Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Of All the Bloody Promises… | Main | Then Sue, Johnny »

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth “A political film” packed with “alarmism and exaggeration”: London Judge

Don’t take it from me; take it from Mr Justice Burton of the High Court in London (h/t National Newswatch - Canada’s finest news aggregator), who has ruled that Al Gore's whackumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is riddled with errors, alarmism, exaggerations, and inconsistencies, and may be shown in UK classroms "only if it was accompanied by new guidlines to balance the former US vice-president’s ‘one-sided’ views.”

In the judgement, Burton identifies nine particular problematic points that must be addressed in the classroom along with the presentation of the film. My favorite - debunking the Drowning Polar Bear myth, which is the favorite battering ram of Canada’s pro-Kyoto humanity-haters:

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.

Judge: “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 was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

(Cross-Posted at Flaggman's Canada)

Posted by Neil Flagg on October 11, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f0a41b88834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth “A political film” packed with “alarmism and exaggeration”: London Judge:

Comments

Bwaaahaahahahaaha I knew it.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-11 9:45:22 PM


A qualified judge spoke the truth. What a refreshing change from what we have in Canada.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-11 10:07:36 PM


Can organizations and schools that have paid gore several thousands of dollars to speak and show this film, get their money back.

Posted by: MaryT | 2007-10-11 10:17:18 PM


So it's "riddled with errors", you say???? Sounds like you are an expert at that alarmist exaggeration as well. The truth is, if you look at the list of the nine errors, they form only a very very small part of the entire content of the film. On the whole, the case Gore made is still valid, no matter how hard you wish it all away.

Posted by: Rael | 2007-10-11 10:20:22 PM


The truth matters, Rael. If it didn't, then Dan Rather would still be on CBS. "Fake but true" didn't cut it for Dan, and it shouldn't cut it for Al.

Posted by: flaggman | 2007-10-11 10:37:07 PM


And Gore is up for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted by: TM | 2007-10-11 10:39:38 PM


Even as the lie falls apart, the left is still busy trying to add credibility to the same lie, by awarding Gore with the nobel peace prize, to add to his emmy.

The left has absolutely no shame.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/al_gore_2008/2007/10/09/39304.html

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-11 10:44:03 PM


I think he WON the Nobel...but it was under a new category called 'The Person that was able to scam the most about of people in the last year'.

Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-10-11 10:59:39 PM


“packed with ’alarmism and exaggeration’”… is 9 packed?? I need a reference point… how many points did he make?? Does no one ask this question? Of course unthinking people don’t..

If he made 10 points and 9 were questionable under an official court scrutiny... then he is a flake.

If he made 100 points and only 9 were questionable under an official court scrutiny... then he obviously has something very important to say.

But of course in fundamental extremist’s minds (ie conserve-fascists & leftist pinkos alike) nit picking others points to a mind numbing stupidity is standard practice.

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-11 11:07:36 PM


Well here ya go...the points seem to be the foundation of his entire fictional movie. But im sure a intelligent person like you Xeno, has already looked at this evidence provided in the link and has concocted a way to slither your way out of it.


Error one

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Error two

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four

Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

Error five

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.

Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Error six

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

Judge: “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.”

Error seven

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

Error eight

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.

Judge: “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 was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

Error nine

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-10-11 11:44:14 PM


It's official - Gore has won, with others, the Nobel Peace Prize. He's pulled off a hat trick - the Oscar, the Emmy, and now this. We'll never hear the end of this. Fortunately Kyoto is a scam so nothing will change for a long time.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-10-12 5:34:20 AM


Al Gore was a phony during the Clinton years, was a phony during his presidential campaign, and remains a phony since then. Why would anybody be surprised that his hop on the "TheSkyIsFalling" bandwagon was accompanied with lies and falsehoods?

A leopard never changes its spots.

Posted by: Darryl | 2007-10-12 6:32:37 AM


"Aussie 'missing link' ocean current found"

al-Reuters

Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's oceans and helps govern global climate. New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia's southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system's engine-room, said scientist Ken Ridgway.


Wait a minute there. They were making climate predictions to a tenth of a degree without knowing about at least one major ocean current? How is that possible? (sarcasm)


Posted by: obc | 2007-10-12 7:37:57 AM


The Nobel Peace Prize is a real coup for Al Gore's egosystem, ain't it!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-12 12:48:41 PM


I suggest that readers look at the research being carried out by Henrik Svensmark. He has also written a book along with Nigel Calder, "The Chilling Stars", that links Climate Variation with Cosmic Radiation and Solar Flux Intensity and disputes the impact of Greenhouse gases as the main cause of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Global Warming in particular. It is real scientific research being carried out at the CERN institute in Switzerland and NOT funded by interested parties!

Posted by: Andy | 2007-10-12 3:15:19 PM


Yes - and the warming of Saturn, Mars, Jupiter & Pluto is caused by all those interplanetary SUVs.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-12 3:50:17 PM


I am outraged! The Left just can't be counted on to do things properly anymore! Case in point - why does Al Bore only get a Nobel prize? Normally, he should have received a Pulitzer as well - after all, only the Left can win this covetted gong for the most lies told within a single volume. Then again, can this 21st century version of the flim flam man/snake-oil salesman even string togther a single sentence without overloading it with hyperbole and cliche? No he can't and therefore where the heck is his well-earned Pulitzer?

Posted by: Taxme CanadianSheep | 2007-10-13 12:01:39 AM


Where are "PEACE" and climate change related??? Gore is a joke for the Nobel prize, if this is the best that the judges can select, then maybe we had better dump the Nobels as being an honor. Cudos to the British judge, who could see past the hysteria, the environmentalists are trying to create.

Posted by: Anne M Johnston | 2007-10-13 4:49:58 PM


Why the surprise? These same maroons gave Arafat and Peanut-brain Carter this prize, while NOT awarding it to Ronald Reagan who helped liberate all of Eastern Europe from decades of Communist oppression.

Leftoids on parade!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 5:06:24 PM


Posted by: Anne M Johnston | 13-Oct-07 4:49:58 PM
Where are "PEACE" and climate change related???

--------------

Why do nations go to war? Because they just get up on morning and think it's a good time to roll out the newly bought tank and see if it can deliver the punch the seller promised?

War's usually happen out of two main reasons:

- Trying to get resources one lacks.
- Trying to get land one lacks.

If climate change does happen it stands to reason that this will cause conflict over arrabal land and water which in turn would probably not further peace.

Yes yes, those darn lefties, they actually dare to think "around teh corner" instead of only looking in a straight line. Damn them all, right OBC?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 5:24:09 PM


There is no connection between peace and climate change, that's the puzzle piece that just won't fit. It's impossible to figure out why a charlatan like Gore could be considered for a Nobel prize unless they award a prize for junk science. Nothing to do with peace.

This comes at a time when his scary production is being shot down by real scientists.

Agree obc, Reagan deserved an award for uttering,
"Mr. Gorbachev, take down that wall", and he did, and they became friends!

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-13 5:34:07 PM


Snowrunner, you're saying when things get hot we all start fighting?
Guess it's already happening with the Native land claims, they're getting all hot and bothered claiming land bought and sold over centuries by the sweat of immigrants who developed this country. Without them there would be no country and its doubtful the medicine men would have kept the Indians alive into this 21st century.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-13 5:41:16 PM


Snowy

"War's usually happen out of two main reasons:

- Trying to get resources one lacks.
- Trying to get land one lacks."

So Canada went to war against Germany for resources or land. Is that your premise?

Korea?
Kosovo?

Shall I continue?

It's not that I dispute this as a gneneral rule. It's just that it explains less than half of the reasons for going to war. Additionally, your premise seems very black and white with little wiggle room for "shades of grey".


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 5:43:34 PM


Snowy

Oops! I forgot Canada's participation in Gulf War I against Iraq.

Just how much land and oil did we pilfer, BTW?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 5:45:43 PM


Damn Liz, got me there, obviously I must have misunderstood the reasoning for their decision. Need to take some reading lessons so that I can be just as smart as all you here at the blog who know the truth.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 5:51:10 PM


Snowy

" Need to take some reading lessons so that I can be just as smart as all you here at the blog who know the truth."

That ok. Admitting you have a problem is the 1st step towards recovery.

/ I'll ignore your sarcastic swipe.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 5:55:01 PM


Snowy,
Just curious.

Why did the Northern US states go to war with the Southern ones?

Why did the Southern US states go to war with the Northern ones?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:01:36 PM


"If climate change does happen"

. . . and if aliens arrive from Mars.

Both equally ridiculous ifs.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:06:01 PM


H2,

last time I will "talk" to you in any way.

You may think there are "just" wars, pretty much any war your country / "society" partakes in, for "noble" goals. No worries, you're not alone, I am sure the other side thinks the same way.

As you like so much to quote "Shades of Gray" you should have realized by now that things aren't as straight forward (especially) in international politics are your brain may want it to be in order to apprehend it.

There is no "just" or "moral" war, war at times war may be the only option left (or is that right?) but that does not make a war just or moral. Regardless of what your handlers tell you.

Oh, speaking of which, you're doing a good job keeping all these files and so forth, if you let me know who writes your paychecks I'll send them a letter of recommendation, after all in this free market people like you should be recognized by their bosses and be rewarded, feel free to email me their address and I'll write something up over the weekend.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 6:12:59 PM


Snowy

"Why do nations go to war? Because they just get up on morning and think it's a good time to roll out the newly bought tank and see if it can deliver the punch the seller promised? "

Wait a minute! Isn't this the modus operendi of the United States Military Industrial Complex?

I could have sworn that this is what the PORT side of the internet has been shouting at me.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:14:06 PM


obc,

Yes, I see this know. You here at the standard are the bearer of the one and only truth, founders of the church of conservatism and the only authority figure on this planet who speaks the truth.

Ordained by God him / her / itself of course.

Keep up the good fight in spreading the truth brother, and praise the Lord!

Posted by: Snowrunn | 2007-10-13 6:14:34 PM


WOW! Another Leftoid with a degree in arrogance and condescension. And they wonder why they garner no respect from the other side of the aisle.

I guess the Mosque of Globull Warming does not allow for any criticism of the Prophet and his goran - an inconvenient fable. Its mistakes have been highlighted already in a UK court this very week, but we must bow 5 times daily towards Tennessee - or is that Washington, D.C. - or Los Angeles? Which of Al's homes is the new Mecca? The one with the heated indoor pool which uses more energy in one month than we peons use in one year?

Or maybe it's alright to bow in the direction of his private jet as he flies all over the world telling us NOT to fly all over the world. SHEEESH!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:21:13 PM


Snowy

"Oh, speaking of which, you're doing a good job keeping all these files and so forth, ..."

What files? Paranoid much? Am I part of the terrorizing that you speak of by our gov'ts?

"There is no "just" or "moral" war, war at times war may be the only option left (or is that right?) but that does not make a war just or moral. Regardless of what your handlers tell you."

Handlers? Is this a projection? Has it not occurred to you that I think independently and have reached a conclusion opposite of yours? More psychic ability on your part.

So much for "shades of grey" and doubt in your assertions.

"As you like so much to quote "Shades of Gray" you should have realized by now that things aren't as straight forward (especially) in international politics are your brain may want it to be in order to apprehend it."

Funny! Isn't that what I have been reminding you about. Aren't you the one to assert categorically that war is literally about :

"- Trying to get resources one lacks.
- Trying to get land one lacks."

So which one of us lacks the acknowlegemnt that wars are not so straightforward?


"last time I will "talk" to you in any way."

Why not? I'm listening and debating you respectfully. I haven't called you any names.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:21:42 PM


""last time I will "talk" to you in any way."

Why not? I'm listening and debating you respectfully. I haven't called you any names."

He is acknowledging that he can't match wits with your arguments, h2o.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:24:28 PM


OBC,

oh we can surely debate if there would be anything to debate, but there really isn't. I tried to answer a question which prompted snarky remarks from the "holders of the truth(TM)" so I guess we're done here.

No worries, I am sure you and H2 can continue to play "whack the leftoid" and "chant the Gospel" until the cows come home.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 6:26:32 PM


H2,

from one person to the other, in order to help you understand texts better and that we both may prosper I offer you this explaination for the word "usually" that I used before I made these two statements. May the dictionary enlighten you as it does me at times:

u·su·al /ˈyuʒuəl, ˈyuʒwəl/
–adjective
1. habitual or customary: her usual skill.
2. commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary: the usual January weather.
3. commonplace; everyday: He says the usual things.
–noun
4. something that is usual: He could expect only the usual.
—Idiom
5. as usual, in the customary or usual manner: As usual, he forgot my birthday.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL ūsuālis, equiv. to L ūsu-, s. of ūsus use (see use (n.)) + -ālis -al1; cf. OF usuel]

—Related forms
u·su·al·ly, adverb
u·su·al·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. accustomed. Usual, customary, habitual refer to a settled and constant practice. Usual indicates something that is to be expected by reason of previous experience, which shows it to occur more often than not: There were the usual crowds at the celebration. Something that is customary is in accordance with prevailing usage or individual practice: It is customary to finish up with a bonfire. That which is habitual has become settled or constant as the result of habit on the part of the individual: The merchants wore habitual smiles throughout the season. 2. general, prevailing, prevalent, familiar, regular. 3. expected, predictable.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 6:29:34 PM


Snowy,
As an atheist, I can't "chant the Gospel".

This isn't a game to me. You asserted confidently that there were two reasons for war. I questioned this yet you took the opportunity to accuse me of, well, here's the quote:

"As you like so much to quote "Shades of Gray" you should have realized by now that things aren't as straight forward (especially) in international politics are your brain may want it to be in order to apprehend it."

This would appear to undermine you and not me.

It is also a pattern with which I have become familiar in reading your posts. You chide others about some personal fault in their reasoning and then proceed to display it yourself.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:32:38 PM


Arrogance & condescension on parade once again.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:32:55 PM


Snowy

"last time I will "talk" to you in any way."

I thought you weren't "talk"ing to me anymore!

See what I mean? You don't really post what you mean. How can I accept your arguments at face value when you clearly can't commit to them yourself.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:35:00 PM


OBC,

what can I say, your love of all human beings has convinced me that you are right and I was wrong. There is a God, as told by you and your fellow brother in keyboards here at The Shotgun.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 6:38:39 PM


Oh, you are talking to me? It's only h20 you are boycotting?

I am so honoured!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:40:42 PM


Snowy,

About last night.

Do you still think that Osama's statements regarding his reasons for attacking the West should be taken at face value

before

taking at face value the promises of a Western politician?

BTW, did you vote for McGuinty?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:41:27 PM


OBC man, I love ya, you saved me. How could I ever ignore you?

And the bunking down with you in the bunker is okay, right?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-13 6:43:07 PM


snowy man ~

There's no shortage of guys on your side of the aisle who I'm sure would love to bunk up with you.

Try Svend Robinson - I hear he gives jewelry to his butties - ooops! - I mean, his buddies.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:45:41 PM


. . . although any of his gifts may have to be returned by the police to their original owner.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 6:53:22 PM


OBC,

Apparently, Snowy is no longer talking to me.

I wish I understood his silence. Perhaps it is a kind of Mid Life Crisis where he must vernture forth to find himself and become again the man he used to be.

Anyway, I wish him luck. I hear those caves on the Afghan/Pakistan border are quite the challenge.

Come back to us safely and whole, Snowy!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 6:58:50 PM


"Al Gore believes Hillary Clinton is unstoppable"

Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for the White House is now so formidable that, even with his Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore considers her unbeatable, according to his former campaign aides. The former vice-president, whose supporters have formed a shadow campaign team in case he decides to run, has told friends he is reluctant to take on her formidable political organisation by throwing his hat into the ring.

TRUTH IS, he doesn't want to run and lose AGAIN. He wants to be President, and have it given to him - like the Oscar and Nobel prize. Too bad people vote instead of having dedicated lefty committees decide the Presidential election.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 7:01:03 PM


Like I said earlier, h20, he has met his match in you, and does not care to be showed up over and over and over again.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 7:02:38 PM


OBC,

"TRUTH IS, he doesn't want to run and lose AGAIN. He wants to be President, and have it given to him - like the Oscar and Nobel prize. Too bad people vote instead of having dedicated lefty committees decide the Presidential election.
"

Concise and accurate.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 7:02:39 PM


obc

"Like I said earlier, h20, he has met his match in you, and does not care to be showed up over and over and over again."

Thank you. He does seem unusually reticent with me given that I am someone who never calls him names or otherwise attacks him in an ad hominem fashion.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-13 7:05:40 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.