British judge finds nine errors in Al Gore's "alarmist and exaggerated" Inconvenient Truth movie

The British newspapers are full of stories this morning about a High Court judge's criticisms of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth movie.  See The Times, Daily Mail and Guardian.

Mr Justice Barton had been asked to rule on the film after the British Government had announced plans to have it distributed throughout the nation's schools.

Justice Barton found 'nine scientific errors' in the film and accused Mr Gore of "alarmism" and "exaggeration".  Although he agreed that the film was "powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced," he said that it was a political film and was so "one-sided" that it needed to be accompanied with other materials that provided pupils with balance if the Government was to continue with its plans to distribute it to schools.

The nine errors are summarised in the Daily Mail graphic that is reproduced on the right (click to enlarge).

Even the environment analyst of the BBC - which has been at the forefront of campaigning for action on climate change and was recently forced into cancelling a day of programmes dedicated to the subject - said the ruling would be "embarrassing" for Al Gore.

The Conservative Party's environment spokesman, Peter Ainsworth, has called upon the Government to prepare "a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence" and distribute that to schools, rather than the Al Gore movie.

Comments

[Denise]

I wonder if the fact that all these scientists keep drilling holes in the ice, breaking it up here and there in the North Pole has anything to do with the melting?

Anyway, as I have said many times before, I believe global warming (and cooling!) is natural and Al Gore along with many other polititians are simply trying to scare everyone into thinking it's all our fault (Americans especially) so that we can live in fear, wallow in self loathing, allow the government to impose more ridiculous taxes on us and take away our freedoms all in the name of 'environment'. Think about it. Everyone, people of all races, religions, nationalities, etc. live in the environment. Therefore, it's the only tactic they think will scare ALL people. Didn't the Communists use that same tactic? Is history repeating itself?

[Denise]

Atheling, don't forget Jimmy Carter.

[Steevo]

That's how I tend to see it too Denise. With the erosion of traditional values which have given a sense of meaning and purpose for most, global warming has been used as a religion of sorts filling a void. On the one hand creating an urgency through fear and on the other, a grand sense of purpose (saving the earth).

So many in the movement's vanguard have been hypocrites yet intolerant of dissent. There is money and power of control to be had.

I agree with many here in that if its to be discussed there has to be honest balance because there is a substantial amount of evidence disputing the alarmists claims.

[Maduka]

Why is there so much opposition to the Global warming thesis on the American Right? Is the problem with the science or with the salespeople?

Why is the American right opposed to environmentalism? Is it because it is associated with 'bleeding heart liberals', 'the sissy left', 'hollywood tree huggers' and 'ageing hippies'? Or is it because it is all junk science?

[Steevo]

Why is there so much advocacy of the global warming thesis on the Left? Why isn't there a problem with the so-called science or salespeople?

Why do you believe the American right is opposed to environmentalism? What does that have to do with this discussion?

[Frogg, USA]

The right is just as concerned about the environment as the left. The difference is that the right wants decisions about what to do to be based on real science; not a political agenda.
------------------------------

Gore's Nobel Peace Prize Getting Cool Reception

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/10/13/gores-nobel-peace-prize-getting-cool-reception.php

[Jonathan Jones]

The opposition on the right comes from the fact that the global environmental movement has as its primary goal the destruction of the free market world economy.

Conservatives are instinctively in favor of conserving the environment. But all Kyoto will accomplish is economic disaster. We demand better evidence that there is a problem and we can solve it by doing so, before we commit to sacrificing our way of life.

Many on the left would like nothing better than to see communism/socialism ultimately vindicated, and they see environmental controls as a way of mitigating the success of capitalism.

Other lefties are constantly on the lookout for self-flagellating opportunities to assuage their guilt for their affluence. Anything they can do to hurt the interests of their countries is on the table, it seems.

Still others are so effete in their sense of personal moral superiority, which emerges from a life of never having one's morality tested -- they take on these "pet" causes to enhance their moral "resume", like ornaments on a Christmas tree. The illogic of their causes is either irrelevant or beyond their grasp; what's important is their self-righteous sense of goodness.

[Steevo]

Very good post Jonathan.

Here's just a few recent examples of their cause...

This summer, an ex-Clinton official blamed the collapsed bridge in Minnesota on global warming.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change.

Some were blaming it for hurricane Katrina.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled this Sept. dismissing a suit brought by the State of California against six car companies for causing injury due to causing global warming.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most extreme measures - a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''

Even Osama bin Laden is using the hysteria for his glorious cause claiming we're fighting the wrong enemy.

My goodness its reached a point saying you’re not convinced about fighting global warming is akin to saying you’re not for education, children, world peace, Africa or a cure for cancer.

[Maduka]

Climate change is occuring, whether it is man-made or not is secondary.

What is the conservative response?

Is it to:
1. Invest in technologies / economic incentives that enable us adapt to change.(Since the change will occur regardless).
2. Or try to reduce the human carbon footprint.
3. Or do nothing.

(At this point in time (t), the conservative movement is doing relatively little).

Energy dependence /Enviromentalism and Healthcare are major issues in the US.

It is not enough for conservatives to dismiss liberal efforts as being 'socialist/communist'. Lets identify the alternatives to Kyoto and aggressively pursue them.

The world is waiting, with baited breath - to hear what the brilliant conservative ideas are.

[atheling]

Maduka:

Maybe if you read conservative books and went to conservative websites you might find answers to your questions.

Have you been there? What's the last book you've read by a conservative?

I wait with bated breath. (not "baited")

[Steevo]

I agree with atheling, what do you know about the "conservative movement" and state as some kind of fact it we whatever doesn't care about this planet's health?

"Climate change is occuring, whether it is man-made or not is secondary."

Well that kinda says it all where you're coming from, complete ignorance to the issue at hand here. Climate change has always occurred in warming and cooling cycles. We've never been able to change such forces of nature and nobody has suggested that possibility. So, whether it is man-made or not is of primary concern, period.

Again you're posting to create questions which imply negative accusations toward conservatives. And again, of course, with no answers to your own questions - questions you use only to create an impression of importance and negative connotation.

[atheling]

Tell you what, Maduka.

Read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, then come back and I'll take your comments seriously.

That is, of course, if you can refrain from disingenuousness.

[Denise]

Steevo, I have also heard people blame tsunamis and earthquakes on global warming. I thought that activity under the earth had nothing to do with the atmosphere??? So that and the ridiculous claims from people you mentioned above leave me believing it's all hype.

Maduka, I don't deny that climate is changing. And yes we are going through a warming period. The fact is that it has happened for centuries and we must have adapted then because man kind is still here. So why all the screaming? I see nothing wrong with conserving energy and water because I don't like to be wastful anyway and it saves me money. However, should all this eventually lead to government officials banging on my door threatening to haul me off to jail simply for turning on the dryer, revving up the microwave or driving to work, then there's a problem. Let Al Gore have his way and our country will probably be like that sometime in the future. It sounds insane right now but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Steevo]

"Steevo, I have also heard people blame tsunamis and earthquakes on global warming. I thought that activity under the earth had nothing to do with the atmosphere??? So that and the ridiculous claims from people you mentioned above leave me believing it's all hype."

And this is what we here from world leaders. It would be humorous if only coming from fringe fanatics, but this can be dangerous.

That is a remarkable point about forces under the earth. It kinda reminds me of the recent cold temperature records set in the US last winter - there was either no comment from the GW crowd or of course, it still somehow had to do with their cause.

[mamapajamas]

Maduka, re: "Is it to:
1. Invest in technologies / economic incentives that enable us adapt to change.(Since the change will occur regardless).
2. Or try to reduce the human carbon footprint.
3. Or do nothing.

OK. Let me give you a couple of examples of leftists "investing in technologies".

Several states have recently invested huge sums of money into building corn ethanol refineries. Now farmers are switching to ethanol varieties of corn because they get a better price for it, and the price of feed corn for farm animals has quadrupled because of its now-comparitive rarity. The price of meat, poultry, eggs, milk, cheese, etc have doubled. The animal farmers are trying to hold the line on prices, but feed corn is getting ridiculous because some idjit came up with the idea of pouring one of the pillars of the US food chain, corn, into our fuel tanks.

In the meantime, new research is coming out saying that PRODUCING ethanol is not energy-efficient, and actual ethanol products are even more polluting than gasoline.

So huge bucks have been spent to switch to a MORE polluting fuel that is actively destructive to our food chain.

Another thing is those silly twisty florescent light bulbs. The things are LOADED with mercury. People are NOT going to read the instructions on the labels telling how to properly dispose of them-- they're just going to screw them into their light sockets, use them, and then throw them in the garbage when they burn out-- and they are going to poison our land fills.

Save a few urgs of energy and poison the ground water at the same time. Right.

THESE are examples of "investing in new technologies" that have disasterous potential.

It would be much safer to go nuclear on power.

And that is something the right supports that the left is working long and hard to block.

Go figure.

[Robert Powell]

Sorry, but mamapajamas is delusional.

The push for ethanol is primarily from big agribusiness.

Compact fluorescent light are not "LOADED" with mercury and even if they were, so-called "conservatives" fight every regulation aimed at curbing pollution. Read at snopes.com that CFLs "contain about 5 milligrams of mercury, about the size of a period at the end of a sentence." It is false that "the mercury in one CFL bulb poses a grave danger to a home's inhabitants."

Nuclear power is NOT SAFE. What is it about the 100,000 years that nuclear waste has to be contained that you don't understand. Talk about poisonous.

And "liberals" are NOT the "left" that believes all businesses should be owned and run by the government. You NEVER hear that. Now you hear every day from the extremist "right" that we should privatize-everything and they're doing it. Their control of government has led us into fascism. Liberals believe that we need government when adverse selection, negative externalities, and positive externalities are involved and when there are long delays. See Explaining Liberal Principles on my website.

[Andy]

I have read that Al Gore has accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He'd better set off to Norway soon, cos its a long walk. Ah, unless he is thinking of jetting there, churning out more greenhouse gases in a hilariously ironic mission to save the planet. It's a bit like Hitler firing up a huge Zeppelin to travel out and accept an award from the Jewish Defence League!

As if he'd have lifted one effing finger to save the planet if he was elected president...

[buy viagra]

There are many ancient texts that tell that Atlantis is buried under all the ice of the antarctic, there are evidence of trees, grass, etc. Evidence that once it was on a different position, maybe on the equatorial plane.