• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

An Inconvenient Judgement...

JZ_UK

Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
403
Location
UK

Gore climate film's 'nine errors'

A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine scientific errors".

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send Al Gore's film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

A Kent school governor wanted the film banned from secondary schools.

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors stated by the judge included:

# Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

# Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

# Mr Gore reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.

"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

Personally... I don't remember there ever being a caveat before or after anything I was shown in school or college that it didn't represent the whole truth of anything... *shrugs*
 
While I'm not surprised (politicians trying to explain science generally suck at it and will make errors), a ruling from a judge?
 
While I'm not surprised (politicians trying to explain science generally suck at it and will make errors), a ruling from a judge?

While I'm not familiar with the Act in question (Education law isn't something I've ever taken any interest in...) the Act seems to provide that political issues should be handled in an unbiased fashion

Politics

406. Political indoctrination.
407. Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.

The case was brought by a school governor... now... I don't know whether the same holds true in the US... but here... school governors tend to be a number of things...

1, White
2, Middle class
3, Have too much time on their hands
4, Believe their almost invariably conservative outlook on life is the only outlook
5, Have a superiority complex
6, Be more religiously active than the community at large

Not the kind of people to go off starting nuisance litigation... not at all that sort of people... :rolleyes:
 
It's not really a theory.

let me re-emphazize

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

As usual the (insert minority interest group here) are arguing in the margins to cloud the issue.

I haven't seen the film. But it's main thrust is absolutely demonstratable. That Humanity is having a massive and possibly irrevocable influence on the eco systems and climate of this planet.

Only a complete fool would manage to think that what..6-7 ?? billion of us are able to continue on in this manner.

If I wanted to get alarmist I could do a lot worse than saying Greenland's ice is ...'alot'

Now onto rhetoric....I sincerely believe that my generation will probably be looked upon with fear, hatred and revulsion in generations to come.

We know, and can see the effects (in broad terms) and have rejected so far almost any action that could have any impact in the long term.

Bear in mind that Humanity will survive, that's what we do. But what sort of bizarre science fiction future are we leaving for our children?
 
Gore's film shouldn't be taught in classrooms; science should be taught.

The real, solid science and Gore clearly have some points of agreement - namely that we are experiencing anthropogenic global warming - but Gore is not a scientist, he just made a pop science film. I'm not aware that his film was peer reviewed. It seems like his film contains some errors that a peer reviewed text wouldn't.

They should teach about global warming but they should do it from, yknow, textbooks.
 
I learned more about Gore's "simple upbringing" and cattle farm experience in Tennessee than the chemical mechanisms surrounding global warming.
 
Gore's film shouldn't be taught in classrooms; science should be taught.

The real, solid science and Gore clearly have some points of agreement - namely that we are experiencing anthropogenic global warming - but Gore is not a scientist, he just made a pop science film. I'm not aware that his film was peer reviewed. It seems like his film contains some errors that a peer reviewed text wouldn't.

They should teach about global warming but they should do it from, yknow, textbooks.
Hoorah! Sense!

Gore's film has one usefuill aplication. Make people aware of the problem. People should know about his flick, without having to see it. Teach the kids science, not Gore's life story.
 
It shouldn't be shown. The movie isn't at all scientific, they barely mention any science at all. Nearly the entire movie is emotional pictures and Al Gore promotion. What does his childhood and family haveto do with global warming. They should show an inpartial serious documentary.
 
I think the judge was right. Gore doesn't emphasise his interpretations properly and so a child might get the wrong impressions.

Maybe clips could be used, for sure.

A boned-up science teacher could show the film (parts of it anyway) and then apply intelligent criticisms and addendums. That would be useful.
 
Maybe clips could be used, for sure.

A boned-up science teacher could show the film (parts of it anyway) and then apply intelligent criticisms and addendums. That would be useful.


Yes! I've noticed a severe lack of critical thinking taught in education these days!


As an example (long ago in a galaxy far far away) I did high school at a catholic college. The Brothers addressed many social issues. For example on abortion they showed us pictures of the procedure. Up to and including the abortion bucket !! *eck* Obviously 'emotively' you are predisposed towards opposition.

Then they asked, well what about in a rape case?

What about serious deformity, etc?

So each one of us intellectually was challenged to find our own sticking point. Where morality meets the practical. This sort of learning was taught on many issues.

Same thing in History. First Lesson, to read History people had to write things. So your first question upon reading is. 'Why' is he telling me this?

For those that ever get to see Fox news, you should keep that baby in mind!

:lol:

So I'll give my education some kudos for making me think rather than basically handing me a sniper rifle and asking me to matyr myself against the sinners.


Thanks for reading my rambling post. And hopefully you too will ask that all important question. Why.
 
As an example (long ago in a galaxy far far away) I did high school at a catholic college. The Brothers addressed many social issues. For example on abortion they showed us pictures of the procedure. Up to and including the abortion bucket !! *eck* Obviously 'emotively' you are predisposed towards opposition.

Then they asked, well what about in a rape case?

What about serious deformity, etc?
Bunch of heretics. The position of teh church is that catholics must be against abortion in all circumstances, so why are they bothering with free thought? :p

Besides, if one becomes opposed to stuff simply because it's disgusting, say bye-bye to surgery and meat slaughtering!
 
Good for the judgement. Let the super rich tobacco farmer promote his personal agenda on his own dime. Leave science to the scientists.
 
I don't think there should be any TV in school - time could better used packing in more material.

Except on special occasions, like watch The Life of Brian on the last day of ancient history.
 
The case was brought by a school governor... now... I don't know whether the same holds true in the US... but here... school governors tend to be a number of things...

1, White
2, Middle class
3, Have too much time on their hands
4, Believe their almost invariably conservative outlook on life is the only outlook
5, Have a superiority complex
6, Be more religiously active than the community at large

In the US, public educators (especially at the college level) are overwhelmingly liberal. The very few professors/teachers that are conservative will almost all be found in the business department.
 
Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said:
I want this man caught and shot NOW for abusing my good name. :mad:

On a side note: almost all science taught in schools is inaccurate in some way, the only way to teach is to introduce a lie, and make it closer to the truth as education progresses. Otherwise we'd be teaching QM and relativity to 7 year olds.
 
Anyone here still in favor of the Fairness Doctrine? :mischief:

No, and it should never be applied to science; at least not for "fairness" for sides that are not of the scientific consensus.

Too bad the general point of the documentary still holds though! Really, the better attack against policy of climate change is whether or not something can be done effectively against it, or prepare for it, rather than trying to dispute the science behind it. Stuff like the Copenhagen Consensus.
 
Top Bottom