Friday, October 12, 2007
Meanwhile quite coincidentally our court has decided that his film has a number of not remotely truthful statements in it:
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action ... the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
This internal memo from the BBC, published by CCNet, explains how the BBC is going to spin it
From Roger HarrabinI like the use of the word "debatable" to mean "clearly untrue". The suggestion that the BBC is anything other than a wholly corrupt state propaganda organisation deliberately spinning the facts is debatable - but the evidence absolutely shows that that is what it is.
BBC Environment Analyst
In any future reporting of Gore we should be careful not to suggest that
the High Court says Gore was wrong on climate.......
We might say something like: "Al Gore whose film was judged by the High
Court to have used some debatable science" or "Al Gore whose film was
judged in the High Court to be controversial in parts".
The key is to avoid suggesting that the judge disagreed with the main
climate change thesis.
As I was writing this the radio reported the court decision getting a soundbite from Greenpeace & not from the winner of the case.
Meanwhile, in a news item entirely censored by the BBC, ITV etc Stephen McIntyre, who disproved the Hockey stick graph has gone on to disprove the US figures purporting to show, as proof of at least some trend of warming, that 1998 was the warmest year for thousands of years up till then. It turns out that it was the warmest only for the last 64. While theoretically this doesn't affect figures outside the US in practice US records are far better kept over a wider area & longer period than anywhere else & it would not be credible to pretend the US alone was bucking the global trend.
Steve McIntyre, the Canadian statistician who helped to expose massive holes in Michael Mann's hockey stick methodology, looked into it. After some poking around, he began to suspect that the GISS data base had a year 2000 bug in one of their data adjustments.
One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments, which I discussed here. One of the purposes of Watt's project is to help educate climate scientists that many of the adjustments they make to the data back in the office does not necessarily represent the true condition of the temperature stations. In particular, GISS adjustments imply instrument sitings are in more natural settings than they were in say 1905, an outrageous assumption on its face that is totally in conflict to the condition of the stations in Watt's data base. Basically, surface temperature measurements have a low signal to noise ratio, and climate scientists have been overly casual about how they try to tease out the signal.
Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug.
Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939
This actually came about over 2 months ago. Consider the amount of coverage the media give to retread stories where Madonna, Sir David King or others of similar eminence make a remark about warming, or some minor researcher claims some unverified new scare. It is clear that this, which destroys the entire thesis that unprecedented, let alone catastrophic, warming is even taking place is being deliberately censored.
You can subscribe to CCNet on http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-homepage.htm & I thoroughly reccomend it.
You exaggerate the extent of the errors in Gore's film. At
you will find an article that lists the errors, which in fact are simplifications and exaggerations.
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday
criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the
He said he had viewed the film and described it as "powerful, dramatically presented and highly
professionally produced", built around the "charismatic presence" of Mr Gore, "whose crusade it
now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change"...
Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the
film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main 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 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
So the film can be shown in schools so long as it is made clear to pupils that it is a polemic not
holy writ, a point I think Mr Gore would happily accept. The judge also confirms that climate
change is supported by a scientific consensus.
In this light the BBC memo would appear to be measured and correct.
If the BBC were to say that every person involved in pushing the eco-Nazi lies were personally guilty of crimes against humanity & should be executed this would be an "exageration" but "debatable". I trust, not being a complete hypocrite, you would defend them equally on that, as i would not.
Try Gore tells the truth. His enemies smear him at
where among many other well turned points, commenting on Gore's supposed errors, Hari points out:
"Error" One. Burton says "there is no evidence" that the citizens of low-lying islands like Tuvalu are being evacuated because of rising sea levels. In fact, the programme to evacuate them began in 2002, as a simple phone call to the island's government – or to the New Zealand embassy, which is taking them in – would have told him. Journalists like Mark Lynas and Andrew Simms have been reporting on this for years.
And again I make the point to you Mr Craig that disagreeing with you does not make anyone a hypocrite, a liar or a fascist.
Nobody denies that there has been economic migration from the south sea islands to Australia but to claimthat this is caused by sea level rise is obviousdly a deliberate lie.
Norman it is perfectly possible to honestly disagree with me. One becomes a liar by lying, a fascist by giving the state the power to determine what is & is not the truth & hypocricy by claiming to believe one thing when attacking one idea & while professing the opposite in differe4nt circumstances.
Oh dear, so much evidence, so little space and time...
I note your evidence dates from 6 August 2000.
Firstly, on the resettlement of Tuvalu's population see the article from January 12, 2006
NIUE: No Reponse Yet To Tuvalu's Resettlement Proposal at
where it is noted that New Zealand has agreed to accept migrants from Tuvalu, which experts believe will be completely submerged by mid century, and Canada is funding the relocation of residents from parts of Vanuatu affected by global warming.
Secondly, on the whole question of the rise in sea levels see from February 2, 2007 World's sea levels rising at accelerating rate at
which says Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists predicted, according to a global analysis of data from tide gauges and satellites.
The researchers say the study puts to bed claims that climate scientists have exaggerated the consequences of global warming. And because the study shows that sea level is responding even faster than expected, the work suggests governments have even less time to act in order to combat climate change.
The report was published in the journal Science ahead of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) report, published today, which brings together the last three years of research on global warming. The heavily trailed tome will say that it is "highly unlikely (less than 5%)" that observed warming and ice loss are due to natural factors.
"The main message is addressed to people who have claimed in the past that the IPCC exaggerates climate change," said David Parker at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research in Exeter who was part of the sea level research team.
"What we're saying is that the real climate system is changing as fast or even faster than expected by past IPCCs."
The research shows that between 1993 and 2006, sea levels rose by 3.3mm a year on average,while the 2001 IPCC report had predicted an annual rise of less than 2mm.
Your Guardian link doesn't work but in any case the Guardian has a long & ignoble record of lying on this & other subjects. Neither newspaper you mention can be considered a scientific document.
Ok. So your source is a Telegraph article which is seven years old and archived on an obscure site. Well, that's clearly a Scientific Document.
Of course, all you had to do to get more up to date information was to do a search on the Guardian site. Since you were too lazy, here is the link again:
and if that still does not work, try:
Sea level rise 'is accelerating' at:
where you will find Dr John Church, a scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation based in Tasmania and an author of the study, said that higher sea levels could have grave effects on some areas.
"It means there will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges," he told the Associated Press.
"It means increased coastal erosion on sandy beaches; we're going to see increased flooding on island nations."
And, lest you forget the entire point of this exercise, try the transcript of Dimmock V Secretary of State here:
where, with reference to An Inconvenient Truth, the judge notes (at paragraph 17):
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.
I think we atre both agreed that Gore's south sea islander claims, which neither Gore nor any other eco-fascist organisation has dissociated itself from represents the very highest standard of honesty of which the movement is capable.
Since you are continuing to defend his lie are you able to present any evidence whatsoever that it is in the most remote degree truthful?
Certainly, it's fairly obvious that your last post is the limit of your honesty. It is also reasonable for me to ask who is the real fascist. See
Revealed: The Hidden Agenda behind Al Gore Film Attack
The BBC reported that the fact the High Court case against the film was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a “school governor in Kent” who called the film a “political shockumentary”.
The BBC did not mention Dimmock’s own political connections: Dimmock is a member of the political group, the New Party. The founder and chair of the New Party is Robert Durward, whose party is so right-wing it has been labeled “fascist” by the Scottish Tories.
and at http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2190996,00.html we find
In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'
So you are again revealed as a part of an extreme right-wing conspiracy to cover up the truth of global warming. Of course you are not a formal part of that conspiracy. The men sitting in London boardrooms have little in common with a wee man running around Woodlands with the erse hinging oot his troosers. Howerver, were they aware of your existence they would be doubtless appreciative of your efforts to preserve the value of their shares.
Secondly I would invite you to name any single policy from the New Party which can honestly be called fascist. I suggest that you do n ot even know what the word means. Being against a tax on sand, the only evidence you produce, is not very obviously a fascist policy.
Thirdly the contention, implicit in your complaint, that people whose politics you disapprove of should not have equality under the law is specificly fascist, as you would understand if you knew what the word meant.
Fourthly the argument of guilt by the most tenuous association, is widely used by the likes of Moonbat & others who have no factual argument. The idea that we are all linked to all other humans by a very small number of links shows this argument to be cheap easy & wrong. See under.
Fifthly if this argument is accepted then the fact that, for example, Mr Norman Fraser has publicly spoken at a LibDem meeting in favour of allowing Nazis (the KLA) to open brothels across Britain containing children held as sex slaves, which he would wish to frequent, can be taken to prove that the LibDems are a party of Nazi paedophiles & thus by extension that all members & supporters are & thus by extension that John Cleese is & thus by extension that Life of Brian is a homile to genocide & thus by extension that George Harrison, who put up the money is the same, & so is his wife. This clearly falls early in the argument.