Judge Ruled that Gore's Movie Had Nine Major Lies. Is That What It Takes to Win a Nobel?

Question

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/239376/UK_Judge_Says_Al_Gore_s_Global_Warming_Documentary_Contains_Nine_Scientific_Errors

Are kids used to having to listen in school to a several minute warning that the text books that they read or the "educational" move that they are going to watch contains numerous inaccuracies?

I can't think of any kid who has ever had to have been warned about the numerous significant falsehoods that are in a movie or in a textbook at school.

Answer 1

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 2

I even have that British ruling in front of me as I form. - the action picture's trouble-loose premise that the planet is over heating as a results of particular severe human activities and that this includes threat for mankind is appropriate . - the documentary is approved for showing in ALL British faculties as area of the environmental coaching software -a guiding principle became made that 9 factors have been EXAGERATED , in that they could lead on one to comprehend that some results of world warming are lots extra coming near near than in actuality they have so far proved to be The decide's end is that frequently the action picture is real and ideal for distribution to faculties.. The action picture has not been banned and no point out is made up of mendacity or incompetence. An far extra advantageous than zeal is attributed to Gore,not inadecuacy. Sorry adult males. not undemanding success.

Answer 3

And this judge has how many degrees in a scientific field, or how many years involved with environmental analysis, or any education beyond high school level science, which in this day and age is bupkus?

The Nobel committee is comprised of people who, quite frankly, are much more qualified to make these judgements. Why don't you leave it to them, and stop being so jealous that Rush didn't win for chemistry?

Answer 4

The bulk of these "lies" may well be true the judge has only said there is not yet sufficient evidence. At any rate the purpose was to create awareness and sensationalism has always been an effective tool for that. Are you angry or scared?

Answer 5

The article says "Errors", you say "Lies". You do know the difference between an error and a lie, don't you?

Answer 6

Since when did judges become climatologists?

Answer 7

He didn't win because of the movie.