This just in from Fox News:
A High Court judge in London has turned film critic, highlighting "nine scientific errors" in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The judge said some of the errors had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's thesis on global warming.
The Government's decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of political group The New Party, who accused the Government of "brainwashing" children with propaganda.
Justice Burton ruled at London's High Court that the film, much acclaimed by environmentalists, could be shown in schools as part of a climate change resource pack, but only if it was accompanied by new guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views.
Here's my take on this: there is no question that there are a few statements in Gore's movie that make me flinch. Had he run the script by me, I would have suggested he rephrase a few of his points.
That said, I think the movie is overall quite good and I give it high marks for accuracy. In addition, I think it's important to remember that the movie is a piece of advocacy -- it is not designed to give both sides of the argument, but rather to push a particular agenda. It's basically an op-ed in film form.
Because of this, I think it's a mistake to look at Gore's movie in isolation. To assess its intellectual honesty, it is useful to compare it to the other side -- say an op-ed by Dick Lindzen.
Take a look at Fox's list of errors in An Inconvenient Truth (linked above) with realclimate's critique of Lindzen's Newsweek piece.
In this comparison, Gore's film is a sparkling gem of integrity and accuracy. The misrepresentation, obfuscation, and downright mendacity of Lindzen and the rest of the denialist crowd is staggering in comparison with the few nits in Gore's movie.
While errors do exist in Gore's film, it is still far more accurate and believable than the arguments made by those opposed to action on climate change.
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Reactions to Al Gore’s book o’ solutions, “Our Choice”
The must-read solutions book by Al Gore
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 8:05 am
11 Oct 2007
· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
· Mr Gore had also claimed - 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". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "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"
· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult
grist.org
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:04 am
11 Oct 2007
It is a shame and a mockery that Al Gore would be even considered for a Nobel.
Not even mentioning his complete destruction of the scientific method and the politicization of science that occurred almost entirely due to him, one has to look at the amount of strife generated by this disconsolate man.
Isn't the Peace Prize supposed to be awarded to one who brings harmony?
From the get go, Gore has set up a dialectic of Us and Them, of Right and Wrong. He calls his opponents names and even disgraces the memory of the Holocaust by turning its terminology to his own political ends.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Werdna Posted 9:52 am
11 Oct 2007
The students (and by extension, we) will win As long as the British teachers will focus on what is right about the movie, but still teach that the movie is not perfect.
This is about science, after all, and science is a moving target.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 10:37 am
11 Oct 2007
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 11:47 am
11 Oct 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:11 pm
11 Oct 2007
I only count eight :O
Permalink
apsmith Posted 12:14 pm
11 Oct 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:34 pm
11 Oct 2007
But that just doesn't sell. Remember, he's making a Hollywood movie and getting scripted by union hacks and camera jockeys. Face it, a balanced and nuanced movie that was really scientific would be BORING AS HECK.
But how does one capture the minds of the young generation? It was really effective at that. Kids all over the world love that movie. In a way, it is a condemnation of us adults who take little responsibility, and do little to correct the situation.
And we all missed that message because we want to defend or skewer poor Mr. Al Gore for his politics.
You know, kids see right through all that fallacy and wonder about us so-called adults. The kids get the message and don't worry about the validity of Scene 221B about snow melt on some African mountain.
Sorry to be a butthead, but the point is that we failed, utterly, and our legacy is to leave these kids with an environment that is increasingly unpredictable, too hot, too cold, or whatever. The fact is that this cannot be reversed for 15 years even with huge reductions in CO2 today makes it even worse, given the lag times in ambient CO2 concentrations.
I mean Generation Boomer lost, man, and we're the sorriest bunch of folks that ever existed. That's the message. Watch the movie again.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:29 pm
11 Oct 2007
This could lead to excellent discussions on what is science, what is political activism and what is simply denialism. The tactics used by these denialists need to be shown to children.
One thing I always notice with these denialists is that they seem incapable (or unwilling) to distinguish between science and politics. I think it is fine to explain children that Gore is a political activist. He also happens to get the facts right almost consistently. Then there are the activists from the "other side" who don't even bother to do science or use science. They just use lobbyists and lies.
Exposing all that could teach children some critical thinking skills...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:47 pm
11 Oct 2007
And I disagree, or rather would go beyond, the quibbling comment of this blogger:
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2006/06/polar-bear-cannibalism.h ...
The writer complains -- rightly enough -- that a recent cluster of independent reports of cannibalism among polar bears, specifically of males killing and eating cubs after violently driving away their mothers, has been interpreted as an effect of global warming; but in fact incidences of cannibalism have been (very rarely) reported since the 1970s, and we cannot be sure yet that we can blame the recent incidences on global warming.
That may be true. But it misses the more important truth that many scientists in many fields are working with a new paradigm, if that is the right term, one that predicts that signs of global warming will be more and more in evidence.
And that is something that Al Gore understands perfectly.
On a few of the "errors":
There is plainly no denying that Arctic sea ice is melting at an alarming rate. And it seems entirely reasonable to predict that the loss of the ice will be a dangerous pressure on polar bear populations. Movements of the population around Hudson Bay have been more closely studied; and the presence of many bears on shore when one would expect them to be out on the ice is reasonably attributed to the loss of that ice.
Whether or not evacuations have yet taken place, the governments of Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the Maldives (and maybe other island countries as well) seem convinced that they are in trouble, and have considered it necessary to make international appeals for an end to the regime of uncontrolled GHG emissions. Surely they have been studying real climatological data, relevant to their eroding shorelines, and not just Al Gore's movie and book.
The shrinking of Kilimanjaro's snowcap is no doubt not being caused by the same mechanism causing the shrinking of the glaciers in Glacier National Park, or even the one causing similar losses in some of the Andes. But the anomalous and unexpected drop in humidity on the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro can reasonably be included among examples of "climate craziness," a symptom of global warming, collected from all over.
As for Lake Chad, its shrinking may indeed be to a large extent the result of population increase. But the movement of people to the region around the lake may itself be the result of climate change elsewhere in the Sahel.
As for coral reefs, it is reasonable to predict that an increasing acidification of sea water would adversely affect calcareous marine organisms. Gore is in fact careful not to exclude any possible cause, to explain the loss of corals. But given that corals are being lost in many parts of the world, it surely makes sense to pay attention to a possible cause that would work globally, such as an effect of global warming such as acidification.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Jones Posted 10:42 pm
11 Oct 2007
Now, the movie can be used quite profitably in the classroom. Compare the predictions in AIT to the IPCC's, and even other takes out there. Explore the issues that the disparities raise. Reinforce the notion that predictions are not correct/incorrect, but have probability distributions. Discuss the nature of "consensus" in science. Discuss the influence that "science" can and does have in politics.
Science class is still fundamentally for the teaching of science itself, and "issues in science" should take a second place. The issues I pointed to in the last paragraph are subtle and philosophical in nature, and it would seem hard for a class of 16-year-olds to appreciate them fully. So it has to be taught properly. But if the "debate" on global warming teaches us anything, it's that a lot of people could use a bit more knowledge in these areas.
Permalink
Sabina Posted 11:45 pm
11 Oct 2007
For instance: "According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, conducted by 1.300 experts from 95 countries and released on 2005, about 60 % of the ecosystem resources that support life on Earth - such as fresh water supplies, fishery stocks and clean air - are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could increase in the next 50 years."
Has anybody heard about Millennium Ecosystem Assessment? Probably few. Al Gore has made news all over the world.
What Al Gore has done is he made us all thinking. And some of us acting.
And for the judges: why don't you concentrate on those who really brainwash us. Schools including.
Al Gore has probably included some of tricks politicians us. Is it so bad? We listen to politician every day telling us impossible stories.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:35 am
12 Oct 2007
Interesting blog over on Weather Underground today where Jeff Masters says that the Summer of 2007 might be the "tipping point" for Artic sea ice, due to the Albedo-ice feedback loop. I guess what happened was this summer's heat melted through several generations of sea ice.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
eredux Posted 12:25 pm
13 Oct 2007
http://www.eredux.com/states/
Permalink
eeny Posted 6:44 pm
15 Oct 2007
which reports that "The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies."
Permalink