Monday, October 15, 2007

Should Al Gore Give Back His Awards?

On the heels of the news story about Olympic athlete Marion Jones having to give back her medals as the presence of steroids nullified her victories, Al Gore is in the news twice in 24 hours. On October 11, a High Court judge in London found nine inconsistencies in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. The inconvenient ruling means the award winning film may not be shown to school children unless it is accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance the one-sided views. The Judge noted, the presence of “alarmism and exaggeration” and stated that it is an “apocalyptic vision.” Does this sound like a “documentary” to you? By definition, a documentary is “based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements” or “Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film” or “emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation.” With these definitions and this new news in mind, does Al Gore deserve and Oscar for a “documentary?” The next day, October 12, Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. Czech President Vaclav Klaus says he is surprised Gore would get a peace prize, noting "The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct." Both of these awards seem to be wrought on convenient lies and both should be returned. What do you think?

Read the London Times article here.

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment
Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinized in the High Court in London.

Mr. Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr. Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the classroom, Mr. Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr. Gore, said Mr. Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist.” Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.
Mr. Justice Burton added: “The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence,” while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr. Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr. Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.”

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr. Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

1 comment:

Uomo_di_Rispetto said...

Yeah this whole global warming thing is just a bunch of BS. Ya know 30 years ago Newsweek reported "Global Cooling." Supposedly it was responsible for crop losses, and "The most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded." Scientists have noted lately, that even Mars and Pluto, "granted Pluto was recently discovered to be a star", were both having effects from warming. So, who is the culprit? The Sun of course... The real question is, Why are the "experts" ignoring the primary source of warming? I've read my fair share of the Global Warming Hoax, what's with Greenpeace being against Co2, I mean they say the want to protect the Rain Forests but they want to take away it's primary source of nutrition? Remember Nuclear Winter, acid rain, and my personal favorite, the Ozone Hole? Where did these go?


D. Kase