMD's and has displaced 2 million people, and killed thousands of US soldiers and Iraq people. What does it take for you people to start making your own minds up?
I believe aljazeerah tv is the best, and i will rule the world from my mountain hideaway, where i enjoy the flesh of 75 virgins, because i am, the chosen one.
According to an Earth Policy Institute press release dated 15 November 2001 [http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update2.htm] “The leaders of Tuvalu — a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean …announc[ed] that they will abandon their homeland. [T]he Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but it has not agreed to do so. During the twentieth century, sea level rose by 20-30 centimeters (8-12 inches)…. As sea level has risen, Tuvalu has experienced lowland flooding. Saltwater intrusion is adversely affecting its drinking water and food production. Coastal erosion is eating away at the nine islands that make up the country.”
Comments on this entry are closed.