A British judge has ruled that 11 of Gore's main points in his global warming movie are false?

Question

The judge has ruled that before the film can be shown in the classrooms in England the children must be informed of the falsehoods. With so many fabrications, why hasn't Gore been eliminated from the Nobel Peace Prize competition? If he wins, the prize will imediately cease to be of any significance whatsoever.

Smith & Jones:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hBkEk9Y8kvt7KHapU1hvO9RgSrFQ

That's one of many articles. Google it.

Answer 1

Because the prize is more a political statement than a factual award for true science.

Typical social panic pandering BS.

Global warming is BS.

Gore is an idiot.

Answer 2

READ THE FULL DECISION, not a biased newspaper article. Available here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/87ffb8db671bf175?

The plaintiffs asked that the film be banned. The judge denied them and said it could be shown provided that it was explained that SOME things in the film were political, something necessary because of strict English laws. He specifically found that:

"The following is clear: i) [the movie] is substantially founded upon scientific research"

"These propositions [that global warming is mostly due to man, is dangerous, and can be fixed by man], Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists."

"It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils."

"I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

There were some relatively minor points the judge found inadequate proof for (not that they were wrong), but the full decision makes it clear he found the film basically correct. As do scientists.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

Answer 3

Citation, please. I'd like to read about this ruling first-hand.

[added] Thanks.

[added pps] Your read of the article is incorrect. The judge ruled not that the film must be accompanied by POLITICAL, not scientific, counterpoints if British kids are to see it in school.

The real news is that the father who brought the suit does NOT argue with the validity of the evidence and DOES belong to a political party that is proposing anti-global warming measures.

Nowhere in your linked article, by the way, is there an enunciation of these 11 "main points" that you claim this judge has invalidated.

As to the Nobel Prize, I have to agree with those who would ask what Gore's project - which I find wholly laudible - has to do with peace. I can see the link, but only decades out, after the world has united around a concerted effort on glob al warming and succeeded - but that has to happen first, which would be consistent with the Nobel's policies in awarding its other prizes.

Answer 4

I think that the reason he was up for the peace prize had more to do with when he was trying to help the world with global warming he organized a concert. This concert promoted peace and many countries all working together for one cause.
It was on all seven continents and that took some negotiations and communication from many countries.
What Al gore did was to show that this world can work together for a good cause.

Communication is the key and the start of world peace. I don't know any one who has publicly brought out so many countries to work together for a good cause.

The sad part about all that happened is... so many countries helped, but Washing DC refused. The American Indians had to let the concert be held on Indian land.
That has to show the world how unwilling the administration is to work together with the world.

Answer 5

1.The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2.The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3.The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4.The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5.The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6.The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
9.The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10.The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
11.The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Sorry, libs. Gore is a big fat liar.

Answer 6

Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist, for the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and also the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptionable Scientific Achievement is very skeptical to the view that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.
In fact in one of his lectures he explains the reasons that it may appear to some that we are the cause. However, he gives a very simple explanation to those who don't understand scientific jargon.He is a global warming optimist and does not agree with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
Roy Spencer has been the recipient of a total of 4 awards in his field of expertise.

Answer 7

you failed to mention that the same judge endorsed and reaffirmed the 4 main points of Gores documentary:

1) that human actions are changing the global environment
2) that global temperatures are in fact rising due to C02 emissions
3) that humans can change their behavior and consequently positively impact these global changes

and finally, and most importantly,

4) human actions, if unchanged, will have a huge negative impact on every aspect of life in the relatively near future.

so, did you lie by purposely leaving out this info, or did just read what you wanted from that article and leave the rest?

Answer 8

Al Gore invented the internet buddy...And probably googled Global Warming

Answer 9

Finally, an honest judge and he is in Britain. Our American school system is still showing that fabricated documentary. Politics seems to creep into everything in this country. Sadly, our children are not given the opportunity to question this film without getting a bad grade. How many future scientist or thinkers will our school system pump out when authoritarian rules are established like this. SAD SAD SAD....

Answer 10

Gore will get the peace prize just to tick off Bush. Seeing as Gore was unable to win a fair election against Bush in '00 he will finally get a win in a rigged one. Anyone who thought Gore's movie was truthful is really to stupid for words.

Answer 11

First of all, it was only 9 errors relating to minor segments in the movie.

Second, you missed the out the judges statement where he said that - aside from the errors - the arguments made in the documentary were well supported by journals and the IPCC - in other words TRUE!!!!

Please switch on your brain and stop believing the oil companies' propaganda. Global warming exists and it was caused by us