Latest News
August 1, 2008
Wall Street Journal
Reid Wilson, Real Clear Politics
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
July 30, 2008
Jay Ambrose, DC Examiner
Cooler Heads Bookstore

Visit the Cooler Heads Bookstore at Amazon.com

Newsletter Sign-Up
Email*
First Name*
Last Name*
State
* Required

Upcoming Events

There are currently no upcoming events.

» view past events

Court Finds Truths Inconvenient for Gore

Iain Murray
October 10, 2007

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."

Corrections to corrections

Interesting, but perhaps not as devastating as the author makes it seem. Several of these alleged "inaccuracies" don't appear to be inaccuracies at all. For example:

* "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."

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.

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

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.

* "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."

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. 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.

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?

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.

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. 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."

What science?

I keep hearing about the "concensus" of scientists. Being an applied scientist (an engineer) I always thought that science was based on fact, not concensus. So far I haven't seen any facts that global warming is caused by anything other than natural sun cycles. (Just like the heating on Mars and Mercury). All this talk about rising tides and melting polar caps has absolutely no basis in science. (Fill a glass with ice, top it off to the brim with water and let it melt. Then come back to me with claims of rising tides).

Bob, quick question: what do

Bob, quick question: what do you engineer? Because I'm not sure I'd want to trust a bridge you designed. A) There's a much longer, relatively pointless argument regarding the role of concensus in the progress of science; the question of whether there is concensus among scientists matters because policy-makers and the general public need to make choices based on their limited understanding of the climate science. B) If you haven't seen any facts that indicate that human activity has caused climate change, that's because you haven't been looking. Is the evidence absolutely conclusive? As far as I know, it is not, and probably never could be, given the complexity of the global climate. But the evidence that human activity has changed the climate is steadily accumulating. C) Measure the water level in your hypothetical glass very carefully and you will find that, once the ice melts, the water temperature will increase, which will cause thermal expansion. If the glass is in the sun, this will happen even faster, since liquid water absorbs heat faster than ice. D) While the ice in the Arctic is floating, most of the ice in Greenland and Antartica is above sea level. If it melts, or if global climate change causes it to flow into the sea faster, you might get catastrophic sea level change.

rising sea levels

you could place ice cubes in a class and fill it to the brim with water, and yes you will find that the water level doesn't rise, however for an applied scientists your not very intellegent in the sense that your obviously commenting on a film you have not sat through. Because if you had you would be aware that Al Gore is not refering to the ice that sits emerged in the water already under sea level, he is talking about the ice that sits ontop other ice above sea level and at present does not contribute the water volume.... Think about it ... you've filled your glass ice cubes and water right to the brim, but then you decide to add three more ice cubes.... Do it, you will see

If you do that then that

If you do that then that would mean that the ice are not melting. Why don't people use logic before they say something?

Corrections?

Politics and consensus are not science, sir, nor are the mights and could's that construct your statements.

You read my mind

Exactly what I was thinking, but set out much more eloquently than I could have. I don't have a strong view about whether global warming is a reality: I haven't read anywhere near enough to draw my own conclusions. But with the number of people saying it IS real, and the phenomenal downside if it's real and we don't do anything about it, surely it shouldn't be dismissed simply because 'it hasn't been proved conclusively'?

Impossibility?

It is also possible that you could weave the possibility of an impossibility into the mix by showing with language how nothing is impossible. In theory, yes. When evidence "suggests" it doesn't mean that it will occur. It surmises a possible possibility of outcome (s). The earth is DYNAMIC in it's make-up with the ability to recover as a human can from a wound on the arm. It is not static, which is why there is a vast array of possibilities in weather systems. If we are so dang smart and allegedly can model climates in the future, then how come the weather man on TV cannot predict next week's weather?

Fear is not a great motive to use science. Discovery is better for the art of observance and experiments. Stop waxing poetic about something that is not even close to being understood. Reading it is simply impossible.

IDIOT!

IDIOT!