UK Court Rules “An Inconvenient Truth” as Propaganda
October 12th, 2007
My pal John Herron over at Global Warming Hoax had a great article about the latest controversy surrounding Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The United Kingdom High Court has ruled that the book “An Inconvenient Truth” (by Al Gore) to be propaganda and described as irredeemable, containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush” There you have it.
Truck driver Stewart Dimmock brought legal action against the school system to prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being taught in school as factual information. The UK High Court has issued a preliminary ruling that teachers must make clear that:
- The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument
- If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination
- Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children
Go on over to Global Warming Hoax to see the list of eleven inaccuracies.
If “An Inconvenient Truth” can’t stand up in court, why are we showing it to our children?
October 13th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Jason Lewis nailed this yesterday as well. I suspect that as more idiots jump on the bandwagon in support of Al Gore like the Nobel committee did, the more we will start seeing more level-headed officials speaking out on the inaccuracies and Gore’s alarmist actions. I think this is the first step in fighting back. Even if we can’t convince the world that global warming is a sham, at least we can chip away at Al Gore.
With that said, it amazes me that Americans aren’t on the ball with this one, which breeds a very uneasy feeling about Al’s possibility of swooping in and taking aim at the 2008 presidency. While people across the globe are fighting - and winning - against Gore’s alarmist lies and exaggerations, here in America we’re giving the guy Oscars and I don’t know if anybody has been successful in preventing schools from showing students “An inconvenient truth.” If we were to take it to court, would we have the same success that they did in England? I fear not considering our courts are as activist-oriented as most activist lobbying groups. If Gore makes a run at the presidency, we will be faced with zealots who have the backing of the media, the press, Hollywood and a good chunk of the government… All of which are more interested in ratings and politics and looking hip and sexy than the truth or good policy.
Ack, I shudder to think…
October 14th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Please read this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043000017.html
You people insist that global warming isn’t happening but it is plain as day when you look at articles like the one I’ve posted.
This is not made up. If you want to know for yourself, it’s not that hard to contact people in Germany to check these facts.
But I’ll tell you what IS made up. The site you mention lists 11 items mentioned by the court. There were actually only 9. I would guess that the site that lists the 11 is political and is listing false reasons.
Also, I’ve seen video footage that directly contradicts the points mentioned by the judge.
Also, here is a very big point. What makes a judge in Britain an expert on atmospheric science? Really??? Wouldn’t you belive a scientist who studies THE CLIMATE as opposed to a judge whos expertise is LAW????
October 15th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Are you for real, dude?
I’m going to take it easy on you, because it appears as though you’re young, and you’ve probably been indoctrinated by your government schools, but I’ll tell you what I tell everyone else who posts here: You came to my blog. I therefore have the right to give you a little crap if I feel like it.
First of all, the article you posted doesn’t prove to me that humans have created global warming. It simply tells me that a glacier in Germany is receding, and some people who apparently love it are trying to save it. (Saving a glacier? To each their own, I suppose.)
I hate to break it to you, Greg, but glaciers have been moving and dissolving since the beginning of time. I’m sure that Germany would love to keep their glacier, but I’m not about to drink Al Gore’s kool-aid and be forced to comply with crazy global legislation that tells me how often I can fly and what sort of vehicle I can drive in order to attempt to save the thing, which is futile in the first place.
I won’t be contacting anyone in Germany. If I do, it will be to tell them about the $125,000 prize they can win in the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge, if they can prove that their glacier melting is caused by man-made global warming.
Maybe you want to claim the prize for yourself? $125,000 is a lot of money! Check it out here: http://www.pheistyblog.com/archives/632
Yeah, I just found out that there were only nine items, rather than eleven. I guess I can’t continue bashing Al Gore’s film, then, if there are only NINE untrue items in it. Man, I just want to grab you by the shoulders and shake some sense into you. Are you listening to yourself?? NINE total fabrications that are being pushed upon our children in their schools as truth, and as proof of human-induced global warming. How can you say that Man-made global warming is fact, when you are using nine lies to back it up?
And your comment on the judge. Greg, do you have any idea what happens in a courtroom? Apparently our schools are doing a better job of indoctrinating you into the lie of global warming than they are in teaching you things you really need to know.
*SIGH*
Since they aren’t doing their job, I’ll tell you how it is.
When there are court hearings, experts are called to the stand. In this case, several experts - some of whom supported the idea of man-made global warming - were called to the stand to testify. So, the judge wasn’t the one who was the ‘expert’, Greg. The experts were the experts, and even they couldn’t prove Gore’s statements to be true.
I think you had best go back and read the article you posted. In it, a man named Frank says:
“We’re doing all we can to preserve [the glacier] as long as possible, but I’m not God and there’s only so much we can do,” said Frank Huber, the manager of cable car and skiing operations on the 2,962-metre peak in the northern Alps.
But he’s not God. Hmm. What an interesting statement. You used this article to convince me that man-made global warming is something that have caused and can control, but your best witness admits that he’s not God and cannot change the glacier’s fate. I think you should listen to Frank.
Now, get out of here and go claim that $125,000 before it’s gone. You may be able to save the glacier with that kind of cash.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Joey, I’m not rightly sure why you put as much effort into these people as you do. These are the same people that go around calling us “sheep” for supposedly following the skeptic crowd but freak out and don’t see the comparison when you try explaining to them that it is the pot calling the kettle black. I guess it’s only sheep when you listen to one crowd but not the other.
The funny thing is that people like us actually DO look at both sides of the argument while most (if not all) of the global warming zealots buy into the “the debate it over” claim that Al Gore professed and don’t even bother acknowledging that there might be another side of the story.
As we have talked about before (many times) when it comes to these people it’s like trying to explain to a Christian that there is no God. This has become nothing more than faith-based science. People like this guy see and believe what they want to. But faith is not a fact. Faith is simply a belief based on personal feelings and emotion - and THAT is what global warming is all about.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I know, Ryan. I get that a lot. It’s just that perpetual need for me to argue. I blame it on being Italian.
Yes, we do look at both sides of the issue, and the global warming disciples refuse to. It’s scary.
The thing is, there’s a lot more evidence that points to God than the measley little tidbits of data that compile tha man-made global warming cult. Yet, no one will allow God into the schools. So why do we allow the religion of man-made global warming to infiltrate our learning establishments, yet deny our teachers the ability to teach Creationism as a theory as to how our universe began? It’s absolute hypocrisy.
Awhile ago, I posted an article by an atheist who called out the ‘Greenies’ for what they really were: Religious zealots. http://www.pheistyblog.com/archives/422
To some extent, we all must have faith in what we believe. I, personally, believe in God. I can’t see him standing in front of me, but I have enough evidence to place faith in the fact that He exists. There’s nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a great thing. But if you place your faith in something that has huge, gaping holes in it, and refuse to recognize those holes, you have fallen into the ‘cult’ category. This is where the Greenies are. They drank the kool-aid and are waiting for the next message from their prophet, the Great Gore.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I didn’t read all of the responses so hopefully I don’t repeat anyone. Here is my 2 cents.
Is global warming real? Well, yes it is. Wait, I’m not finished yet. Don’t worry I don’t care for Al Bore. That’t right I said Bore.
The term global warming means that the overall average temperature of the earth has increased. Well, it has. About 1 degree or so over many years (I’m not a scientist, I think I heard that fact somewhere) Therefore there is global warming taking place. However, it is not being caused by humans. H E double hockey sticks, Volcanoes spew more pollution into the air than the human race ever will. (Thanks a lot Mount Kilauea, you’ve killed us all!!!!)
We are in the early stages of a new cycle. You know what, there were more hurricanes during the time of about 1900-1950 than there were from 1950-present. Explain that one Mr. Peace Prize loser.
Our weather is changing. I don’t think anybody can deny that. I remember winters in sconie when I was kid. We used to get a ton of snow. Way more than we get now. Also, there has been an increase in severe weather in the mid-west, Tornado Alley, the bread basket if you will. But, it is just the cycle we are in. About 20 years ago there were a couple summers in sconie that we had severe weather almost every night. So it seemed.
If there wasn’t global warming, we would still be in the ice age. Does anybody remember when we came out the last ice age????? No? Do you know why? Because we were not around at that time!! The last sheet of ice that covered North America was about 20000 years ago. It retreated and lingered in Canada up to about 6000 years ago. I don’t think that the cavemen’s carbon footprints caused the Earth to warm so fast and melted the glaciers. It just happened. That is nature. Who knows what nature has in store for us. Please God not locusts. Although I would rather have locusts any day as long as it doesn’t rain “Inconvenient Truth” DVD’s.
So in closing. Remember that global warming is real. However, the cause of it is not our fault. Never has been, probably never will be. We are just along for the ride. Mother Nature is the pilot.
Thanks for reading. I hope somebody shares the same view point.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Now I get it…..
I speak of the environment, and you start talking about God, faith and Creationism. (I get the connection to Frank)
First of all, the Judge AGREED with the science and agreed that it is supported by the body of knowledge that is agreed upon by the world. the case in front of him wasn’t to disprove the science of the movie, it was to decide if there was a political slant in the message.
Now I understand why you refuse to accept science. This one story of a glacier is but one of hundreds of examples of how global warming is changing the world we live in right now. But, you wouldn’t believe the evidence if the rush of water coming off the glacier hit you right in the face. And believe it or not, I mean that respectfully. I mean…. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented…you’ll just cliam its “Left wing propaganda” or Environmental …Religion???”
I can back up anything you throw at me. but I really don’t have the time to hit my head agains a wall.
I don’t undstand how looking at factual evidence of things happening around the world could be looked at as “religion”. It has nothing to do with religion or politics.
I’ve looked at both sides. The facts that surround us….vs a small group of blogs and untruths based on conservative biases.
I mean you no disrespect, but the evidence is clear and the government has nothing to do with my opinion. I get my opinion from opening my eyes, and listening to ALL facts around me from all over the world. I listen with and open and unbiased point of view. I don’t even like Gore. He is just ONE of many who are looking at the facts and presenting them. Why are you people so intent with “killing the messenger”.
If you present me with evidence, my first questions are “where did the evidence come from, who wrote it, do they seem to be biased one way or another, what is their education, background etc. Are they any kind of expert to be talking about the subject. I’ve seen the evidence that mankind is destroying this earth long before Gore made any movies or even attempted to become president.
I travel through the world and the mountains all the time. I can SEE the change in the environment.
I’ve asked people in the northern mountain towns the question: Do you belive there is global warming?
They look at me like I’m stupid. They say “Of course. Can’t you see it for yourself. We don’t get nearly as much snow as we did 10 years ago, the melting point of the snow keeps rising in elevation year after year,…there used to be 9 foot snow drifts in town and now there is pavement….it’s obvious”
Who cares about one glacier…right??? this is just one of many indications. By the time you can see if for yourself, the changes in the world will be too many to list, and we will have destroyed and lost much of the beautiful world that God created.
I really doubt that God wants us to destroy what he created. And I’ll I’ll never understand why you abolutely refuse to accept any of the things that the earth is telling us. Who knows, maybe it’s God himself giving us all these signs that the earth is changing.
I could list a hundred examples of how the earth is changing, I could bring you to these places to talk to the people who’s lives have been effected, but even then, you won’t believe it.
Go to the arctic, go to the islands that this Judge supposedly says is not threatened by rising sea water. There are videos and interviews with these people. You can see how the rising sea water is effecting their island. What’s the cause???? I guess it’s just God playing a practical joke on us.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Man, I don’t want to destroy the earth, okay? This is the same rhetoric all of you “Disciples of Green” preach constantly. I happen to love God’s creation, I just don’t think I can control the climate.
The only reason why I brought up God was because I don’t believe that humans are capable of controlling the earth’s temperature, and obviously neither does your friend, Frank, in Germany.
Yes, the earth is changing, but can you prove that we can change it, as humans? No, you can’t, and you won’t convince me, or a hell of a lot of other people that, either. The earth has been changing since the beginning of time.
So, if you can’t answer me this simple question: “CAN YOU PROVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN CONTROL THE EARTH’S CLIMATE?” I have nothing further to discuss with you. You skirt the issue and refuse to answer the question. If you are so damn sure that humans created man-made global warming, then go claim your $125,000 prize and stop wasting your time arguing with me.
CLAIM IT HERE: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
October 16th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Greg, you really need to take a step down off your high horse and stop talking as if you’ve got something up on the rest of us poor saps. All you are doing is proving the point that people like you treat global warming more like a religion than a science. You claim to look at all of the science, yet you cite the Washington Post as your “proof.” Do you truly believe that the debate is over? I mean, you certailny seem to buy into it and are willing to argue to the ends that the world is going to hell in a global warming hand basket.
I don’t think anybody here will argue with you that there is climate change afoot. But anybody who denies the fact that the globe is a dynamic system that is subject to cycles and change needs to really go back and reevaluate the science they are believing. But then again you haven’t actually told us what science you are following - all you have specifically cited is personal observation, conversation with others and the Washington Post.For somebody who is so critical of us you sure haven’t done much to come up with a convincing argument on your behalf.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:35 am
O.K.,
Perhaps I’m starting to fall into the rhetoric trap myself. It just annoys me when people ignore facts. It seems like everyone who is on the “there is no global warming” band wagon clings to the few articles that might somehow back up their point.
So I’ve gone outside these articles to prove my point with first person experience. I can back up my experiences with those of others, and a slew of articles and scientific reports from all over the world, but I’ve spent way too much time on this blog as it is.
If you see enough articles and you refuse to look outside of conservative blogs, you only end up with one point of view.
I implore everyone to use common sense and read all sources of information.
The Washington Post? the thing is, can you believe any news article 100%. I refuse to believe any ONE source of information. You know it’s some reporter in an office regurgitating a press release that’s just come off the news wire. I could list hundreds of reports of global warming, and the scientific reports stating that it is a result of man’s pollutants, but you’ll probably just call it propaganda created by some fictitious “left wing conspiracy”.
Good journalism always checks the facts, the sources and shows both sides of the argument. Perhaps this blog isn’t the place for this tangent, but the more mis-information I see in the world, the more it bugs me. I just don’t see many two sided articles anymore. It seems like everyone is so focused on “winning” an argument that they don’t keep an open mind to all the possibilities.
THANK YOU for acknowledging the fact that the world/climate is changing. This is a huge step.
Now, is it man made? I have to agree with you that there is room for error and observation here. Absolutely. Do we know for sure??? Do we know the earth revolves around the sun? Does gravity exist, does water boil,……. does carbon and other green house gasses effect the weather……and of course….does the amount of carbon that we put into the air effect the world any more than volcanoes, cow manure, and all the other natural cycles that the earth has been going through for millions of years….
Here is the thing; 50 years ago everyone thought that the waters of the oceans were SOOOO expansive, that we couldn’t possibly affect them. The fish were plentiful and the water clean.
It’s not like that anymore.
We’ve been over fishing and dumping waste and chemicals in the oceans for years. Keep in mind that the industrial world only started polluting with chemicals and other toxic wastes in the last hundred years. The industrial revolution only started in the late 18th century.
- The fisheries on the east coast of North America have completely collapsed. (over fishing) - ask any cod fisherman
- Shell fish (lobster specifically) are dying because pollutants are attacking their immune systems and effecting the hardness of their shells.
- The oceans corals are dying due to the change in temperature and pollution. (note: this is the scariest of all, because coral were one of the FIRST ever life forms on earth - they’ve been around for millions of years and now one of the most basic forms of life are dying)
- Even sharks (top of the food chain) are starting to disappear.
You can look all of this up if you like.
O.K., so why and I talking about the oceans? Because in a hundred years, we have done this much damage. Now, the atmosphere is bigger and more complex, but why is it such a stretch to pontificate that we could have a similar effect on the earth’s atmosphere.
Have you ever been to L.A., Toronto, Mexico City, London, Tokyo or Beijing?
You can see the pollutants hanging over these cities when you fly into their airports. If you look at the maps of these mega cities, you can see that the sprawl is covering huge portions of the terrain.
So, on a scale smaller than the world, yet big enough to see the effect with your own eyes, I would say, YES, we can affect the atmosphere around us.
A summer day in Toronto or Mexico City is a perfect example of how we affect the atmosphere around us. The pollution is so thick that it creates a temperature inversion. The hot sun enters the atmosphere, and the pollution traps it inside the layers of pollution. It bounces around and collects and gets hotter and hotter until that pollution is blown away by the wind.
The trouble is, the bigger the cities, the more pollution, the more people on earth, the less we’ll be able to just “wait for the wind to blow it away”.
So, with 6 billion people on the planet, what do we do???????
The first step is to realize and admit that the things each and every one of us does —– affects the world around us.
We do effect the environment.
So, do I advocate the abolition of the car, electricity and the comforts of life? No, of course not. But I tell you, ignoring it, and attempting to tell people that it’s not happening, is only making things worse.
There are extremists in all facets of life. Extreme religious fanatics, political fanatics and environmental fanatics. I think the extreme environmental fanatics give a bad name to the rest of the common sense people who truly care for this earth and are trying to figure out ways that we can help solve this problem without changing our way of life.
There is my argument.
Now the facts to back up the how pollutants have affected the fisheries, big cities, corals and life in general are all over the internet.
If you think all of these stories are propaganda, then there is nothing I can say to explain it further.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Yikes. A lot of effort wasted here, when you could go claim your $125,000 prize!
Joey
P.S. I didn’t read it.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Of course you didn’t read it. It might actually convince you that I’m right.
I’m off to claim my prize!
October 17th, 2007 at 11:11 am
LOL! Sure.
Let me know what you decide to do with that $125,000, would ya?
Cheers.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
My dear co-worker, I haven’t forgotten about you. Great comment!
It looks as if you may have found your calling. Rather than simply being “Pheisty’s Co-worker”, maybe you should start your own blog? Huh? What do you say??
April 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I did read Anonymous’s post and I see where they are coming from. However, there still is not any connection between pollution and global warming. Even if the pollution in those cities are affecting the temperature in that location (which it very well is, I’m sure) does not mean it is causing a global change. AND furthermore, it does not prove that a warmer earth is disastrous. I venture to say that a warmer earth is a good thing, it means there is plenty of vibrant plants, food to eat and general growth. Does that mean we should pollute more to give the atmosphere more CO2?
No. I definitely don’t advocate that! The earth naturally cycles between periods of warming, cooling, and plateaus. We don’t have to do a thing. We should focus on our own energy consumption and pollution for the sake of our surrounding environment, for the betterment of life in general.