Yet another global warming denier has decided to take a shot at Al Gore and all environmentalists no matter how great or how small. It is amazing that people still write articles without even the smallest shred of evidence or reason to support them. Apparently Phil Valentine of the Tennessean believes that being an environmentalists of any sort or just being aware that the planet needs help is a to be a modern day Marxist. Read this for the sheer stupidity of it.
November 19, 2007
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Embarrassing Gore News
by Joseph Morris
Issue 94 – October 24, 2007
The Nobel Prize Committee may have set a new record for bad judgment in awarding the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore. Just days earlier, a more neutral observer — a British court — held that Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, was so factually flawed and so politically biased that it cannot be shown in British government schools unless accompanied by disclaimers and a packet of corrective and balancing information. England’s High Court (Justice Burton) cited a plethora of inaccuracies and questionable parts from the film in a case decided in favor of an English truck driver/local school council member/parent, Stewart Dimmock of Kent and a leader in the New Party, by a legal team including John Day of Malletts. The defendants are the British ministers responsible for the government education system, who had ordered nationwide distribution of Al Gore’s film as a major teaching exercise on the environment.
Justice Burton held that, as the plaintiff claimed, British law which prohibits “partisan political” propaganda in government schools also prohibits “one-sided” promotions of policy positions (even though not “partisan” in the strict sense of advancing one political party over another).
Justice Burton further held that “An Inconvenient Truth”, though supported by, and reflective of, much sentiment in the scientific community, is nonetheless one-sided in areas where there is legitimate dispute and is a political promotion of unbalanced views.
He demonstrates this from Paragraph 19, and particularly Paragraph 23, onward, by an enumeration of demonstrable scientific errors made by Gore which have a conspicuous, one-sided, politically promotional effect.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO 2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO 2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, thus throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
In the end, rather than bar the distribution and use of the film in schools, he approves its accompaniment by a teaching “package” which includes limiting and cautionary “guidance notes” and other films, including a counter-film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, produced by Britain’s Channel 4.
Joseph Morris
Comment by grimgold — November 20, 2007 @ 10:34 am
So what you are saying is one court with one small group of scientists know better than 95% of the world’s scientists including the world’s leading climatologist. If you did further research you would find that information used for this case comes from some of the world’s well known climate change deniers.
Comment by N — November 20, 2007 @ 4:02 pm