In Brittanje het Stewart Dimmock, 'n pa van twee en 'n lid van die politieke groep, the New Party, die hof versoek om Al Gore se fliek uit klaskamers te verban ná 'n regeringsbesluit om dit in staatskole te wys. (Lees meer oor die hofsaak hier British Judge Bruises Al Gore’s Movie.
Dimmock het geredeneer dat die rolprent nie vir skole geskik is nie omdat dit polities partydig is en ernstige wetenskaplike onakkuraathede, sowel as 'sentimentele nonsens' bevat en duidelik propogandies is.
Sy prokureur het die regering en die New Labour 'denkpolisie' daarvan beskuldig dat hulle die fliek ondersteun omdat dit 'n manier is om leerlinge oor die onderwerp van aardverwarming te 'breinspoel'.
Die hof het bevind dat die rolprent in NEGE opsigte misleidend was en dat riglyne wat deur die onderwyssekretaris se raadgewers opgestel is, bloot gedien het om die politieke propaganda in die rolprent te veskerp.
Die hof het beveel dat die regering eers sy riglyne aan onderwysers moes verander voordat die fliek gewys kon word. Die riglyne moes dit duidelik maak dat :
Die rolprent 'n politieke werk is en slegs een kant van die debat van aardverwarming verteenwoordig;
Indien onderwysers die rolprent wys sonder om die bogenoemde duidelik te maak, hulle strydig sal optree met artikel 406 van die Onderwyswet 1996 en skuldig sal wees aan politieke indoktrinasie;
Die nege onakkuraathede spesifiek onder die skoolkinders se aandag gebring moet word.
Hierdie 9 onakkuraathede is die volgende :
Die rolprent beweer dat smeltende sneeu op die berg Kilimanjaro 'n bewys is van aardverwarming. Die regering se kundige moes noodgedwonge erken dat dit nie korrek is nie.
Die rolprent impliseer dat bewyse uit yskerns bewys dat toenemende CO² vrystelling temperatuurverhogings oor 650 000 jaar veroorsaak het (was daar motors 650 000 jaar gelede?) Die hof het bevind dat die fliek misleidend was, In daardie tydperk het die toename in CO² met 800 tot 2000 jaar ná die temperatuurverhogings gevolg.
Die bewering dat die Golfstroom wat die Atlantiese Oseaan verhit, sal verdwyn, word in wetenskaplike ondersoek as "hoogs onwaarskynlik" uitgewys.
Die rolprent gebruik emotiewe beelde van orkaan Katrina en impliseer dat dit deur aardverwarming veroorsaak is. Die regering se kundige moes aanvaar dat die nie moontlik is om eenmalige gebeure op aardverwarming te blameer nie.
Die rolprent wys die opdroging van die meer Chad (in die VSA) en beweer dat dit deur aardverwarming veroorsaak is. Die regering se kundige moes erken dat dit nie die geval is nie.
Die rolprent beweer dat 'n studie gewys het hoe ysbere verdrink weens die verdwynende Arktiese ys, maar in werklikheid het die ysbere verdrink weens 'n uitermatige storm.
Die rolprent blameer aardverwarming vir die verlies aan spesies asook die verbleiking van koraalriwwe. Die regering kon geen bewyse kry om hierdie bewerings te steun nie.
Die rolprent impliseer dat seevlakke in die "nabye toekoms" met tot SEWE METER kan styg, wat die ontwrigting van miljoene mense sal beteken. Die wetenskaplike bewys is inderwaarheid dat seevlakke na verwagting met 40cm oor die volgende honderd jaar sal styg en dat daar geen sodanige gevaar van massiewe migrasie bestaan nie.
Die rolprent beweer dat die stygende seevlakke reeds die ontruiming van sekere ringeilande in die Atlantiese Oseaan veroorsaak het. Die regering kon dit nie bevestig nie en die hof het bevind dat dit voorkom asof dit 'n valse bewering is.
Nie al die onakkuraathede in die rolprent is ten volle deur die hof oorweeg nie, aangesien die regter net 'n paar versoek het waarop hy sy uitspraak gelewer het. Die getuiestaat bevat 'n lys van 20 onakkuraathede wat in die rolprent voorkom.
Volgens die doemprofete het groot oliemaatskappye vir die hofsaak betaal.
Hier onder volg 'n paar artikels waarop ek afgekom het oor hierdie onderwerp.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Rewriting History, Time and Time Again
by John Goetz on April 6th, 2008
As noted in the comments below, GISS updated the GLB.Ts+dSST anomalies which show a large 0.67ºC value for March. This addition of March 2008 temperature data to the record caused a corresponding drop in annual average temperature for the years 1946 and 1903. According to GISS, 1946 is now colder than 1960 and 1972, and 1903 dropped into a tie with 1885, 1910 and 1912.
That's really neat.
Pasted from http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Centre for Policy Analysis, called the film "propaganda" and added: "You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming."
From the June 7 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: So, if you look at this chart, you will see the CO2, and it mirrors the temperature. Now, what I find interesting about this chart is CO2 seems to naturally go up by itself. Hmmm, I don't remember those 200,000-year-old cars; I think Henry Ford wasn't around yet. I don't know if Fred Flintstone actually did have a car, but apparently, according to this chart, somebody was driving around in a car or an airplane. Maybe it was Al Gore giving the frickin' speech at Stone Age colleges. I'm not sure, but it definitely doesn't correlate.
Now, what happened where this thing falls apart -- and it won't for most people who go to this movie -- is he then projects what's coming. Again, it's the projection that's the problem. See, when you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. You know? It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in "and it's the Jews' fault." That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening. Now, if Al Gore's projection is right about the CO2 level going as high as he says it will, then the temperature here on planet Earth will be about 400,000 degrees. We'll be the sun; we'll be the frickin' sun. But that's a huge "if."
Pasted from http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080005
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970:
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Pasted from http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Gore’s Myanmar Words as Inopportune as they were Repulsive
- Marc Sheppard
Thirty days after Steve McIntyre caught NASA cooking climate history again - this time in a feeble attempt to somehow conceal the alarmist-embarrassing downward trend since 1998 — Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday’s Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a ‘consequence’ of global warming.
A mere 16 days after NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation’s cool phase shift would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, Gore told NPR that the “trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures.” This just 6 days after a German study also predicted cooler ocean temperatures due to the Meridional Overturning Circulation entering a weak cycle, and in spite of there being absolutely no empirical evidence of a global warming / storm strength link.
Gore’s monotonous and baseless account of AGW-forced violent cyclones and hurricanes came just two days after McIntyre reported that 4 of the past 5 months were “‘all-time’ records for Southern Hemisphere sea ice” levels.
In fact, it was the very day after Anthony Watts reported another false start to the distinctly overdue Solar Cycle 24, a likely contributory factor to falling global temperatures, that the Nobel Peace Prize winner exploited the deaths of over 22,000 (reported and still rising) human beings to egoistically advance his threatened AGW political agenda while callously protecting his personal financial interest.
And with 41,000 reported missing since Cyclone Nargis devastated the former Burma, the death figures are sure to rise to unthinkable numbers. Meanwhile, the nation’s corrupt military rulers are making aid delivery to ease survivor misery nearly impossible.
And while these poor souls will undoubtedly see years of unimaginable suffering and the arduous rebuilding of over a million destroyed homes, this man — who professes his desire to save the planet - saw another opportunity. That it arrived at the end of a one month period in which another wheel fell off the greenhouse gas disinformation bus almost daily only adds to the morass.
This was an astonishingly nauseating display — even for the likes of Gore.
Pasted from http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/category/an-inconvenient-truth/
British Judge Bruises Al Gore’s Movie
Critics of “An Inconvenient Truth” include Al Gore’s political opponents, global warming skeptics and even rank-and-file scientists. But the former vice president waited until today for a detailed review from a high court in Britain.
Asked to ban the film from secondary schools, Judge Michael Burton refused, as long as “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained at screenings, Agence France-Presse reported.
Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.
The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”
In an e-mail obtained by The New York Times in March, Al Gore answered earlier criticisms that were echoed by the judge today. Here’s a few excerpts from William J. Broad’s article:
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
But is his work fundamentally accurate?
“Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”
He said “not every single adviser” agreed with him on every point, “but we do agree on the fundamentals” — that warming is real and caused by humans.
Stewart Dimmock, the father behind the lawsuit in Britain, was “elated” by the ruling since it prevented students from “being indoctrinated with this political spin.” But he was “still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools,” BBC News reported.
He wasn’t the first to object to including the film in school curriculum. Last year, the National Science Teachers Association refused 50,000 free copies of “An Inconvenient Truth,” a gift from the film’s producers.
As luck would have it, an antidote to any possible ego bruises sustained by Mr. Gore emerged to
day. A full-page advertisement in The Times from thousands of fans urged him to join the 2008 presidential race.
‘’America and the Earth need a hero right now — someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world,'’ the letter implored.
Update, Oct. 12, 3:35 p.m. Eastern Brandon Keim of Wired has kindly judged the judgments of the British court, complete with links to past coverage on most of the points.
“Yeah, Gore got that one wrong,” he wrote in one case. “The judge was way too conservative,” he said in another. More in three posts here, here and here.
