Al Gore's movie, "Inconvienant Truth"

[Bill Harsey]

Anyone seen this? If so how credible is it?

cool analysis wanted.


Edited to add; a search here showed zero results.

[Bill Harsey]

OK, no ones going to admit to seeing it...

my HH6 drug it into the house wants me to see it.
I really don't.

[incommin]

How credible can it be? It is based on pseudoscience.........computer models where all factors are not entered..............

Jim

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Damn Bill, it's Al Gore's movie that should speak volumes on its "credibility"!

[gunnerjohn]

No Comment.... at least in Laura's presence :munchin

[pegasus]

Mr Harsey,

Maybe you should make one of these (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=48952&postcount=13) - it should help :D

-a

[mugwump]

Anyone seen this? If so how credible is it?


Haven't seen it but I'm a Believer. The evidence is compelling enough to suggest we should be taking prudent steps now. Besides, the remedies appeal to my nature: I hate ostentatious displays of wasteful consumption; cutting dependence on foreign oil also cuts the legs from under these tin-pot tyrants we are constantly having to deal with; and, the technological solutions present an enormous business opportunity for American know-how. I just don't see the down side.

I also think some realpolitik is in order. Europe (except for Britain), Japan, Canada, etc. aren't meeting their Kyoto goals. Why don't we cynically sign on the dotted line while we do what we think is prudent?

RE: Gore. What tees me off is how the Dems have co-opted the 'green' banner. I'm a conservative, gun totin' tree-hugger and it's hard to find people who espouse my views. The latest batch of Blue Dog Democrats -- pro-gun, fiscally conservative, pro-environment, pro-military -- are going to continue to eat the Republicans' lunch if they don't watch out.

[PSM]

Damn Global Warming! I took the family to Northern California to see the Great Glacier, but this is all we saw:

[NotME]

"The evidence is compelling enough to suggest we should be taking prudent steps now. "

What evidence? Thirty years ago "scientist" were quoting figures and statistics supporting a theory that the next ice age was just around the corner. Were they wrong then? Or are they wrong now?

Also, what prudent steps? One forest fire covering no more than 20 square miles can produce more atmospheric pollution than 5000 Chevrolet Suburbans in their entire useful lifetimes; and I think that forest fires have been going on since long before we figured out that lightning wasn't just God's way of telling us he was really mad at us for something.

Sorry, it always amazes me how even amazingly intelligent people can be so quick to overlook the obvious in favor of what passes for evidence on this topic.

[incommin]

"Haven't seen it but I'm a Believer."

Mugwump, a believer in what? That the earth is going thru a warming cycle? I believe that too..... The rub is "what percentage is caused by burning carbon fuels? that seems to be the big cry.....

Scaring the hell out of people with maybes is not going to change things. People around the world will not stop clearing land, buying vehicles, building more and more and more! The earth will continue to go thru hot and cold cycles.

Blaming the warming cycle on mankind is like blaming the President for a upturn or downswing of the economy. The economy is just too large to be affected by one person.

The earth will change. Man will adapt. Species will adapt or die out......survival of the fittest will continue to mold what lives on the earth just as it has since the formation of life.

my 2 cents.

Jim

[Intel_Airman]

I had it in my hands at Blockbuster last week. But then I thought back to the time I rented a popular Michael Moore movie that I turned off half way through, and I put it back. I figured it would be on the same level of "truth" and "proof". Did any of you guys see the article in Popular Science last year that explained a theory in which the industrial revoluation might have saved us from an ice age? Whoah, there's a concept! All of the bad things we've done to the planet kept us alive.

[Leozinho]

I've seen it. Even if you are already convinced global warming is a hoax, why not spend the 90 minutes to watch it now that it's at your local Blockbuster?

I do think Gore oversteps a bit when he tries to correlate seemingly every weather "disaster" with global warming, and there's a terribly out-of-place and self-serving vignette of Al Gore waxing poetic about his idyllic childhood in the middle that slows the film down.

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling.

It is not in the same vein as the "documentaries" (I use that loosely) of Micheal Moore.

[lksteve]

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling. save me some time...how does it account for the Little Ice Age of the 16th-19th century...or does it...?

let me add that any film that receives such a warm reception at the Sundance Film Festival is suspect...

[The Reaper]

I've seen it. Even if you are already convinced global warming is a hoax, why not spend the 90 minutes to watch it now that it's at your local Blockbuster?

I do think Gore oversteps a bit when he tries to correlate seemingly every weather "disaster" with global warming, and there's a terribly out-of-place and self-serving vignette of Al Gore waxing poetic about his idyllic childhood in the middle that slows the film down.

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling.

It is not in the same vein as the "documentaries" (I use that loosely) of Micheal Moore.

I do not think there is much science behind it.

Science would imply that there is a demonstrable cause and effect relationship between human pollution and global warming. We could just as easily be in a cyclical climatic warming period.

Those who claim that man and warming are independent factors, or that man is a relatively small part of this trend are insulted, shouted down, or denied the forum to speak. Gore shows only the "experts" who support his position, and denies the others. That does not represent science, as I understand it.

I would not rent it because to do so puts money in AlGore's pockets, supports environmental whackos, and prepares him for his 2008 bid to be POTUS.

Kyoto would punish the West while letting the big new polluters like China and India off the hook. Why sign up for an economic suicide pact?

I would rather spend 90 minuteds of my life doing something beneficial, like reloading. That is just my opinion though.

TR

[Kyobanim]

I saw a quote from a GM muckity muck that went something like, "98% of the scientests say there's a problem with global warming." Then he went on to say they were going to do something about lowering emissions on their cars. If I can find it I'll post it.

Little ice age in the 16th or 17th century? Yep, there was. And the only reason more people didn't die during this time is they practically deforested Europe to stay warm.

So what's wrong with practicing a little ecological conservancy? I want my grandkids to be able to breathe and enjoy nature when they grow up. Why not err on the side of caution in this instance?

This is the only planet we've got and if we fook it up, that's it. Why chance it?

[Leozinho]

So what's wrong with practicing a little ecological conservancy? I want my grandkids to be able to breathe and enjoy nature when they grow up. Why not err on the side of caution in this instance?

This is the only planet we've got and if we fook it up, that's it. Why chance it?

These are my thoughts, as well.




Science would imply that there is a demonstrable cause and effect relationship between human pollution and global warming. We could just as easily be in a cyclical climatic warming period.



You may be right. But how much are you willing to bet? What if you turn out to be wrong?

And why make that bet? The sky isn't going to fall if we require automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles. (OBL hates hybrids anyway.;) )

[mugwump]

"The evidence is compelling enough to suggest we should be taking prudent steps now. "

What evidence? Thirty years ago "scientist" were quoting figures and statistics supporting a theory that the next ice age was just around the corner. Were they wrong then? Or are they wrong now?

Also, what prudent steps? One forest fire covering no more than 20 square miles can produce more atmospheric pollution than 5000 Chevrolet Suburbans in their entire useful lifetimes; and I think that forest fires have been going on since long before we figured out that lightning wasn't just God's way of telling us he was really mad at us for something.

Sorry, it always amazes me how even amazingly intelligent people can be so quick to overlook the obvious in favor of what passes for evidence on this topic.

It would be reckless to jump to conclusions about what is or isn't obvious to me. The topic interests me, and I've looked into it pretty carefully.

Your forest fire argument is incorrect. CO2 from fires is a 'push' because all of the carbon (and phosphorous, iron, etc.) in in a tree is destined to be released into the atmosphere over the short term anyway, whether it burns or decays. As a matter of fact, on occasion fires can be a net carbon sink as the nutrients released in the ash stimulate increased plant growth and increased CO2 uptake. Your 5,000 Suburbans used tens of thousands of barrels of sequestered carbon to manufacture and will use additional thousands during their useful life. All of this "excess" carbon is definitely not a push; it would have remained locked underground if we hadn't recovered it.

I will grant that there is a lot of truly crap science on both sides of this argument. For instance, the "Gulf Stream will stop due to the melting ice cap" argument is total bunk, assuming the Earth continues to spin on its axis. Coriolis force is the engine behind the Gulf Stream, not temperature gradients. The "other" side argues that the Greenies are cherry-picking data that supports their side, all the while sifting through the mountain of increased sea surface temperature, mid-sea temperature, and atmospheric temperature data to find the odd data point that "disproves" global warming.

Prudent steps? How about replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents? If every household in the US replaced [I]ONE 100 watt incandescent bulb with a corresponding lumen-output compact fluorescent, the energy and pollution savings would be the equivalent of taking 1.3 million cars off the roads. You save money, the bulbs more than pay for themselves over their useful life, they produce the same amount of light. For every CF produced, 6-10 incandescents don't need to be manufactured, transported, or disposed of. Why no push to replace incandescents?

Or how about designing and constructing safe, standardized advance pressurized water nuclear reactors to replace some of these coal-fired plants that are dumping 40 tons of mercury into the atmosphere every year? Or eliminating (or at least increasing the efficiency of) those wasteful "wall wart" transformers that suck electricity and convert it to heat whether being used of not? Did you know that according to the Department of Energy, the amount of standby energy used by "off" equipment every year in the US is equivalent to 26 average sized power stations?

We act like robber-barons lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. Prudent steps? There's so much low-hanging fruit I could go on for pages.

Some questions for you:

1) Do you think the gas-guzzler strategy is working for Detroit?

2) Do you think being dependent upon the Middle East, Venezuela and Nigeria for the strategic lifeblood of our nation is a good idea?

3) Are you opposed to the US becoming the premier producer of alternative energy and pollution control technology? Given that we don't manufacture textiles, shoes, machine tools, most automotive spare parts, 80% of our pharmaceutical feedstock, electrical transformers, etc. etc. or service our help desks and financial processing centers any more, do you think "Would you like Biggie Fries with that?" is a good foundation for future growth?

[mugwump]

save me some time...how does it account for the Little Ice Age of the 16th-19th century...or does it...?

let me add that any film that receives such a warm reception at the Sundance Film Festival is suspect...

It doesn't. The Little Ice Age is generally attributed to decreased solar and increased volcanic activity. It occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution and any substantial carbon inputs from human activity. No credible climatologist disputes natural fluctuations in the climate. That doesn't mean that we aren't having a major impact.

[mugwump]

Blaming the warming cycle on mankind is like blaming the President for a upturn or downswing of the economy. The economy is just too large to be affected by one person.

True. But it's created by all the people.



The earth will change. Man will adapt. Species will adapt or die out......survival of the fittest will continue to mold what lives on the earth just as it has since the formation of life.

my 2 cents.

Jim

We're in perfect agreement. Trust me, I have no fear for Mama Earth...if we piss her off she'll shrug us off her shoulders and cook up a new batch. She's done it umpteen times before. That doesn't comfort me when I think about my children's children...

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

That doesn't mean that we aren't having a major impact.
It is all about succession. Name one species of plants or animals that does not in some way attempt to ameliorate the environment in which they live. This is a dynamic process with many variables and far too many experts with agendas. For every statistical analysis you can quote, someone else can quote you an equally logical conflicting view. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing in terms and times that are geologic in span in which we do not amount to a pimple on a mastadon's butt. I for one do not buy into most of the current claims and while we will have to agree to disagree it is unfortunate that the turkey that invented the internet is the spokesperson for a cause that may or may not have any degree of legitimacy. Unfortunately when the the ozone layer developed the "hole" the debris landed smack on his head crushing his tinfoil hat down around his ears.

[mugwump]

I do not think there is much science behind it.

Science would imply that there is a demonstrable cause and effect relationship between human pollution and global warming. We could just as easily be in a cyclical climatic warming period.

Those who claim that man and warming are independent factors, or that man is a relatively small part of this trend are insulted, shouted down, or denied the forum to speak. Gore shows only the "experts" who support his position, and denies the others. That does not represent science, as I understand it.

I would not rent it because to do so puts money in AlGore's pockets, supports environmental whackos, and prepares him for his 2008 bid to be POTUS.

Kyoto would punish the West while letting the big new polluters like China and India off the hook. Why sign up for an economic suicide pact?

I would rather spend 90 minuteds of my life doing something beneficial, like reloading. That is just my opinion though.

TR


Don't blame the message for the messenger: even a broken clock is right twice a day (as long as it's not digital).

There was a lot of debate about global warming. Even now the consensus view isn't cut and dried and concedes that normal climactic variation plays a role.

From the National Research Council (the NRC is the working arm of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the United States National Academy of Engineering, not exactly bastions of "one world" groupthink):

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.

This doesn't have to be punishment. It could be the biggest business opportunity of the 21st century. GE certainly thinks so, and has bet the farm on a "green" business strategy.

[PSM]

Recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683

It reads like a textbook because, well, it should be.

Bjorm Lomborg was a charter member of Greenpeace and was determined to prove that attacks on environmental “facts” were just right-wing propaganda. His findings surprised him.

He doesn’t just tackle Global Warming, he also looks at “over population”, pesticides, solid waste, . . .the full spectrum of environmental concerns.

Twenty to twenty-five percent of the pages are devoted to notes and bibliography.

Enjoy. :D

Pat

[NotME]

Mugwump knows a lot more about geology than I do. Climatology too I bet! But here's what I think - When the chief advocates of global warming stop making claims like "Hurricaine Katrina was caused by global warming" maybe I can start to take them seriously. I don't have any trouble believing that man is not only not responsible for climate fluctuations, we aren't even capable of being responsible for climate fluctuations. Groups of scientists have studied for a century now to solve drought by coming up with all sorts of wild theories and technologies. None of it works. They can make a particular cloud rain by seeding it, but the amount of energy used to make that happen is better spent carrying water to the few fields that will ultimately see any water from the cloud that has been seeded. Pretty pathetic you say? I agree! So several generations of scientists have spent great time and resources trying to find a way to create rain, and they can't do it. You expect me to believe that we can do on accident what we can't even come close to pulling off deliberately?:p
I do agree, however, that anything that can be done to keep American money from ending up lining some fat Arabs pockets is a good idea! BUT, I'm not driving a hybrid, ever! (Unless they start giving them away, in 4WD with a wench package)

[Team Sergeant]

Anyone seen this? If so how credible is it?

cool analysis wanted.


Edited to add; a search here showed zero results.

The liberal media will not print stories that might make Gore look like an idiot (and "tool"). The story below sort of ruins some "predictions" made by "educated" individuals. Does this not make you wonder why this was not front page news on the huge media outlets?:rolleyes:


http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-75767sy0nov13,0,2553425.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

Quiet '06 blew dire hurricane forecasts away
Ernesto and a nor'easter aside, storms for Hampton Roads and elsewhere weren't as fierce as predicted.
BY PATRICK LYNCH
247-4534
November 13, 2006
NEWPORT NEWS -- The Big One didn't hit. Not in Hampton Roads, not anywhere. Not this year.

Forecasters predicted that 2006 would be an unusually active tropical cyclone season, and would likely bring a violent, Category 3 to Category 5 hurricane to the Atlantic seaboard. Potentially "hyperactive," came the word from the official forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Well above average," said hurricane gurus William Gray and Phil Klotzbach.

But, it didn't bear out. The season lasts until the end of November but forecasters agree the real risk has passed, leading people up and down the coast to breathe easy and shedding light on the difficulty of predicting a whole season's worth of weather.

The break in activity did allow for an opportunity for local governments to get some things done.

Case in point: Newport News, which had a chance to work on projects designed to mitigate the effects of hurricanes without actually having to deal with one. The city continues to seek grant money and try to alleviate conditions that lead to flooding in the city.

September's Ernesto and October's nor'easter both brought reminders of those issues, said Jack Williamson, the city's emergency management coordinator. Drainage systems in Denbigh overflowed, damaging people's homes and frustrating those who have asked for upgrades.

Flooding at City Line Apartments forced people out of 200 units. But the city also has made progress on many other projects, in such places as Stoney Run and Kiln Creek.

Williamson said he and his staff pay close attention to the seasonal hurricane forecasts every spring and as they are modified throughout the summer. This spring's was dire.

"We were concerned, especially after what happened last year," Williamson said. While residents may only pay attention once a storm is closing in, a brutal forecast like this year's causes people in Williamson's place to remain on guard all summer and fall.

"The bottom line is we track these storms from day one," he said. "In many cases, we get alerted before they're even a depression. We try to maintain a state of readiness."

This spring's projections - along with memories of the Gulf Coast destruction in 2005 and theories of global warming making hurricanes worse - combined to build great apprehension for the 2006 hurricane season.

Experts Gray and Klotzbach, professors at Colorado State University, predicted in May a season "well above" historical averages, with 17 named storms. They predicted a 69 percent chance of a Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane making landfall on the East Coast - more than double the average 31 percent chance over the past 100 years.

So far the season has produced only nine named storms, and favorable Atlantic winds have pushed almost all of them out to sea. Ernesto was the only quasi-major tropical storm to hit Hampton Roads, and no hurricanes made landfall.

"You've got to pay attention because Ernesto, they warned you about that one, but that nor'easter was even worse," said Dick Zasimowich, a Poquoson resident who moved back into his house in March after living in a FEMA trailer for years after Isabel.

"I hate to say it, but you've got to learn at times not to listen to the weatherman. Nobody can tell. I'm just glad it didn't happen," Zasimowich said of this year's projected big hurricane season.

Who or what can coastal residents thank for the quiet season? Dryer-than-expected air, dust from Africa rising into the atmosphere.

An earlier-than-expected rise of El Nino and a warming of Pacific Ocean temperatures also played havoc with the expected conditions for tropical storm formation.

Hurricane prognosticators still say we are at the beginning of a 15- to 20-year period of increased tropical storm activity. Their prediction on that has not changed. Some debate has centered on whether global warming plays a part in that. Some believe it does. Former Vice President Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," was marketed with a movie poster anchored by a swirling hurricane.

Recent history seems to provide easy evidence, too - from 1995 to 2005 the Atlantic averaged four hurricanes per year, compared with 1.5 per year from 1970 to 1994, according to Gray and Klotzbach.

But the preeminent hurricane researchers also say this "is not directly related to global temperature increase. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism." The two also note that during the past decade, Pacific storm activity has decreased dramatically and that together "there has been virtually no trend in major hurricanes."

Gray and Klotzbach will release their final overview of the 2006 season this week, and in December will release their first look at what's to come in 2007.

In Newport News, Williamson will be paying attention.

"They're getting increasingly accurate," Williamson said of the forecasts. "Still, obviously, it's off sometimes."

[Solid]

"3) Are you opposed to the US becoming the premier producer of alternative energy and pollution control technology? Given that we don't manufacture textiles, shoes, machine tools, most automotive spare parts, 80% of our pharmaceutical feedstock, electrical transformers, etc. etc. or service our help desks and financial processing centers any more, do you think "Would you like Biggie Fries with that?" is a good foundation for future growth?"

Regardless of global warming, this point is exactly the reason that more government funding should be dedicated to alternative energies/ counter-pollution R+D.
Cancer levels in China and the Asian Tigers have increased significantly in recent history, and show a strong correlation with emissions rates. Whether global warming is a problem or not, in these countries pollution absolutely is. As such, there is an ever-expanding market for counter-pollution technologies.
Furthermore, China is spending a giant chunk of change and a lot of political capital trying to secure itself oil sources. You can bet that much like the position we are now in, having oil as a 'vital strategic asset' will put China in a compromising position. At that point, they will be looking for ways to become independent. Much as is the case with counter-pollution tech, if we develop viable alternative energy sources, there will be a massively profitable future market for them.
This isn't a hippie 'I love the environment argument,' this is simply good business sense. We have the capital and resources, and popular support (following the Katrina gas price spike), to create highly valuable intellectual property. It would be a loss, in my opinion, for us to not seize this opportunity.

JMO,

Solid

[Team Sergeant]

Bill,

I believe that most people hold the belief that there are smarter and more intelligent humans then themselves, thereby inferring that these individuals must be better educated and thereby better informed.

I believe most people are lazy and would rather place their trust in these individuals then do some research themselves. And why not, since childhood most have been told "what" to think by their teachers. This I believe is a good thing until you place a self serving individual in a position of trust. Case in point the recent "college" professors that believe and teach that the United States government conspired and destroyed the Twin Trade Towers with explosives, there was no terrorist nexus, and that the government just wanted to start a war, for oil……. Now think for a second how many self serving individuals are currently serving in positions of trust, and that are shaping the minds of our next generation.

I believe most people have either read the story of Chicken Little or have had it read to them. I believe most have heard of the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds, And The Invasion from Mars" radio broadcast.

I believe there are those that would take advantage of individuals of lesser intelligence and profess the sky is falling just to gain attention. I believe that in an effort to become part of something greater then themselves that some of the lesser gifted would jump at the opportunity to stand next to these self proclaimed Chicken Little’s and themselves yell from the rooftops that the sky is indeed falling without actually knowing if in fact it is true. I believe that if enough people believe the sky is actually falling that most would not even take time to get off the couch, go outside, look up and prove to themselves (beyond a reasonable doubt) that in fact the sky it is not actually falling.(If I recall correctly Orson Welles proved this theory quite well.)

I believe the people of the world have a right to be free and a right to be as stupid as they wish. I believe the lazy and stupid will always be effortlessly duped by those with no morals, honor, or integrity. I believe those that place their trust and confidence in a single source of information might find themselves sharing a spot at the bottom of the ocean close to the "Unsinkable" Titanic.

I believe that who ever started the internet online store concept "Customers who bought this item also bought:" was brilliance incarnate. I believe that concept holds true with many American citizens i.e. those that believe that the World Trade Center was a government conspiracy also believe that michael moore is an individual that embodies the American way, they also believe Bigfoot could not have been a hoax, they also believe leaving Americans hostages in iran for 444 days was OK because they all came back alive, or they believe a standing president receiving a blow job in the Oval Office and then lying to the American people did not tarnish our global image, they believe giving a child rapist a sixty day sentence is more than enough punishment. I believe those that bought any of that crap would buy just about anything you tell them.


I also believe we are not evolving as fast as we might like to think. I believe power is an illusion. I believe most have the ability to think for themselves yet sadly most do not. I believe we as a species will not take the next evolutionary step until we stop killing each other for shiny rocks.

That’s what I believe.;)

TS

[incommin]

I respect a man who knows what he believes. I respect a man more when he knows why he belives what he believes.

Jim

[Firebeef]

As far as Bush and the "evil" republicans not ratifying the Kyoto Protocols or the Berlin mandate, consider this:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

[Bill Harsey]

Thanks all for the input and sources of information.

I will keep studying this.

[x SF med]

But it has to be believeable, because algore invented the internet, right?

Figures lie, and liars figure . Can't remember who originally came up with this quote , Clements, perhaps? In reading the arguments on both sides, there are facts and figures out the wazoo... I try to do my small part, drive an exceptionally efficient vehicle (47 mpg, not a hybrid, and not underpowered), recycle when I can, etc. but I wonder if it really makes a difference.

Time for even more research.

[Kyobanim]

I try to do my small part, drive an exceptionally efficient vehicle (47 mpg, not a hybrid, and not underpowered), recycle when I can, etc. but I wonder if it really makes a difference.

Time for even more research.

Every thing makes a difference. If more had this attitude I doubt that there would be much problem.

[Ret10Echo]

Nobel Peace prize....hmmmm.....

At least the Brits are calling a spade a spade...

Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
A 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.
In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.
These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.
Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.
The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.
The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.
"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - 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 case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.
"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."
The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling would be "embarrassing for Mr Gore" but would not affect the government, which said it was happy that the judge did not dismiss the film's mainstream argument.
But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

He had previously said the updated guidance made "it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film".

Notes to teachers on the guidance, on the government's Teachernet website, say: "An Inconvenient Truth is a film that has had a big impact. Its aim is to make the science and the arguments about global warming and climate change and its effects accessible to all audiences. It also presents a powerful case in favour of one particular type of political response to climate change.

"However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion. This guidance points out, on a scene by scene basis, the areas where further input will be required from teaching staff. This guidance is designed to help teaching staff encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "This is further evidence of the Government being all over the place on climate change.

"Instead of grabbing the first thing they could think of and then shooting it out to schools, the Government should put together a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence."


Are you a teacher affected by this story? Send us your comments by filling out the form below.


Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Published: 2007/10/11 08:10:26 GMT

© BBC MMVII

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Perhaps the Norwegians failed to realize that big AL's measurements of ocean rise was based solely on the fact that AL had actually entered to water to save a drowning Polar Bear. Fortunately he waded into the water causing the volume to rise slowly, had he jumped in there would have been a tidal wave.
But you really have to put this in perspective as this was really a political statement by AL. He is getting paid big bucks for perpetuating half truths and falsehoods. What do you expect from any politician?

[Ret10Echo]

Perhaps the Norwegians failed to realize that big AL's measurements of ocean rise was based solely on the fact that AL had actually entered to water to save a drowning Polar Bear. Fortunately he waded into the water causing the volume to rise slowly, had he jumped in there would have been a tidal wave.
But you really have to put this in perspective as this was really a political statement by AL. He is getting paid big bucks for perpetuating half truths and falsehoods. What do you expect from any politician?

Politician and Nobel laureate ....?

I expect perpetuated half-truths and maybe a polar bear rug for the den....:D

[Monsoon65]

Broadsword:

That's what chaps my ass the most, too. Edwards and Gore use up more energy in a year than I will in a 100 lifetimes. Yet, simply because I drive an SUV, I'm killing the planet.

Ed Begley jr is the only guy out there that's talking the talk and walking the walk. I saw some show on TV and he's really a "green" person. In fact, I think I read somewhere he was busting the chops of other Hollyweird stars that called for everyone to conserve, then hopped on their private jet and flew home to their mansion.

[Ambush Master]

[QUOTE=Broadsword2004;185394]If you do absolutely need a private jet, well buy a little plane or a very fuel-efficient jet, there is actually a new prop plane called the Piaggio that goes at near jet speeds but since it's a prop, it's more environmentally-friendly and is far more fuel-efficient.[QUOTE]

This Aircraft has been around for over a Decade, along with the Beechcraft "Starship", both of which are "Pusher Prop Designs". Beech has attempted to buy-back all of the Starships due to the liability involved with an all "composit" airframe, the characteristics (longevity) of which are still being studied!!

I have a friend that was/is the Piaggio Tech-Rep in this country that told me about some interesting "in-flight" instances with it. They were flying at 30K+ feet and heard an aircraft, that was in trail, ask ATC what type of aircraft they were following. ATC responded and then asked why they asked, and the response was that they had never seen twin "Cork Screw Contrails" before!!!

Later
Martin

[sf11b_p]

This Aircraft has been around for over a Decade, along with the Beechcraft "Starship", both of which are "Pusher Prop Designs". Beech has attempted to buy-back all of the Starships due to the liability involved with an all "composit" airframe, the characteristics (longevity) of which are still being studied!!

Later
Martin

The Starship is/was a pig, expensive and slow. They didn't sell and Raytheon discontinued support, as since few were flying support was expensive.

Yeah liberals do a lot to shrink their carbon footprint. Why just last week an ecology conscious couple flew into Sky Harbor. On a Challenger, just the two of them. But they drove off in an economic rental. :rolleyes:

[GratefulCitizen]

There are a few unstated assumptions with the whole global warming thing that bug me.

If the Earth is indeed warming, and if there the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen...

Assumption 1: Higher CO2 levels are the cause. Global warming is the effect.
Isn't it possible that the higher CO2 levels are a consequence of global warming, rather than the cause?
The oceans hold plenty of CO2 in solution. If they get warmer, won't they release some of it?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Assumption 2: The ideal climate for the Earth is what we have right now. Any change would be bad.
Says who? A warmer planet might yield better growing seasons.

The fact that these two assumptions (among many others) are rarely addressed tends to support the idea that this is a big con.

They're sellin' something, and it reeks of methane.

[GratefulCitizen]

Food for thought:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

[longrange1947]

About 98 per cent of all scientists believe that the world is getting warmer. However, 98 per cent DO NOT believe that man is responsible. That number is much lower, but goes unreported.

How about the fact that the earth is in a cycle of its orbit that is drawing it closer to the sun and this occurs at a regular interval? Could this not be the reason for the earth to be getting warmer?

Also, how about cow farts????? :munchin :D

[PSM]

how about cow farts????? :munchin :D


No thanks. I prefer wolf nipple chips. :D

Pat

[Team Sergeant]

About 98 per cent of all scientists believe that the world is getting warmer. However, 98 per cent DO NOT believe that man is responsible. That number is much lower, but goes unreported.



I could not agree more.....;)

Another thing I believe, that the earth just might be warming back up to its "original" operating temperature.

My "theory" is based on the fact dinosaur bones have been found in Alaska, both herbivores and carnivores. Extremely large animals need a lot of plant matter to thrive. An abundance of plant material, IMO, might suggest a much warmer climate than what we are currently experiencing.

We Homo sapiens have only been keeping track of this 4.5 billion year old planet for just a few thousand years which makes us fairly inexperienced at predicting or stating facts concerning global climate change.

We still kill each other for shiny rocks, trust me, we ain’t that smart yet.

TS

[GratefulCitizen]

More on Gore: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AustinHill/2007/10/14/al_gore_leading_us_to_peace_really

[Ret10Echo]

Also all the individual fields are so complex, I mean you have ocean scientists and the ocean is incredibly complex, then the atmospheric scientists, which is also very complex, and other scientists, then there's all the political pressures, and MONEY in this, I mean you become a hero and celebrity and get paid big bucks if you go around the world saying how we are causing global warming and will all die unless we change our ways, there's the statistics, for example the scientists conduct their work, but then they need the help from proper statisticians to make sure they plot their graphs properly and all that, there's the personal biases as this is an emotional issue for many, all the scientists need to be able to put their work together, there's the pressure from scientists to show global warming is happening to get more funding, there's peer pressure as going against your peers might end your career, etc...so confusing!


There is an entire industry that has been created based on the concept of "global warming".....(not to be confused with "global dimming")

The idea, like many has taken on a life of it's own. There are many Don Quixotes out there tilting at windmills and masses of mindless followers who will not allow truth or the science they hold so dear to change their minds..

[The Reaper]

The best explanations I have seen state that we are a small part of a warming and cooling cycle, and that it is best to live in a warming trend.

During a cooling period, large parts of the Earth's surface become uninhabitable as the glaciers advance.

Man's contribution to this cycle are small.

Tremendous expenses may be dedicated to this cause, and the economy of the West wrecked chasing some elusive CO2 reduction scheme and trading carbon credits. I do not see China or India doing much to control their emissions, and they are gross polluters.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

I do not see China or India doing much to control their emissions, and they are gross polluters.

TR

I think some of these people would have second thougths about bashing their own country if they spent a few days in a large Asian or Eastern European or SoAm city. I remember getting to my room and looking like I had just come out of a coal-mine...soot covered face and clothes, several hours of blowing black mucus...:eek:

[abc_123]

...and look out the widndow of your room and you literally can't seen the high- rise building across the street from your hotel. It's amazing.

Also amazing is watching dudes electro-plating metal parts by hand by transferrring plastic laundry baskets full of parts in and out of the various solutions while wearing rubber aprons, no respirators and flip flops!... and eventually dumping left-over, unuseable chemicals out the back door to go into the water supply!:eek:

[Razor]

Carbon offset credits--the conscience-salve of the wealthy. This is very similar to the wealthy "buying" a substitute during the Civil War draft lotteries.

[GratefulCitizen]

Scientific method for researching global warming:

1. Propose hypothesis: Humans have a significant impact on the global climate.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. Publish results.

4. Get funding for more research, go back to step 2.

If you don't publish the "right" results in step 3, the process ends.


..

[Ret10Echo]

Scientific method for researching global warming:

1. Propose hypothesis: Humans have a significant impact on the global climate.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. Publish results.

4. Get funding for more research, go back to step 2.

If you don't publish the "right" results in step 3, the process ends.


..

Rather like hurling multi-million dollar chunks of metal and carbon into space:confused: ..............Repeatedly..............

Step 2, step 2, step 2, step 2

[tom kelly]

There are too many people in the world today;The earth can not and will not support the increasing population and increasing demand for more of everything,fresh water,food and nuclear weapons...Regards,tom kelly

[The Reaper]

For example, those guys who dared claim the Earth is round, also some huge ones in the 20th century, namely the eugenics movement saying we had to kill all non-white peoples (40 million dead people later people realized it was a bad idea regardless)

Not exactly.

Do you really understand the scientific basis behind eugenics?

Please cite your source for this figure.

TR

[Monsoon65]

Or like the Catholic Church selling 'indulgences" so you could sin, then buy your way out..

I always use that example when people bring up "carbon credits"



I remember watching a documentary saying London was doing this in the early Industrial Age, but then chloreia broke out amongst the population, so with so many people dying, the London government decided to build the sewage system to separate clean water from polluted water..

That happened in 1858 and they call it "The Great Stink". They rebuilt their entire sewer system after that.

[dmgedgoods]

#

[Ret10Echo]

Truer words have not been spoken on this subject. I wish people out here on the Left Coast would understand this sentiment. The world is bound to swallow us up at some point...

Shawn

Somebody with some hard numbers feel free to jump in here, but I recall reading one theory that there was a sustainable population threshold for the earth that someone had calculated. Once that threshold was reached there would be a correction to approximately one-quarter (or less) of the total population of the earth. Much like the tech bubble bursting.

[The Reaper]

Encyclopedia Brittanica defines eugenics as, "the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity." From my understanding though, eugenics as it was known in the early 20th century became associated with improving and preserving humanity by removing the "weaker" portions of the gene pool (which many believed were the blacks, Jews, weak-minded people, etc...). America and Germany in the early 20th century were the main leaders in eugenics research, but then the leadership overall was picked up by Germany with the rise of the Nazi party. The Germans manipulated the eugenics movement specifically to justify their killing of Jewish and other peoples.

You use a citation from a credible source, then drop it and use your own definition and history. I would call your belief a pretty gross mischaracteriation of one aspect of eugenics.

I do not have a specific source, but from what I have read in various sources, it is estimated the Nazis killed around forty million people, approximately six million of them Jews, unless I am not remembering correctly (or those figures are wrong?).

I do not think a Soviet soldier killed by a Nazi soldier in a firefight is a victim of eugenics. Forty million is a huge exaggeration of the number killed in the pursuit of eugenics.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

I think what I was referring to was in the back of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," he writes the following: The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones---the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unift, and the "feeble-minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science, but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century---"dangerous human pests" who represented "therising ride of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded---Jews were agreed to be largesly feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks---and sto stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Mararet Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expensve of the good is an extreme cruelty . . . there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank: "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in the movement, exemplified by texts such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, by American author Lothrop Stoddard.

When you read the first line he wrote, "The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool..." that's a bit different from the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition, ""the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity."

Since apparently racists and immigrationists and the like, along with scientists, blew certain areas of eugenics out of proportion and manipulated the subject to fit them, that was what I meant when I said from my understanding, in the early 20th century, eugenics became more associated with a way to improve and preserve humanity by eliminating what were seen as the weak portions of the gene pool. That may not have been the actual definition, but it seemed to be the definition of many people at the time.



Okay, I stand corrected. I had confused the "number of people estimated that Hitler killed" with the number estimated killed in the camps. But even if they killed as "low" as three million in the name of eugenics, I still think that is a large number.


You do realize that STATE OF FEAR is one of his works of "fiction" right?

[CoLawman]

[QUOTE=Broadsword2004;185805]Or like the Catholic Church selling 'indulgences" so you could sin, then buy your way out.

Just to set the record straight. The actual order was sin them indulgence.

Indulgences are not like a condom. Confessionals were not for divulging future plans for a sinful act. Confessions are for past bad acts. Those acts determined the indulgence or Pennance.

[Ret10Echo]

Just thought this was humorous...considering...
:munchin

Thick ice hinders controversial seal hunt

By Paul Darrow1 hour, 10 minutes ago

Canada's annual seal hunt, which the government promised would be more humane this year, cranked up slowly on Friday because of thick ice.

The government is allowing hunters to kill up to 275,000 young harp seals on the ice floes off Eastern Canada, but only three had been reported killed on the first morning of the hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

"It's a very slow start," said Phil Jenkins, spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, noting that sealing boats were finding it difficult to get to the herds because of thick ice.

Anti-sealing groups complained they had not yet been allowed to observe the sealing and said that in any case the government's new killing procedures, intended to ensure a swift death, were not likely to be more humane.

After a hunter shoots or clubs a seal, he now must check its eyes to ensure it is dead, and if not, the animal's main arteries must be cut.

"Unfortunately, I think this year's hunt will be 'business as usual' here in Canada. I don't expect to see any improvement in the way animals are killed, or in the way this hunt is monitored," said Sheryl Fink of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

The hunt always prompts a debate between those who say it is cruel and unsustainable and those who say it is a legitimate harvesting of a small portion of the 5.5 million-strong seal herd.

"Just three days ago, we stood on the ice floes with beautiful baby seals still covered in white fur," said Rebecca Aldworth of the Humane Society of the United States.

"It is heartbreaking that the commercial seal hunt has begun and these pups are being brutally clubbed, shot and skinned to produce fashion items nobody needs."

The furs are made into coats and other clothes, and there is a growing market for seal oil, high in omega-3 fatty acid.

In addition to the controversy over the hunt itself, the anti-seal observers said the government delayed giving permits out until it had counted the number of sealing boats, and by then the weather had made it impossible to fly helicopters out to watch.

Aldworth charged the government was systematically shutting down observation of the hunt.

Jenkins denied this, saying the government has always sought to make sure the number of observers does not swamp the number of sealers, and that on Friday all who wanted permits were granted them once the boat count had been completed.

"It's difficult to imagine a more transparent arrangement," he said.

(Reporting by Randall Palmer; Editing by Peter Galloway)

[Richard]

I personally agree with a lot of what Michael Crichton has to say. Many refuse to recognize that he is, as an MD, a trained scientist and try to blow him off as a mere novelist. Here are some very good reads which are neglected by the anti-Crichton eco-warrior crowd:

The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
National Press Club
Washington DC
January 25, 2005

Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html


Testimony Before Congress
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC
September 28, 2005

Michael argued for independent verification of research used for public policy, and criticized the so-called "hockeystick" study, for reasons later confirmed by the Wegman Commission.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-senatetestimony.html

Complexity Theory and Environmental Management
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
Washington DC
November 6, 2005

In previous speeches, Michael criticized environmental groups for failing to incorporate complexity theory. Here he explains in detail why complexity theory is essential to environmental management, using the history of Yellowstone Park as an example of what not to do.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

Gutes lesen.

Richard's $.02 :munchin