Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'll respond fully when I get a link. It appears you're paraphrasing something the judge said, but I'd rather read it in context before I respond. And legal opinion is not fact... Most of what you said was opinion, not fact. Being legal opinion does not make it fact. The judge isn't even a scientist, all he can do is make a ruling based on the quality of information before him. His personal opinions on the issue should have no bearing on the actual facts of the case. The facts of the case is what he rules on, not personal opinion. But even still, I'd like to see what he actually said in context. That would be interesting.

I agree with you, but if I had come in here attacking the judge like that over the 9 "errors", I'm sure you would have been verrrrrrrry receptive to that argument, wouldn't you? "Those nine errors mean nothing! The judge isn't even a scientist!"

You came in here, waving this judge's ruling around like it actually said something significant about Al Gore's science. It actually does. A judge in a legal opinion described the nine errors on the record. There is now a legal precedent. For you to now argue that these opinions stated in this ruling are really pretty much meaningless is absurd.

But, unfortunately for Al Gore's foes, the judge ended up ruling against the claimant. This means that it will be harder for parents to legally challenge the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools.

I know the difference between facts and opinions. You should know that a judge's ruling is called an "opinion", but it is not meaningless. The judge looks at the facts, and then applies the law. Next time there is a similar case, the lawyers arguing it will be able to rely on this ruling.

[JaJae]

I found it.

What you're referring to is on page 8 here.
Approved Judgment

I copy/pasted your post and found it in many comments of news articles on the story, but not used in any news story itself. I then searched the internet for the transcript and found where the information came from. It is provided in the link to the judge's ruling above.

The person posting this all over the internet doesn't know what they are talking about or was purposely lying. So I'll try to put it into perspective. The role of the judge in this case was to determine whether or not the film was a scientific film that could be allowed to be played in schools. In order for it to be a scientific film it must meet certain criteria, such as actually being a reliable scientific source of information. The judge ruled that it wasn't. He ruled that the film was alarmist, exaggerated and had some falsehoods. However, he said because of it's nature and complete partisan one-sidedness it could be classified as a political film. And under those grounds it could be played in public schools only with proper warnings and learning materials. He then goes on to address what he finds to be flaws in Al Gore's work and what needs to be further explained. He even claims the film presents its information as being the mainstream view, but in reality it is not.

Regardless here is the part you quoted:

17.
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)
It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the
science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to
make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii)
As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each
of which is very well supported by research published in
respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the
latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising
significantly over the past half century and are likely to
continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
(“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant
adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and
governments can take which will help to reduce climate
change or mitigate its effects.”

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.

What he's saying is that the defense claims those views are supported by a great number of published scientific journals so therefore, even if it may not be mainstream or the popular view, it is founded on science and therefore should be allowed to be shown in schools. The judge accepts that there is a wide range of peer reviewed articles that make those claims, however, he goes on to say that much of the presentation in An Inconvenient Truth is exaggerated alarmism and does not follow the mainstream consensus. And if the schools want to show the film they have to either tell the other side or at least explain the mainstream view.

He even discusses that there are many "errors" in the film that need to be corrected in the guidance notes.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I agree with you, but if I had come in here attacking the judge like that over the 9 "errors", I'm sure you would have been verrrrrrrry receptive to that argument, wouldn't you? "Those nine errors mean nothing! The judge isn't even a scientist!"

It does mean something. It means that a reasonable person presented with two sides of the story by two people arguing their case decided that on many key issues in the film Al Gore made statements that were "errors", "false" or well over the top of the mainstream view to the degree of alarmism and political indoctrination.

You came in here, waving this judge's ruling around like it actually said something significant about Al Gore's science. It actually does. A judge in a legal opinion described the nine errors on the record. There is now a legal precedent. For you to now argue that these opinions stated in this ruling are really pretty much meaningless is absurd.

I'm not stating their meaningless. I said they're not fact. There's a very big difference. The judge ruled on the facts of the case, not the opinions brought before him. It was his job to look at the statements in Gore's film and determine if there was enough scientific justification to make them. In many cases he said there wasn't. He said there wasn't enough scientific data for the film to be played in public schools as a scientific movie. He said the views in the film were political, not scientific and even in the political realm many of the statements made were false.

But, unfortunately for Al Gore's foes, the judge ended up ruling against the claimant. This means that it will be harder for parents to legally challenge the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools.

I think this is a clear victory against Gore. The judge said his movie was a political film based on unsound science. And in that sense, political films are allowed to be played in schools. If the film were considered a scientific film the ruling may have gone another way. And in order for the film to be played the teachers have to first give handouts discussing all the false statements in the movie and debate both sides of the global warming issue. That's what most people would consider a victory.

I know the difference between facts and opinions. You should know that a judge's ruling is called an "opinion", but it is not meaningless. The judge looks at the facts, and then applies the law. Next time there is a similar case, the lawyers arguing it will be able to rely on this ruling.

I don't understand what this has to do with previous statements made, but yes. It will be very difficult to pull the movie out of schools. But I'm not sure anyone was really looking for out right censorship. I think degrading the movie to the point where the class first has to call the movie a political film because the science is fubared and then discuss all the lies, um "errors" beforehand is plenty humiliating to the movie itself and likely will prevent many pro-Gore teachers from presenting the video.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

There is a scientific consensus.

The IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

The judge agrees, and uses the IPCC consensus as the benchmark. Even the claimants' lawyer agrees that the IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

According to the judge in this hearing, "An Inconvenient Truth" is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.

These are the facts: Global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise. Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions. Climate change will, if left unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations. And, there are indeed measures that we can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its negative effects.

THAT is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Those four assertions of fact are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Originally Posted by link

Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin)
Case No: CO/3615/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
10/10/2007

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE BURTON
____________________
Between:
Stuart Dimmock
Claimant
- and -

Secretary of State for Education and Skills
(now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families)
Defendant

____________________

Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT

____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Burton:
1. Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), as part of a pack containing four other short films and a cross-reference to an educational website ("Teachernet") containing a dedicated Guidance Note. In the event the film has already been distributed – no point is taken by the Defendant on any delay by the Claimant in bringing his claim – so that no injunction to restrain such distribution is possible. Plainly if the decision and/or the distribution is declared unlawful, the films could be recalled. Permission was refused on paper by Beatson J, but he ordered that the renewed application for permission be adjourned so as to come on as a "rolled-up" hearing at the same time as, and immediately prior to, the listing of the hearing of the application itself if permission were granted. In the event, after hearing argument, I granted permission, and this is the judgment on the application. I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.

2. The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. The provisions read as follows:

"406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid …

the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

3. I viewed the film at the parties' request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:

"(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."

4. Martin Chamberlain, who, with equal skill, has adopted a very realistic position on the part of the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. There is thus no need to consider any analysis or definition of the word 'political' (which is plainly not limited to party political) such as that in McGovern v AG [1982] Ch 321 at 340.

5. Channel 4 has produced a film which was referred to during the hearing, although I have not seen it, which presents a counter-view, a sceptical approach to the climate change debate called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". This has not been sent to schools, although there is reference to it in the Guidance Note on the website, to which I have referred.

6. It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils. News releases were issued on 2 February 2007 by the Department for Education and Skills (I shall ignore its subsequent change of name) ("DES") and by DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The DES news release read in material part:

"Climate change film distributed to all secondary schools.

The powerful Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" will form part of a pack on climate change sent to every secondary school in England, Environment Secretary David Milliband and Education Secretary Alan Johnson announced today. The film documents former US Vice President Al Gore's personal mission to highlight the issues surrounding global warming and inspire actions to prevent it.

Mr Milliband said:

'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over, as demonstrated by the publication of today's report by the IPCC' [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 'Our energies should now be channelled into how we respond in an innovative and positive way in moving to a low carbon future. I was struck by the visual evidence the film provides, making clear that the changing climate is already having an impact on our world today, from Mount Kilimanjaro to the Himalayan mountains. As the film shows, there is no reason to feel helpless in the face of this challenge. Everyone can play a part along with government and business in making a positive contribution and helping to prevent climate change.'

Mr Johnson added:

'With rising sea temperatures, melting icecaps and frequent reminders about our own 'carbon footprints', we should all be thinking about what we can do to preserve the planet for future generations. Children are the key to changing society's long term attitude to the environment. Not only are they passionate about saving the planet but children also have a big influence over their own family's lifestyles and behaviour. Al Gore's film is a powerful message about the fragility of our planet and I am delighted that we are able to make sure that every secondary school in the country has a copy to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes.'"

7. In the DEFRA leaflet there was the same quotation from Mr Milliband, but, instead of the quotation from Mr Johnson, there was this one sentence summary:

"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."

8. After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:

"English Secondary Schools Climate Change Pack.

A resource pack to help teachers and pupils explore and understand the issues surrounding climate change was sent to every secondary school in England today. The pack, which includes the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth and a number of other resources, was developed by DEFRA and the Department for Education and Skills. It is accompanied by online teaching guides showing how to use the resources in the pack in science, geography and citizenship lessons.

Schools Minister Jim Knight said:

'Climate change is one of the most important challenges facing our planet today. This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change, and how they as individuals and members of the community should respond to it.'"

9. The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:

"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that parts of the Film contained views about public policy and how we should respond to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."

10. I turn to deal with the outstanding issues of law relating to the construction of the two relevant statutory provisions. These are, in s406, the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: and the meaning and ambit of the duty of the local education authority etc to "forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". In s407 the dispute has been as to the meaning of the duty to "offer a balanced presentation of opposing views" when "political issues are brought to the attention of pupils".

Partisan
11. Again there was not in the event much difference between the parties in this regard. Although there was some earlier suggestion on behalf of the Defendant that partisan might relate to 'party political', it soon became clear that it could not be and is not so limited. Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

This is clearly a useful analysis.

Local educational authority to forbid the promotion of partisan views in the teaching of any subject in the school
12. Mr Downes submits that, if the film, which is sent to schools in order to facilitate its showing, is itself a partisan political film, one that promotes partisan political views, and if schools then make available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then show such film to their pupils, then inevitably there is the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them. Thus he submits, irrespective of any publication of guidance, the breach of the statute is, as he puts it, irremediable. I do not agree, and prefer the submissions of Mr Chamberlain. The statute cannot possibly mean that s406 is breached whenever a partisan political film is shown to pupils in school time. Mr Downes has to assert that there is, depending on the context, an exception that can be made in respect of the teaching of history, but I cannot see how, on his interpretation of the statute, any such exception can be carved out. It must be as much of a breach of the statute, on his construction, for the school or a teacher to show in a history class a film for example of Nazi or Leninist/Stalinist propaganda, or for that matter to make available such literature in documentary form, or to show a racist or an anti-racialist film in a history or a citizenship class, as it is to show or distribute any other film or document which promotes partisan political views. Such an approach however construes the word "promotion" as if it meant nothing more than 'presentation'. What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute. If on the other hand a teacher, in the course of a school day and as part of the syllabus, presents to his pupils, no doubt with the appropriate setting and with proper tuition and debate, a film or document which itself promotes in a partisan way some political view, that cannot possibly in my judgment be the mischief against which the statute was intended to protect pupils. It would not only lead to bland education, but to education which did not give the opportunity to pupils to learn about views with which they might, vehemently or otherwise, either agree or disagree. I conclude that the mere distribution by the Defendant to schools to facilitate their showing the film, and accompanied by guidance, to which I shall refer, is not per se, or irremediably, a promotion of those partisan political views.

Balanced Presentation
13. On the case for the Defendant, with which, as can be seen, I agree, the issue of whether there is facilitated by the DES what is forbidden, namely the promotion by the school of partisan political views, depends in substantial part on the context, and in this case on its Guidance Note. Such Guidance Note is also obviously relevant in relation to s407. On occasions during the hearing, Mr Chamberlain indicated that there were matters that could be left to the good sense and the knowledge of teachers, whether of science, geography or of citizenship. Trust in such teachers is of course, one hopes, always a given. However:

i) in this case it is the DES itself which is putting teachers all over the country into this position by, unusually, supplying a film to every state secondary school and, as indeed the Defendant itself has recognised by supplying the very Guidance Note, it becomes the more important to give assistance to those teachers.

ii) all the more so where even the science and geography teachers are unlikely to be wholly familiar with the detailed questions which underlie the film, or indeed with the full analysis of the present scientific approach to climate change which is in detail set out in the IPCC reports; not to speak of the teachers of citizenship, who are bound to take the scientific and geographical aspects of the film on trust.

14. Hence, consideration of whether there is a breach of s407 must also be given in the light of the Guidance Note. It became quickly clear in the course of the hearing that my judgment was, and indeed remains, that it is, not least in the circumstances above described, insufficient simply to supply in the pack a reference to the website, given that all teachers must be enabled to realise how important the Guidance Note is, but rather that it should be essential that the Guidance Note itself should be a constituent part of the pack. The Defendant, though contending that it had been sufficient to put the guidance on "Teachernet" (from which there had been substantial downloads of it since its publication), readily accepted that it could and would easily be distributed in hard copy if I considered this necessary, which I do. But there remains another respect in which Mr Downes relies on what he submits to be an insurmountable hurdle for the Defendant. He submits that, in order to comply with its duty under s407 to "offer a balanced presentation of opposing views", a school must give what he calls, by reference to the position in the media, "equal air time".

15. He submits that, if the political issues, as per the content of AIT, are to be brought to the attention of pupils, then there must be an equivalent and equal presentation of counter-balancing views. Mr Chamberlain submits that that is misconceived, that the statute cannot possibly prescribe in relation to every political issue or political view, howsoever well founded or well reasoned, that there must be an identical presentation of the converse. He suggests that the nearest analogy would be the duty of a trial judge in setting out the prosecution and defence case before a jury. There is a helpful discussion in this regard in R v Nelson [1997] Crim LR 234 in the judgment of the Court given by Simon Brown LJ, as he then was. The suggestion was that there had been a 'lack of balance' in the judge's summing up. After making it clear that a trial judge was entitled, if not obliged, not to rehearse the defence case blandly and uncritically in the summing up, Simon Brown LJ indicated that "the truth usually is that the lack of balance is to be found in the weight and worth of the rival cases, an imbalance which the summing up, with perfect propriety, then fairly exposes".

16. There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory – if it were a political one – that the moon is not made out of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word "balanced" in s407 means nothing more than fair and dispassionate.

The Film
17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:

"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

18. Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

20. Mr Chamberlain also rightly points out, at paragraph 7(a) of his skeleton that:

"The Film is intended to be used by qualified teachers, not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to, other teaching methods and materials. The original Guidance, prepared by a panel of experienced educationalists, identified those parts of the Film's scientific presentation where further context or qualification was required and provided it, with suitable references and links to other reputable sources of information. It encouraged teachers to use the Film as a vehicle for the development of analytic and critical skills. It did not attempt to hide the fact that some scientists do not agree with the mainstream view of climate change and even made reference to The Great Global Warming Swindle (together with a website containing a critique of it)."

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report. But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.
23. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

The 'Errors'

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
24. In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."

25. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
26. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".
27. In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.
28. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
29. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc
30. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.
31. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.
32. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." 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. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.
33. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

The Guidance
34. As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website. The format of the Guidance Note put on the website is helpful, in splitting up consideration by reference to the three different categories of teachers who may make use of the film, those teaching science, geography and citizenship, and to include a chart, by reference to the various scenes of the film, which both includes descriptive passages and raises questions for potential discussion. I have no doubt that some teachers of science or geography will have a much broader knowledge of the subject than is simply contained in the film and in the existing Guidance Note, and will be in a position to assist in the stimulation of such discussion. However, as set out in paragraph 13 above, that is plainly not so for the majority of teachers. In any event it is important that, in such guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should not appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving their imprimatur to it. That is not to say of course that there needs to be comment on every single aspect in the film in the Guidance Note nor discussion of every scientific dispute. However, it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation.

35. The introduction to the Guidance Note, as it stands, indicated that "the pack seeks to help teachers to engage pupils with … questions, discuss the facts and test the science". But the absence of comment about and correction of the 'errors' detracts from that prospect. Attention was drawn to ss406 and 407, but that simple reference to the statutory provisions would not, without identifying the problematic areas, enable the teachers to identify, as they were encouraged to do:

"Areas where there is undisputed scientific consensus …

Areas where there is a strong scientific consensus but where a small minority of scientists do not agree …

Areas where there is political debate."

36. The lack of addressing of the 'errors' in the existing Guidance Note was exacerbated, as Mr Downes submitted, by other passages in it:

i) In a discussion of the relationship between carbon dioxide and rising temperature, a question was raised for "possible teaching activities" namely: "Is CO2 the cause of rising temperatures or is rising CO2 caused by rising temperatures? Sceptics say we don't know – what is the explanation in AIT?" Plainly this is unsatisfactory, since it is common ground that the explanation in AIT is at best materially incomplete (see the fourth 'error' above).

ii) In the part of the Guidance Note which relates to discussion in citizenship classes, teachers are encouraged to raise the questions:

"Consider the reason why politicians may have wanted to ignore climate change? …

What pressures can be put on politicians to respond to climate change?"

iii) In the suggested planning of a whole day event on climate change for citizenship classes, there is no suggestion at all of the discussion of opposing views to that of Mr Gore, and the list of "Suggested Organisations for the Climate Change Fair and as Guest Speakers" is limited to organisations which support his views.

37. As a result of considerable discussion in Court, which I, and both Counsel, strained to avoid becoming a drafting session, a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposes to include in the pack, and which, to my satisfaction, addresses all of the above 9 'errors', both by drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report, and by, where appropriate, raising specific questions for discussions. I need only refer, by way of example, to the insertion in respect of scene 21, of the following passage relating to the first 'error', with regard to sea level rise:

"Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. However, pupils should be aware that even small rises in sea level are predicted to have very serious effects. The IPCC says that "many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s" (i.e. within pupils' own lifetimes)."

References are helpfully now given to the IPCC report.
38. It may also be interesting to note what the Defendant has inserted in relation to the second of the above 'errors', with regard to the evacuation to New Zealand:

"Note: It is not clear what "Pacific nations" Gore is referring to in the section dealing with evacuations to New Zealand. It is not clear that there is any evidence of evacuations in the Pacific due to human-induced climate change. Teaching staff may wish to use this as an example of the need in scientific presentation to give proper references for evidence used. However, the IPCC does predict that for small islands sea level rises will exacerbate storm surges and other coastal hazards and that, by the middle of this century, climate change will reduce water resources to the point where they become insufficient to meet demands in low-rainfall periods."

39. As for the particular matters in the original Guidance Note set out in paragraph 36 above:

i) With regard to the first example, the last question "What is the explanation in AIT?" is now to be replaced by "What does the IPCC say?"

ii) The discussion topics so far as concerns citizenship are altered. The first question has now become:

"Consider the reasons why politicians may have chosen not to act on climate change?"

Significantly the reference to 'putting pressures on politicians' is removed.

iii) The reference to the suggested organisations is to be changed and balanced.

One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:

"Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

40. The amended Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:

"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points

* AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)

* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;

* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion;

* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

The sceptical view

Teaching staff will be aware that a minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that climate change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases. However, the High Court has made clear the law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views which accord with the great majority of scientific opinion and those which do not [this was anticipatory of my decision].

The notes set out in this guidance have been drafted in accordance with the Fourth Assessment Reports of the [IPCC], published in 2007 under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation. AIT was made before these latest reports had been published, but it is important that pupils should have access to the latest and most authoritative scientific information. The IPCC derives its credibility from the fact that its conclusions are drawn from a "meta-review" of a massive number of independently peer-reviewed journal articles, and from the expertise and diversity of those on the reviewing panels."

This is in my judgment necessary and judicious guidance.
41. There were four other 2-minute "Climate Change" films in the pack, about two of which Mr Downes made complaint, but I am satisfied that they gave rise to no separate complaint of breach of s406 or s407 and that their continued inclusion in the pack is of no materiality.

42. There are two fundamental questions for me to answer:

i) Whether, by dispatching the film, with the cross-reference in the pack to the Guidance Note, as it then stood on the website, the Defendant was not taking steps to forbid but rather itself promoting partisan political views.

ii) Whether, by distributing/not withdrawing the film but accompanying it by a hard copy of the Guidance Note, amended in accordance with what has been fully discussed during the hearing and referred to in my judgment, the Defendant is now complying with ss406 and 407.

43. The Defendant does not intend now to continue with the old position, but has already amended the Guidance Note on the website, and stands ready to distribute it in hard copy if my judgment permits. There is no longer therefore any need for relief in respect of the film otherwise than as accompanied by the present Guidance Note. Mr Chamberlain submits that, even without the changes, the Defendant was not in breach of ss406 or 407. Mr Downes submits, as set out in paragraph 12 above, that the breach of s406 is irremediable, by virtue of the simple sending to schools of the film, irrespective of any accompanying Guidance Note, and in any event does not accept that the amendments to the Guidance Note are sufficient to comply with any palliative under s406 or duty under s407.

44. I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context.

45. As for the position prior to the hearing and the changes in the Guidance Note, as I have indicated, it is not necessary for me to grant any relief in relation to it, but I must express a conclusion about it. It is plain that the original press releases of February were enthusiastically supportive of the film, and did initially indicate an intent to "influence". However there is no mention at that stage of any accompanying Guidance Note. When the film was actually sent out, it was accompanied by the reference to the website where the Guidance could be found, and to that extent some discussion was facilitated. However the Guidance had the flaws to which I have referred in paragraphs 34 to 36 above. As Mr Downes has pointed out, if it has taken this hearing to identify and correct the flaws, it is impossible to think that teachers could have done so untutored. I am satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the more one-sided views of Mr Gore, and, to some extent, by silence in the Guidance Note, those views were adopted, or at any rate discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was given), there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated. Indeed the spirit of co-operation in which this hearing has been carried through is a tribute to constructive litigation.

46. In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant's agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application, save in relation to costs, on which I shall hear Counsel.

[JaJae]

I think I understand the confusion now.

This right here...

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:

... is not an acknowledgment of personal opinion. It's a statement.

For this line...

This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

... I don't understand why you bolded scientific consensus or what it has to do with your argument. He's saying Al Gore is going against the scientific consensus on that issue and it's clearly alarmist. This only hurts your position.

And I think I can end all the other bolds just by discussing this one:

For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.

Mr Downes is the man who brought the case to court. Basically in order to be fair he's saying that the IPCC report will be represented as the present scientific consensus... "for the purpose of this hearing."

It doesn't mean the judge himself believes there is a consensus or that he believes in the IPCC consensus. The judge didn't give his personal opinion on the matter. It's his job to rule on the facts, his personal opinions have no bearing. The judge very well may believe there is a consensus, but we don't know that. All we know is that he used the IPCC findings to determine whether or not Al Gore was full of shit. And based on the IPCC, which is by no means skeptic, it was determined Al Gore was on 9 counts. The movie was relatively short. If those 9 items were 5 minutes each it's fair to assume roughly half the movie was BS. In other words, it's about on par with a Michael Moore film.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It does mean something. It means that a reasonable person presented with two sides of the story by two people arguing their case decided that on many key issues in the film Al Gore made statements that were "errors", "false" or well over the top of the mainstream view to the degree of alarmism and political indoctrination.

Yet his opinion is that the film is still substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. The ruling also affirms the notion that the vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and the great majority of the world's climate scientists agree with the following four points: Global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise. Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions. Climate change will, if left unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations. And, there are measures that we can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its negative effects.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm not stating their meaningless. I said they're not fact. There's a very big difference.

The fact is that there is a scientific consensus and you refuse to admit it.

Again, you're having your cake and wanting to eat it too. The nine "lies" being affirmed by this judge is so, so significant for you in proving your case against Gore, but when the judge agrees with the basic thesis of the film, you attack and dismiss him using semantics, parsing and intellectual contortions that would make a Chinese acrobat blush.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think this is a clear victory against Gore. The judge said his movie was a political film based on unsound science.

He does not say that it was based on unsound science. He clearly states the opposite.

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

1. i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

... I don't understand why you bolded scientific consensus or what it has to do with your argument.

You don't understand why I bolded scientific consensus or what it has to do with my argument?!



Are you not even reading my posts? You have no clue as to what my argument is, obviously.

My argument is that there IS a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, human activity is significantly contributing, and the risks of inaction are real.

My position is affirmed by the same judge in the same ruling that you cite as authoritative in your argument against the scientific veracity of Al Gore.

Look at my post above it. Then look down to the sections I bolded in the ruling. The sections that I bolded in the ruling are bolded specifically to refer to the assertions that I made in the quoted post above it.

Here they are side by side. If you don't see the relation between the two posts quoted below, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

There is a scientific consensus.

The IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

The judge agrees, and uses the IPCC consensus as the benchmark. Even the claimants' lawyer agrees that the IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

According to the judge in this hearing, "An Inconvenient Truth" is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.

These are the facts: Global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise. Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions. Climate change will, if left unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations. And, there are indeed measures that we can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its negative effects.

THAT is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Those four assertions of fact are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

Originally Posted by ruling

... It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact..."The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists...For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus...in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports...the scientific consensus...the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report...the consensus views of the IPCC.

If the judge looks at Mr. Chamberlain's propositions, but believes the facts say otherwise, he is obligated to say so, or face his ruling being overturned on appeal. When the judge accepts the propositions, that means, after looking at the evidence presented to him, he knows no facts to contradict them.

Originally Posted by JaJae

All we know is that he used the IPCC findings to determine whether or not Al Gore was full of shit.

And yet he does not say Al Gore was full of shit. The judge used the IPCC findings and ended up determining that Al Gore's movie was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, and he reaffirms the basic thesis of the film.

Gore's side was the defense. The judge ruled in favor of the defense. If you want to try and spin that as a loss for Gore and a victory for Gore haters...

Originally Posted by JaJae

And based on the IPCC, which is by no means skeptic, it was determined Al Gore was on 9 counts. The movie was relatively short. If those 9 items were 5 minutes each it's fair to assume roughly half the movie was BS. In other words, it's about on par with a Michael Moore film.

Wow... just wow. You really, really hate these guys don't you? That's one hell of a leap of logic, and you couldn't prove it in a million years.

You think it's fair to assume, based on the judge's ruling, that "roughly half the movie was bs", yet that very same ruling finds that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."

You think the judge is right when he notes those nine items. Conveniently for you, the judge is a scientific expert and you have no problem him using the IPCC as the legal benchmark for the scientific consensus.

But... when the judge says that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, and he reaffirms the basic thesis of the film, you turn around and argue against him, and suddenly the IPCC conclusions are not consensus at all, but written by a bunch of politicians.

Scientific conclusions and legal opinions are only meaningful and scientific organizations opinions only matter to you whenever they're convenient for your argument, it appears.

You keep trying to make Al Gore the bottleneck that all scientific opinion has to go through, and if you've discredited him, you think that somehow you've discredited the whole scientific consensus on global warming. You're wrong. You haven't. And I think most people see through your attempt to continually demonize Gore. Also, IMHO you reveal yourself to be approaching this issue from a partisan political viewpoint when you place your scientific trust in Washington lobbyists and energy company shills rather than actual scientific and academic groups of experts.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Are you not even reading my posts? You have no clue as to what my argument is, obviously.

[b]My argument is that there IS a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, human activity is significantly contributing, and the risks of inaction are real.

Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

Originally Posted by JaJae

And yes, there is a consensus on global warming. That consensus is that carbon dioxide has an effect, but that does not define to what degree CO2 has on global temperature and it surely doesn't support the notion that the consensus is alarmism. To that extent even the "skeptics" would agree. That is a false assumption.

Basically you've hit me with a wall of text at 2am, but the general underlying point you seem to be trying to make is that the judge is claiming there's a consensus and therefore, somehow that vindicates some point you may have made in this thread.

For the record, the judge used the IPCC as the consensus for the purpose of the hearing. You're making this far more political than it really it is. He needed a baseline to compare Gore's claims to. Both parties agreed to use the IPCC as their baseline. I don't see what the problem is...

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?


Basically you've hit me with a wall of text at 2am, but the general underlying point you seem to be trying to make is that the judge is claiming there's a consensus and therefore, somehow that vindicates some point you may have made in this thread.

It vindicates the point that I have made in this thread that there is a scientific consensus, and even your own source (the ruling) says so. The fact that you don't even know what point I'm trying to make (and have to refer to it as "some point") pretty much shows me that you're not thoughtfully considering my arguments at all.

There is no underlying point. I say that there is a scientific consensus that that global warming is real, humans are contributing, and that the risks warrant action.

You're trying to attack the veracity of Al Gore's science with these nine errors, as if those nine errors were important conclusions that said something meaningful. You presented this ruling as authoritative evidence to help bolster your argument against Al Gore and the scientific validity of his film.

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're making this far more political than it really it is.

Political? How am I making it political? I'm trying to assert that there is a scientific consensus and the consensus is that global warming is real, humans are contributing, and that the risks warrant action.

I'm citing as many scientific organizations as I can find to back up my claims of scientific consensus. I've found over a hundred. I've found less than a dozen that could be considered neutral, and none that disagree. I am more than willing to use your own sources, since (by virtue of you trying to use them to attack specific scientific claims) you are implying that those sources have a certain scientific authority. You also reject any other sources for scientific opinion. What other choice do I have but to use the only sources that you give even the slightest bit of intellectual respect? Politics has nothing to do with my position. The state of opinion on climate science has everything to do with my position.

Your side, however, continually claims that it's all political and always political, and that there's no room for real science in the climate debate, and now I'M the one that's making it out to be more political than it actually is?

You're the one who quoted a Washington lobbyist and energy company shill as a credible scientific source. You're the one who quoted a director for a center of political science as proof of your assertions of the mainstreamization of Gore criticism. And you're the one who brought up this judge's ruling.

If you don't like what the judge has to say, you shouldn't have brought the ruling into the discussion. And you sure as hell should have read the entire ruling. By selectively quoting the nine errors, IMO you are just as guilty (intentionally or not) of lying by omission as Gore is.

Originally Posted by JaJae

He needed a baseline to compare Gore's claims to. Both parties agreed to use the IPCC as their baseline. I don't see what the problem is...

The problem is that you have in the past on this forum completely dismissed the IPCC and their conclusions as being written by politicians and not scientists. Then, you turn around and cite this judge's ruling as evidence against Al Gore's scientific veracity, when all along the judge is explicitly referring to the IPCC as scientifically valid as well as being the actual legal benchmark of scientific consensus. And then you turn around again and say there is no scientific consensus, when your own quoted source repeatedly says that that there is.

You agree with this judge as it relates to the scientific validity of these nine errors. You disagree with Al Gore and the IPCC. Yet this judge agrees with the IPCC and ruled in Gore's favor. It doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by JaJae

For the record, the judge used the IPCC as the consensus for the purpose of the hearing.

Yes, he did. Do you know why he did, and why the claimant's lawyer agreed?

They did so because the IPCC is overwhelmingly considered the most scientifically authoritative source on climate science. Are you implying that it isn't, and that the lawyer for the claimant in this case knew of a better, more authoritative scientific source for climate science and declined to use it?

What, you think the lawyer for the claimant wanted to lose the case to Gore's side?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

It vindicates the point that I have made in this thread that there is a scientific consensus, and even your own source (the ruling) says so. The fact that you don't even know what point I'm trying to make (and have to refer to it as "some point") pretty much shows me that you're not thoughtfully considering my arguments at all.

I've already spoken of a consensus in this thread. The consensus is not Al Gore's beliefs which was your original argument. I'm sorry, but that's wrong. I'm confused by the points your making because they are not supported by your source material, nor does it seem to be relevant to the case. With every response it seems the topic gets shifted and I think we're talking about one thing and then suddenly we're not. Somehow discussing the judges personal views against my own transformed into an argument over consensus.

Political? How am I making it political?

You're making the judges actual words far more political than they are. His words are not his personal opinion, nor are they political in nature. That was the entire point of having the hearing and giving a ruling. You're free to interpret the ruling however you wish. I've read a dozen articles on this story so far and not one has mentioned the interpretation of the ruling that is being asserted here. The only thing I've seen that comes close are comments by one user. However, when I read the judge's ruling in context it does not appear to substantiate your claims. I don't wish to get into an argument over verbiage of rulings or grammatical interpretations.

The problem is that you have in the past on this forum completely dismissed the IPCC and their conclusions as being written by politicians and not scientists.

What I've said about the IPCC I still believe and it still holds true. They are a left-leaning organization that makes similar mistakes and techniques Al Gore used in his film to promote global alarmism. What I've also said is that many of the studies and scientists they've cited don't agree with their political summary. They also spot select studies to fit into their agenda, even if they are the minority result. I still believe that and think it is very much true. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The fact that Al Gore's work was compared to such an organization and still found to be far from the "mainstream" shows just how alarmist Gore's point of view is. If anything it only strengthens my points.

Yes, he did. Do you know why he did, and why the claimant's lawyer agreed?

They did so because the IPCC is overwhelmingly considered the most scientifically authoritative source on climate science. Are you implying that it isn't, and that the lawyer for the claimant in this case knew of a better, more authoritative scientific source for climate science and declined to use it?

What, you think the lawyer for the claimant wanted to lose the case to Gore's side?

When have I ever said it wasn't the most authoritative source on climate science? I always have. That's the problem. There are serious flaws in the IPCC and their agenda is clear. They distort the scientific process to a politically driven disgrace. I don't see how that matters. We're getting back to the same tired argument that anytime someone cites the IPCC somehow I'm wrong about something or their argument agrees with alarmism. That's simply not true and is a fallacious argument.

[Scrum]

Uh-oh.

(Shamelessly stolen from )

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film | UK News | The Observer

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Uh-oh.

(Shamelessly stolen from )

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film | UK News | The Observer

Interesting read. It doesn't change the ruling or the findings, just the intentions behind it. However, the article does state:

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.

It seems clear they won their case and they're satisfied with the results. It's a fair ruling in that it can still be shown, but needs to be accompanied by guidance notes. I think they did a good job on the ruling considering how difficult it must have been. I think it's an acceptable decision by most people, save for the extreme alarmists who don't want the notes or the extreme critics who don't want it played in schools. But I think the vast majority of the people will find the ruling more than fair and impartial.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm confused by the points your making because they are not supported by your source material...

I really do not understand you JaJae, we are having major communication difficulties that I just don't understand.

1. The point I am making is there is a scientific consensus.

2. That point is supported by the source material that I am citing (the judge's ruling.)

What am I missing about those two specific points?

[JaJae]

My question of how much of the film would be left without all the falsehoods in the movie... Junkscience answered today.

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" must be warned of the film’s factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore’s "truth" if these errors and their progeny were excised?

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore’s presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy — whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film "do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts," this inconvenient untruth also needs to go.

After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm.

On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute "explanation" of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility.

Two minutes of ominous footage — casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a creepy light and expressing Gore’s frustration with getting his alarmist message out — precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut.

In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn’t be linked with global warming.

Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been "cured," implying that we can cure "global warming." While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no "cure" for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that "more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand," he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Hey Al Gore, We Want a Refund! - Opinion

The answer essentially is, well not much...

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

My question of how much of the film would be left without all the falsehoods in the movie... Junkscience answered today.


FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Hey Al Gore, We Want a Refund! - Opinion

The answer essentially is, well not much...

So you're going to ignore my question?

I'll have to assume it's because you can't answer it.

I'm sorry that you won't engage in a good faith discussion with me.

I want to truly communicate with you and understand your thought process on this issue. At every turn you've been resistant to even attempting to understand anyone else's viewpoint. All you want to do is savage Al Gore.

You keep incorrectly making these accusations that my statements of fact are false, yet you keep avoiding direct questions and keep twisting the truth, being every bit as intellectually deceptive as those you accuse.

Junkscience.com is just that: junk science written by a Washington energy lobbyist for the main purpose of attacking Al Gore. See that little photoshopped parody of the "An Inconvenient Truth" poster up in the corner of the website? See that his column is on foxnews.com? How much more blatantly partisan seeming can you get? Why you keep going to them for your "facts" continually perplexes me. Why you keep thinking anyone unquestioningly accepts your assertions without checking out for themselves is a mystery.

Milloy is not a scientist, but a foxnews.com writer who was a Washington lobbyist for a polluting company that bribed officials to bypass environmental regulations. Milloy has been accused by a scientist of distorting a scientific report to deceive lay people. Milloy has taken money from an energy company for the purpose of creating confusion and uncertainty about climate science. There is no reasonable reason to treat him as a legitimate, unbiased scientific source (unless, of course, you hate Al Gore so much that any source can be justified, no matter how blatantly slanted it is.)

And, in case you didn't notice it, junkscience uses the judge's ruling to affirm these “errors" in Al Gore's scientific claims. But you yourself said that this judge was not a scientist, and you used that excuse to ignore any other statements from the judge about the official state of climate science contained in the ruling. Pick and choose, pick and choose...

You (and this energy company shill Steven Milloy) still go to this judge's ruling as if it were completely scientifically accurate. You're trying to have it both ways.

[thatguyoverthere]

You keep trying to force the entire debate about climate change through the Al Gore bottleneck. There is a lot more to understanding climate change than just Al Gore and Al Gore haters. Your incredibly narrow focus on Al Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth” does a disservice to the seriousness of this issue. Climate science does not begin and end with Al Gore, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. Sorry.

But if you insist on making Al Gore the end-all, be-all of climate change debate, this “article” by this Washington energy lobbyist is completely one sided and inaccurate. Even taking that into consideration, the article still says that 75% of “An Inconvenient Truth” is accurate! (Which is a far cry from your “about half” prediction.)

And I personally think that this 25% that he labels as inaccurate is a gross exaggeration when compared to the movie transcript.

Here’s a good example of how deceptive this article’s phrasing is. See how it implies that the first 16:30 of “An Inconvenient Truth” is “filler” and “non-science filler?”

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

Completely deceptive. Gore makes many assertions of scientific fact before the mention of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

An Inconvenient Truth - Transcript

This is the first picture of the Earth from space that any of us ever saw. It was taken on Christmas Eve 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission.

More...In relatively comfortable boundaries... But we are filling up that thin shell of atmosphere with pollutants.

I'm Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States.
I don't find that particularly funny.

I've been trying to tell this story for a long time and I feel as I've failed to get the message across.

I was in politics for a long time. I'm proud of my services.

(Mayor of New Orleans in background).

There are good people who are in politics who hold this at arm's length because they acknowledge it and recognize it as a moral imperative to make big changes .

And they lost radio contact when they went around to the dark side of the moon and there was inevitably some suspense. Then when they came back in radio contact they looked up and snapped this picture and it became known as Earth Rise. And that one picture exploded in the consciousness of the human kind. It led to dramatic changes. Within 18 months of this picture the modern environmental movement had begun.

The next picture was taken on the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17. This one was taken on Dec. 11, 1972 and it is the most commonly published photograph in all of history. And it is the only picture of Earth from space that we have where the sun was directly behind the spacecraft so that the Earth is fully lit up, and not partly in darkness.

The next I'm going to show you has almost never been seen. It was taken by a spacecraft called the Galileo that went out to explore the solar system. As it was leaving Earth's gravity it turned its cameras around and took a time lapsed picture of one day's worth of rotation here compressed into 24 seconds. Isn't that beautiful?

This image is a magical image in a way. It is made by a friend of mine, Tom Dan San(sp?). He took 3000 separate satellite pictures taken over a 3 year period, digitally stitched together. He chose images that would give a cloud free view of every square inch of the earth's surface. All of the land mass is accurately portrayed. When that is spread out it becomes an iconic image.

I show this because I want to tell you a story about two teachers I had, one that I did not like that much, the other who was a real hero to me. I had a grade school teacher who taught geography by pulling a map of the world down in front of the blackboard. I had a classmate in the sixth grade who raised his hand and he pointed to the outline of the east coast of South America, and he pointed to the west coast of Africa, and he asked, "Did they ever fit together?" And the teacher said, "Of course not! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." That student went on to be a drug addict and a ne'er do well. That teacher went on to be a science advisor in the current administration.

But you know, the teacher was actually reflecting the conclusion of the scientific establishment at that time: "Continents are so big that obviously they don't move." But actually as we now know they did move. They moved apart from one another, but at one time they did in fact fit together. But that assumption was a problem.

It reflected the well known wisdom:

"What gets us into trouble is not what you don't know, but what you think you know that just ain't so."

This is actually an important point, believe it or not because there is another such assumption that a lot people have in their minds right now about global warming that just isn't so. The assumption goes like this:

"The world is so big is that we can't possibly have any lasting, harmful impact earth environment."

Maybe that was true at one time, but it is not true any more. One of the reasons it is not true anymore, because one of the most vulnerable parts is the atmosphere vulnerable because it's so thin. My friend the late Carl Sagan used to say that if you have a globe with a thin coat of varnish on it, the thickness of that varnish relative that globe is pretty much the same as the thickness of the earth's atmosphere compared to the earth itself. It is thin enough that we are capable of changing its composition.

That brings up the basic science of global warming. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because you know it well. The sun's radiation comes in the form of light waves and heats up the earth. Some of The radiation that is absorbed and warms the earth is re-radiated back into space in the form infrared radiation. Some of the outgoing infrared radiation is trapped inside the atmosphere. That is good thing because it keeps the temperature of the earth within certain boundaries, keeps it relatively constant and livable. But the problem is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by all of the global warming pollution that is being put up there. What that does is it thickens this layer of atmosphere. More of the outgoing infrared is trapped. So the atmosphere heats up worldwide.

This is the image that started me in my interest in this issue. I saw it when I was a college student because I had a college professor named Roger Revelle who was the first person to have the idea to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. He saw where the story was going. After the first few years of data, he intuited what is meant, for what is yet to come. They designed the experiment in 1957. He hired Charles David Keeling who was very faithful and precise in making these measurements for decades. They started sending these weather balloons every day. They chose the middle of the Pacific because it was the area that was the most remote. He was a very hard nosed scientist. He really liked the hard data. It was a wonderful time for me, because, like a lot of young people, I came into contact with intellectual ferment, ideas that I'd never considered in my wildest dreams before.

He showed our class the result of these measurements after only a few years. It was startling to me. He was startled and he made it clear to our class what he felt the significance of it was. I soaked it up like a sponge. He drew the connection between the larger changes in our civilization and this pattern that was now visible in the atmosphere entire planet.

He projected into the future where this was headed unless we made some adjustments and it was as clear as day. After the first seven, eight, or nine years you can see the pattern was developing. But I had to question why does it go up and down once each year? He explained that if you look at the land mass of the earth, very little it is south of the equator. The vast majority of it is north of the equator. And most of the vegetation is north of the equator. When the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun as it is in our spring and summer, the leaves come out and they breathe in the carbon dioxide and the amount in the atmosphere goes down. When the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun as it is in our fall and winter, the leave fall down and exhale the carbon dioxide and the amount in the atmosphere goes up again. It's as if the entire earth once each year breathes in and out.

He started measuring carbon dioxide in 1958. By the middle sixties when he showed my class this image, it was already clear that it was going up. I respected him and learned from him so much I followed this.

When I went to the Congress in the middle 1970's I helped organize the first hearings on global warming, I asked my professor to be the lead off witness. I thought that would have such a big impact we'd be well on the way to solving this problem, but it didn't work out that way. I kept having hearings, and in 1984 I went to the Senate and really dug deeply into this issue with science round tables and the like. I wrote a book about it. I ran for president in 1988 partly try to gain some visibility for this issue. In 1992 went to the Whitehouse. We passed a version carbon tax and some other measures to try to address this. I went to Kyoto in 1997 to help get a treaty that is so controversial, in the US at least. In 2000 my opponent pledged to regulate the CO2 and that was not a pledge that was kept. The point of this is all this time you can see what I have seen all these years. It just keeps going up. It is relentless.

And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago.

Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here's Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.
…

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So you're going to ignore my question?

I'll have to assume it's because you can't answer it.

I'm sorry that you won't engage in a good faith discussion with me.

You're free to assume whatever you want and leave whatever reputations you infer from those assumptions.

I'm having trouble understanding you, and apparently you're having trouble understanding me. There is no golden rule that I must answer every one of your questions on this forum. I thought your question was a figurative one and regardless it seemed to have been about an issue I already said I didn't wish to discuss.

I'll go back to your initial post since it apparently means so much to you.

I really do not understand you JaJae, we are having major communication difficulties that I just don't understand.

1. The point I am making is there is a scientific consensus.

2. That point is supported by the source material that I am citing (the judge's ruling.)

What am I missing about those two specific points?

Question one was already answered here...
Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?
Keep in mind you failed to respond to my question and then started talking about the judge. I responded directly to the your points of consensus. Numerous times and in great detail. You then focused the majority of your posts talking about Al Gore and not a consensus. You even referred to a misrepresentation of what the judge said without citing your source after being asked to numerous times. It appears you used a comment by a user from a news article to repeat an untrue claim without backing up where you received the information. I found the actual ruling and it disproved what was said. You shifted the point of consensus around taking what the judge said out of context and certain claims of the IPCC, both of which I have responded to in great lengths. With each response of consensus you attempt to back it up through different measures, all of which I think I have responded to. Is there something I have not addressed already in this thread? I can't seem to find it.

2. The source material was a long time coming and I had to run off and find it for myself. It was a cat and mouse game of trying to figure out where your information was coming from so that I could put it into its original context. I've responded to all of your source material even if I had to track it down for you.

The original confusion I had in this thread was when you were citing opinions of the judge despite providing a source for it even after being asked numerous times. I had to find the source and I strongly believed that the original post regarding the judge (which appears to have been a copy/paste from an anonymous comment of news article) was mischaracterized. I explained why and posted the actual text of the ruling you were referring to in an attempt to clarify. You then copy/pasted the entire ruling and bolded random parts, even parts that disagreed with your point of view which was also fairly confusing. Regardless I thought that was worked out in one of my posts, but you kept on the same tired assumptions of some underlying beliefs the judge may or may not have had as if his personal opinion or that his ruling in some way proved a consensus. Both very mute points.

And I guess to end a verbose post the summary could be found here with this statement... in its full context rather than what you quoted.

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're making the judges actual words far more political than they are. His words are not his personal opinion, nor are they political in nature. That was the entire point of having the hearing and giving a ruling. You're free to interpret the ruling however you wish. I've read a dozen articles on this story so far and not one has mentioned the interpretation of the ruling that is being asserted here. The only thing I've seen that comes close are comments by one user. However, when I read the judge's ruling in context it does not appear to substantiate your claims. I don't wish to get into an argument over verbiage of rulings or grammatical interpretations.

The part in bold you substituted for an elipsis. If you're having trouble with my post, I suggest rereading it. I've said I've read a dozen articles on the issue and not one of them comes to the conclusions you're attempting to spin from the ruling. The judge does not say what you are inferring from his statements. And I clearly have no desire to get into a discussion of verbiage of judicial rulings or grammatical interpretations of his views.

I apologize if you feel slighted because I have no desire to educate someone on judicial rulings or have a grammar debate, but it appears that is what this is coming down to. Your claim is not founded by any public opinion other than a comment by an anonymous user on a news article and after reading the ruling in full I feel it has zero credibility. If that is the position you wish to hold, you are more than welcome to it. Trying to disprove such an inaccurate statement will result in nothing other than a circle jerk.

And again for the one millionith time. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. That consensus is not the opinions of Al Gore as you have asserted in this thread. It never has been. I don't know how many times I have to say there is a scientific consensus and that consensus does not agree with Al Gore before I stop getting these same tired responses of "yes there is a scientific consensus." It's getting old and as in other global warming threads the debating style is getting hostile, and quite honestly I don't see the point or the need.

[JaJae]

Another example of speaking out against the mainstream becoming more popular is this week's 20/20 with John Stossel having former members of the IPCC speak out against the organization and the sensationalist claims and even refuted many of the falsehoods in Gore's movie.

He even told the world that carbon dioxide increases after the temperature changes, not before thus questioning the causal relationship in the history of the world. Wow. That takes some guts. People who hear that argument are going to seriously question the BS they've been fed.

STOSSEL: Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and John Christy say they were members of the IPCC. That so-called group of scientists, they say, is not what people think it is.

REITER: The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all.

STOSSEL: Who are they?

REITER: They were essentially activists.

STOSSEL: Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. And when the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said.

As usual Gore was asked to defend his unfounded claims and refused.

[JaJae]

CNN did a special, the truth about global warming...



Some Excerpts:

O'BRIEN: But many skeptics are quick to point out Gore does not have any scientific credentials. And that's what leads us to a crucial ocean current widely known as the Conveyor belt. What may or may not be happening to it is another bone of contention for those critical of "An Inconvenient Truth."
...

O'BRIEN: No one doubts it can be sudden, but IPCC scientists see no evidence it will happen any time soon.

O'BRIEN: Politics makes for strange bedfellows, of course. Well, so does winning one of the world's most prestigious awards.

Up next, I'll speak with a man who shares a slice of this year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, but doesn't see eye to eye with him at all.

And what do you believe about global warming? See whether Americans are getting greener or whether they're still in the dark. That's coming up.

O'BRIEN: But I'll tell you who's not laughing, the critics who accuse Gore of being an alarmist, who say global warming is not a catastrophe. One of them is, ironically, one of the scientists who shares a piece of the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, former NASA scientist John Christy, joining from us Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Christy, good to have you with us.

Dr. JOHN CHRISTY, University of Alabama: Hello.

O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?

CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I always thought that, and I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here, that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities. And when I look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide rate is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.

O'BRIEN: So what about the movie do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?

CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things. I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I've been very heavily involved in and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is, well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.

O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that carbon dioxide levels are up, temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?

CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing? And when we build, and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets, we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place. For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all-time maximum, even though, in the Arctic in the North Pole, it reached its all-time minimum.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the critics in general. Many of the critics we hear from have links to the fossil fuel industry. A lot of their funding comes from the coal and oil industries. How about you?

CHRISTY: All of my funding is federal and state grants. And I apply for them and write my papers, which are peer-reviewed. So I have disengaged and never was really involved in any of that.

O'BRIEN: Does it make you angry that Al Gore got the Peace Prize?

CHRISTY: No, I think it's just a commentary on a prize that is a political prize. I think it was clearly designed to influence American elections and so on. But, in a sense, you can't begrudge someone who has become a star. I mean, he has really attracted the media attention and so on. So that's just what happens in the world of politics.

O'BRIEN: So you say this is a political award then?

CHRISTY: Well, as I said at the very beginning, I don't see any accomplishment here. I don't see CO2 going down because of the campaign, the crusade that he's on. And I only see it going up, because, and I come back to this, energy is absolutely vital for human society, and its use will increase. There's a tremendous amount of pent-up energy demand, especially in the Third World right now. So we shall see it rise.

O'BRIEN: But some would say it's time to look at alternatives that don't put that CO2 into the atmosphere.

CHRISTY: Well, I've done the work on that, and the only alternative that can make a tiny dent in the rate of temperature increase, if it is increasing at a high rate, is nuclear power. So if you built 1,000 nuclear power plants right now, you would be able to affect the global temperature by, listen to this, one-hundredth of a degree per decade. I don't know if that's the price we want to pay, but nuclear power, in democratically accountable countries, is fairly safe and useful that way.

O'BRIEN: John Christy, thank you for your time.

CHRISTY: My pleasure.
...

O'BRIEN: The scientists who share the Peace Prize with Gore say evidence the climate system is warming is unequivocal, and it's everywhere -- increased air and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting snow and ice. And check out this chart. Based on information gleaned from Antarctic ice core samples, it shows carbon dioxide and temperature levels on Earth over the past 650,000 years.

GORE, in An Inconvenient Truth: Look how far above the natural cycle this is, and we've done that.

O'BRIEN: There really isn't anyone who denies these numbers. As Gore puts it:

GORE: The so-called skeptics look at this and they say, "So? That seems perfectly okay."

O'BRIEN: And some skeptics suggest the graph on its own does not prove a link between human production of greenhouse gases and global warming. True, perhaps, but it is only one graph, one compelling piece of circumstantial evidence.
...

8:33 p.m.

O'BRIEN: We're looking at global warming, just the facts, and we're keeping them all honest as we look at Al Gore, his movie and those who say he didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

So what does the evidence show about what you think? Al Gore may be winning all kinds of awards, but a lot of Americans are not buying what he is selling. For some insights into some surprising numbers, we turn to our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider. Bill, good to have you with us here.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Sure.

O'BRIEN: Let's look at the numbers, first of all. This one is a surprise. This is the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, recent one. "Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of global warming?" we asked. And here's the response. Global warming is a proven fact, mostly man-made: 56 percent. Global warming is a proven fact, mostly natural: 21 percent. And then, completely unproven: 21 percent. It's interesting when you lump those bottom two together, isn't it?

SCHNEIDER: Well, yeah, because it says only 56 percent. The top two, the top answer, rather, agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is not just a fact but it's caused by people. If you don't think it's caused by people, then you probably don't think there's much people can do about it. Like the weather. Everybody talks about it; nobody does anything about it.

O'BRIEN: It's interesting because more than 90 percent of the scientists would say it is man-made and happening. And about 40 percent of Americans are still in the skeptical realm.

SCHNEIDER: That's right. They are still skeptical of that argument.

O'BRIEN: All right. Next, this is also from the same poll, CNN/Opinion Research Poll. Question, first question. "Is global warming a threat to the world?" 72 percent of you say yes, 27 percent no, but this is the interesting one to follow up on here.

SCHNEIDER: Right.

O'BRIEN: The question then was: "Is it an immediate threat, an eventual threat, or not a threat?" And look at how the numbers went there. That's interesting, isn't it?

SCHNEIDER: Yes, because only 35 percent, just over a third, consider global warming an immediate threat. That's significant because our political system can deal with the problems only if people see an immediate crisis. That's the way it was designed. It was designed for weak government. If there's no overwhelming sense of public urgency, there's too many ways to block things from happening. So it's unlikely much can happen unless people sense a crisis, and the only time they've sensed it is in Hurricane Katrina, and of course then, government did not work.

O'BRIEN: We work best when our back is against the wall.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

O'BRIEN: All right, listen to this. This final one is interesting. This is from a different poll organization. This is from Pew Global Attitudes, their project there. And the question, they gave people a list of worries, potential worries, and asked people if environmental problems were at the top of their list. And based on the answer, 70 percent in China say yes. All the way at the bottom is the U.S. at 37 percent. How do you explain that one?

SCHNEIDER: Well, Americans see other things as bigger problems because, of course, we're the only global superpower today. What other things did they pick higher than the environment? They pick the spread of nuclear weapons. They pick religious and ethnic hatred. Russians and Chinese worry a lot about the growing income gap between rich and poor in their fast-growing economies. People in developing countries often pick AIDS and the spread of infectious diseases as a top threat. And interestingly, people in Japan gave very high priority to the spread of nuclear weapons, and I can think of a reason why.

O'BRIEN: Yeah, for sure. Sounds like people generally think locally, not globally, right?

SCHNEIDER: Exactly right. They think locally and they think about immediate crisis.

O'BRIEN: All right. Bill Schneider, thank you very much for sorting through these numbers with us. We appreciate it.
...

8:36 p.m.

O'BRIEN: What about Al Gore's record when he was in the White House? Now, you would think he and Bill Clinton would have done a lot to curb global warming. Well, think again. There was a brief moment in time when Al Gore and George Bush actually agreed on global warming. When they were running for the Oval Office in 2000, they were asked in a debate if they would promise to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously.

O'BRIEN: But that didn't last long. Once Bush became President, his administration cooled to the concept, if you will. Vice President Cheney told CNN's John King that Bush's campaign promise to cap greenhouse emissions would hurt the U.S. economy.

DICK CHENEY: It was a mistake because we aren't in a position today to be able to do that in terms of sort of capping emissions, CO2 emissions.

O'BRIEN: And that was that. In the Bush White House, global warming became a dead issue. Government scientists who disagreed say they were censored or edited so to appear they were towing the line. The administration flatly rejected the Kyoto treaty, which holds industrialized nations to limits on greenhouse gas production. But Kyoto was an orphan before Bush left it on the world's doorstep. It languished during the Clinton/Gore years as well, even with the issue's best-known global activist a heartbeat away.

BILL CLINTON: We need a climate change on Capitol Hill on this issue, and it should not be a partisan issue.

O'BRIEN: Political considerations hindered both administrations.

DAVID HAMILTON, Sierra Club: I would say that the Bush administration has a "D" and that the Clinton administration probably got a "C plus." Either way, not very good grades. We're very far behind the curve on where we need to be on controlling global warming both in the process and the politics.

O'BRIEN: Last year, Gore told Larry King he urged Clinton to push for ratification of the treaty.

AL GORE: I have to say that it was perfectly reasonable for him to say, look, our congressional relations people tell us there is no support for it there, and I personally tried. I could only convince one senator out of all 100 to say that he or she would definitely vote to ratify.

O'BRIEN: The Senate voted 95 to nothing not to accept Kyoto's caps, and Bush has remained steadfastly opposed to mandatory regulation, insisting voluntary measures and high technology are the solution.

BUSH: These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment. And they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

O'BRIEN: So if you're looking for the reasons the U.S. has done little to respond to the climate crisis, you can find them on both sides of the aisle. And while nothing has been done, the problem has gotten harder to solve.
...

8:41 p.m.

O'BRIEN: Throughout this hour, we're bringing out the points of contention with Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth." On to number seven now. The polar bears, as you well now, have become an icon of global warming, and they are literally on thin ice, but could they actually be drowning? That's what Gore says in the movie.

GORE: A new scientific study shows that, for the first time, they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. And they didn't find that before.

O'BRIEN: Critics, including that British judge we've been telling you about, say there is no proof polar bears have died because of global warming. The scientific study in question says four bears died after swimming in open water in Hudson Bay through a storm. Was it the storm that killed them, as skeptics suggest, or was it climate change? Well, we do know this. They wouldn't have drowned if they were on the ice, and there is no doubt the ice there is steadily retreating, especially in places like Hudson Bay.

Thanks to the Nobel Prize the message that Al Gore is full of poo poo is getting out there. Nothing could have been better for the "skeptics" than to draw such ridiculous attention to Gore in the way the Nobel Peace Prize did. Because now it's a story to disprove him. And disprove him they are doing...

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: The obligatory “Stossel on global warming” clip


Pretty good video from John Stossel getting some of the information out that many many scientist have been saying for years.