Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

 

gore.jpg

Al Gore’s disaster movie is fiction, like most disaster movies. The decision by the government to distribute it has been the subject of legal action by a concerned parent, Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in  11 respects and  that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Al Gore and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

  1. Excellent post. What a piy that those idiots who grant Nobel Prizes were not in court to hear this or were they shown the UK Channel 4 TV film, “The Great Global Warming Scam”.
    This should turn out to be a turkey, similar to those Nobel Laureates who said that HIV did NOT cause Aids!

  2. Roger Helmer says:

    Gore apparently says that “these are merely nine points amongst hundreds”. But the presumed correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature was, and is, at the heart of the film and of the alarmist position. Without it, the case falls apart.

  3. Derek Tipp says:

    I am delighted to be associated with this successful court action to prevent one-sided propaganda in our schools, see link below.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

  4. Bob Paul says:

    “The Observer has established that Dimmock’s case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.”

    Well done Mr Tipp – You should be proud of supporting fuel and mining lobbies at the expense of our climate, our health and our future!

  5. Environmental Realist says:

    Bob – what does your car run on? Fresh air – or maybe oil? What produces the electricity allowing you to be on the internet? Fossil fuels? You should be proud consuming that energy at the apparent expense of our climate, health and our future!

  6. For once I agree with Bob Paul — Well Done Councillor Tipp!

    They say that Al Gore plans to spend half his Nobel prize money on environmental causes — and the other half paying his electricity bill!

  7. Bob Paul says:

    They say that the conservatives will never get back into power because although their leader pretends to be interested in the environment it doesn’t take much looking about to find a whole bunch of conservative representatives who are anti-environmentalists and in the pockets of the fuel lobby.

    The average age of a conservative voter is rising steeply. Young people are not interested in a party that is not interested in the environment and denies the existence of global warming.

  8. Bob Paul says:

    Mis Tip is obviously more interested in keeping his business associates happy and rich than in in the insterests of his constituents

  9. Bob – young people are interested in the party. The party has more members than the others – and indeed I suspect more young members too. In fact the Conservative youth movement if the most active of all the major parties in the UK in my estimation.

    I only suppose you play the man and not the ball when people disagree?

    If the electorate disagree with Councillor Tipp they wont elect him again – that’s democracy – just as they won’t elect Roger Helmer if they disagree with his policy. However Roger has been returned top of the party’s list for the Euro election for the last two times he has stood (if memory serves me correctly), and I suspect he will be re-elected once again.

    How about this Bob – if you care so passionately in what you believe and you think you are right- why dont you stand for public office?

  10. Peter Kirby says:

    Anyone seeking balanced scholarly comment on global warming must subscribe to CCnet (editor Professor B.J.Peiser. It is free. To suscribe go to Listserver@livjm.ac.uk and enter “subscibe cambridge conference. It consists of extracts from academic papers, scientific journals, and reports from all over the world.

  11. Bob Paul: It is libellous and downright pathetic for you to accuse decent people of being in the pay of the energy industry. I have campaigned viogorously against climate hysteria, and have received not a penny from any industrial or energy company (though I have used some of my parliamentary allowances on the project). What about all the scientists who are funded by governments, the Environment and Climate Change Officers funded by local councils, the IPCC funded by tax-payers, the environmental journalists funded by their employers. I have met no sceptic whom I know to be funded by industry. But there are literally thousands selling climate hysteria who are funded (involuntarily) by the tax-payer!

  12. With two opposing forces claiming responsibility for global warming it is probably a bit of both. Surely what matters is that all countries should be to some degree self sufficient in energy so that they are not beholden to some tin pot dictator regime of ex KGB President. This is a good enough reason for economy in fuel usage and seeking green alternatives.

  13. Derek Tipp says:

    When Al Gore says the 11 inaccuracies mentioned by the judge were only 11 out of hundreds, I would like to point out that the judge asked Mr Dimmocks counsel to give him the top 10 out of a much longer list. It was simply a lack of court time that led to a list of 11, as there are many more that could be added.

    The press article mentioning my connection was trying to dismiss the legal action by trying to suggest it was paid for by the “oil lobby”, but this was a lie. What the court action showed was that a High Court Judge, who weighed the evidence carefully, agreed that the film was propaganda and that the government was in breach of the Education Act 1996 by not pointing out where the film went over the top. As a result they have had to issue new guidance to teachers.

    I believe that it is important for children to be given balanced and impartial information, not propaganda.

  14. Roger Helmer says:

    The EU wants to reduce average emissions for each motor manufacturer to 120 gms/km. This is estimated to cost up to €230 per ton of CO2 saved. But studies of carbon reduction technologies suggest that we could readily meet out Kyoto targets (if we want to do that) by methods costing less than €20 per ton of CO2.

    Even if you believe the CO2/climate proposition, this is a spectacularly uneconomic EU policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s