From the paper today the errors include:
· 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
· 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
· 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"
These are not minor points - Al Gore used these "errors" to give hugely powerful but unproven impressions of the situation. How many times have we seen footage of Katrina embedded in pieces about Global Warming? Many. The viewer is being conned (not even that cleverly) by the film makers.
At least now a Judge has flagged up the great bias in this film.
(I gotta say, the Polar Bears one is simply fantastic! Did he just make it up? Think folks, every time you start that car, another bear drowns!!!!!!!)
7 comments:
Al gore has just been announced as this years joint winner of the nobel prize for peace, even after all that judgement.
I know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 I shall be posting...
Scientifically, and politically there is a parallel here. Remember "there's no scientific proof that tobacco is bad for you?" Everybody kind of knew, but the tobacco companies used their muscle to rubbish any condeming research for decades.
The climate is far more complex than tobacco. Far easier to pull the wool over people's eyes and plenty of motivation to do so. It has at its heart the vested interests, not just of tobacco companies, but massive sections of global industry (including oil) and world governments.
So, at the risk of sounding contentious, I'm guessing the nobel prize committee are being sensible rather than nitpicky.
The whole issue is, as the judge highlights, incredibly complex and hard to tease out. It's the kind of thing that's very hard to communicate to your average gas-guzzling US citizen. Sticking only to what is known for definite would result in a completely unconvincing argument - most people won't understand qualified scientific results, so I'm guessing he's tried to communicate it in more concrete ways... perhaps inaccurately. It would be bad enough to get the argument across if there was no politics, but there are huge amounts of politics, because of the vested interests of governments and giant corporations, whose power/profit will be adversely affected if people start taking things seriously.
Mark, I thought your line on this was "we should instead invest the resources to help the people affected". Come on, lets have: "how we're going to help people", rather than pointing at other people picking holes in other other people's arguments =)
Just my opinion
Rob
While the powers that be remain so blinkered there won't be any resources to help the people affected - the cash and attention is bring wasted on "AGW". I am venting my frustration with the fact that the Nobel Committee have exacerbated the problem by awarding the Peace Prize to a man who promulgates untruths in order to further his crusade against Climate Change. Now he's being urged to run for President, hmmmmm...
I am venting my frustration with the fact that the Nobel Committee have exacerbated the problem by awarding the Peace Prize to a man who promulgates untruths in order to further his crusade against Climate Change.
Judge Burton said that AIT is "broadly accurate". In other words, you're an ignorant dufus.
"Broadly" is simply not good enough - not in this matter. It is specifically the points pointed out as "errors" that inform public opinion, and hence government policy, so powerfully. Don't you see what a weak recommendation "broadly accurate" is?
(By the way, ad hominem argument is also weak - argue the case, if you can.)
Post a Comment