Gore climate film's 'nine errors' (BBC)

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

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

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

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

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

This jurist doesn't seem to have kept up with the latest scientific observations -- stories like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=116014 and this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=116254&mesg_id=116254 suggest it won't be any "millenia" before the Greenland icecap melts appreciably. The strongest criticism really supported by the facts would seem to be that not all the effects described by Gore are unambiguously attributable to GW, but neither can GW be dismissed as contributing to them.

:eyes:

:rofl:

When Al walks away with the Nobel tomorrow, Big Oil will be reeling. It will help them to blunt the impact of the blow by casting some of Gore's assertions under a cloud.

"The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party" and who saw ~2/3 of his legal costs compensated.

I wonder which part of that description explains his eagerness to put up funds of that magnitude for legal expenses?

That's what courts and lawyers do, right? Figure out science?
:sarcasm:

So being outside the mainstream is cause for suppression? Galileo was outside the mainstream, but was right nontheless.

Honestly, use an expression like "preponderance of evidence" around these dimwits and watch their eyes glaze over. They just don't get it. It's not about just one thing. It's about all of it together. Were human beings solely responsible? Of course not! Can human beings do SOMETHING to help reverse the course? I sure hope so, or we're screwed! For everyone but Big Oil, Big Coal, Factory Farms and McMansion lovers, what exactly is the downside to conservation and alternative energy programs?

cannot be PROVED to be the SOLE cause of the claims. You can read the discussion guidelines that accompany the film, by order of the Court. I lost the link, though.

in addition to "guilty" and "not guilty", a court can rule "not proven". I think that is what is needed here. A FEW of Gore's specific examples were "not proven", but they were not "wrong" in the sense of being contradicted.

...the judge is a mucking foron though...total nimrod...

"A UK High Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. Justice Burton agreed that Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

-snip-

"So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

see the rest:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php#c599046

Actual Court opinion here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

:thumbsup: