Media ignore British judge's conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"
Reporting on a recent ruling by a British judge about the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), featuring former Vice President Al Gore, numerous media outlets -- including the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, CNN, and Fox News -- routinely reported that the judge found that the film contained nine "errors" without mentioning that he also stated in the ruling that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "
On the October 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed there was a "British study that said [there were] nine major flaws in Al Gore's theory." In fact, the High Court ruling was not a "study," and the ruling did not find any "major flaws in Al Gore's theory" that humans have significantly contributed to global warming. In addition to Kilmeade's claim, numerous media outlets reported that the judge found nine errors in the film but ignored the judge's finding that An Inconvenient Truth is "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."
For example:
- An October 13 Boston Globe article reporting that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize stated that "a British judge this week ruled that some assertions in the movie were untrue and alarmist," although it added that "the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has endorsed Gore's findings and urged changes to halt climate change."
- An October 13 Los Angeles Times article reported: "In one measure of the sensitivity of the issue, a British judge this week ruled that public schools could continue to show 'An Inconvenient Truth' as long as students were alerted to nine scientific 'errors.' "
- An October 13 Washington Times article reported that High Court Judge Michael Burton's ruling stated that An Inconvenient Truth "included nine assertions not supported by scientific consensus."
- Three separate Washington Post articles dated October 12 and 13 asserted that Burton found nine errors that are not supported by "scientific consensus" or "scientific fact."
From an October 13 Post article headlined "Gore and U.N. Panel Share Peace Prize":
The award came two days after a British judge ruled that, while Gore's documentary makes a strong case that human activity has contributed to global warming and that there is a sense of urgency to deal with it, the movie contained nine factual errors not supported by scientific consensus.
From and October 12 Post article headlined "U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors"
High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.
But he also said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, Burton concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors.
From an October 12 Post article headlined "Gore's Nobel Win Greeted With Cheers by Europeans":
Gore has critics as well in Europe, including a man who filed a lawsuit in Britain objecting to the film, which is being sent to 3,500 schools in England and Wales. The judge in that case ruled this week that while the basic premise of the film was correct, Gore had made nine errors of scientific fact.
- During the 12 p.m. ET October 12 edition of Your World Today, CNN correspondent Jonathan Mann reported that "[i]ronically just before the [Nobel] prize was announced, a British judge ruled that it should come with a warning, that it promotes partisan political views, and is wrong about some of its facts."
- On the October 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host Bret Baier stated: "Earlier this week, a British judge ruled that the movie had at least nine major errors and could not be shown to students without balancing information." Later, referring to Burton's ruling, Baier uncritically reported that the New Zealand Center for Political Research "has written to the president of the group that produces the Academy Awards contending that the alleged scientific errors in the movie disqualify it for the Best Documentary Award."
- Finally, an October 10 post by Mike Nizza on The New York Times' blog "The Lede" reported that Burton "refused" to ban An Inconvenient Truth from British secondary schools "as long as 'serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush' were explained at screenings, Agence France-Presse reported." In fact, Burton did not say the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush." The AFP article to which Nizza linked attributed that quote to Stuart Dimmock, the father of two who originally brought the case to have the film banned from British secondary schools that resulted in Burton's ruling.
From the October 10 United Kingdom High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) judgment:
The Film
17. I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii)
iii) As Mr [Martin] Chamberlain [counsel for the defendant] persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
iv)
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
[...]
iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports
[...]
22. I have no doubt that Dr [Peter] 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."
Mr [Paul] Downes [counsel for the claimant] does not agree with this, but to some extent this is because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report. But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.
In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters -- 9 in all -- upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.
From the October 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: And you know the British study that said nine major flaws in Al Gore's theory. He teamed with the U.N. to get this award and one of them which the polar bears are drowning because there is no ice to grab on to. It was just a few polar bears that got caught in a storm. They are not all drowning.
From the 11 a.m. ET October 12 edition of CNN's Your World Today:
MANN: Gore traveled the United States lecturing about global warming, lectures that became the Academy Award-winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and spread Gore's message around the world. The British government even distributed it to every high school in the country.
Ironically just before the prize was announced, a British judge ruled that it should come with a warning, that it promotes partisan political views, and is wrong about some of its facts.
From the October 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: And now some fresh pickings from the political grapevine. Here's a shocker. Not everyone is celebrating Al Gore' s Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming efforts. Retired climatologists Timothy Ball tells CyberCast News service that Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is a wonderful piece of propaganda that relies on visual imagery and gimmickry. Earlier this week, a British judge ruled that the movie had at least nine major errors and could not be shown to students without balancing information. Thursday, the BBC alleged that Gore knew his movie presented false facts but was afraid any uncertainty would fuel global warming skeptics.
JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy says if that's true, quote, "Gore should win the Nobel Prize for propaganda." And Czech president Vaclav Klaus says he is surprised Gore would get a peace prize, noting, quote, "The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct." Meanwhile a conservative think tank in New Zealand wants Hollywood to strip Gore's movie of its Oscar. The West Australian newspaper reports the New Zealand Center for Political Research has written to the president of the group that produces the Academy Awards contending that the alleged scientific errors in the movie disqualify it for the Best Documentary award. The president of the group says the situation is similar to when championship athletes are found to be on steroids or other drugs and their victories and medals are nullified.
Guess ignoring that fact is a "convenient truth" for all the pro-goebbles-warming crowd
So AlGore's film was "broadly accurate"? Gee, I guess that means Algore was in the ball park. No wonder the scientists in Hollywood gave the movie an "Oscar" and then even more scientists at the "Peace" thing in Oslo gave him another bauble.
In the BALL PARK! That is some mighty fine praise for a "documentary".
Billy,
Just wondering......
If the Nobel Peace Prize was won by Roger Ailes for promoting useless media, slanted opinion and infotainment instead of Al Gore for outlining and telling us that the Earth is changing and that WE humans should make a few changes.....
Would that make the Nobel more worth it?
Or is your lack of an open mind making you incapable of seeing anything but your obvious hate of any 'Democrat' doing something that is educational and good and then getting rewarded for the effort?
All I see from your posts, not just here, but in past posts of yours, is your attacking of the messengers and not the issues!
Does anyone have a snack to coax Snoopy out from under his bed, or does that only work on Scooby? You need some fresh air Snoopy. The real world is not as scary as Algore and all of the other leftist nut cases keep telling you.
There’s another great column today in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258265537661384.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
“Global Warming Delusions” by Daniel B. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
He’s not as qualified as Algore or some British judge of course since he’s only been working on this for 40 years, but he makes some good points and exposes those like Algore and the U.N. “network of scientists” for what they are: irrational alarmists who either have no clue about the science, or greatly exaggerate the negative effects of warming deliberately in order to influence policy. The easiest way to influence policy is to create a panic among the Chicken Little leftist types.
“The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely.”
I know that that has never happened with our money in Washington or the U.N. before, but…
"...We also know that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—have increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth’s atmosphere significantly over the same period. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases, which trap heat near the planet’s surface.The vast majority of climate researchers agree with these overall findings. The scientific disagreements that do still exist primarily concern detailed aspects of the processes that make up these largely accepted general themes...."
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html
Trust me, I've been getting plenty of fresh air. You seem to be breathing some real stale stuff though...
But don't take my word, you really need to listen to that handful of "scientists" who are paid by special interests to debunk the facts. That makes much more sense in the grand scheme of things!
I think it's best if Botkin refutes your ridiculous characterization of him in his own words:
(Botkin's website)
How does that refute my characterization of him? I only read the first page, but I liked it.
"Nowadays we hear daily from the media and through the media about the threat of global warming and its potentially dire effects on people and the diversity of life on Earth. The general tenor of these pronouncements is negative for people. You get the sense that people, especially modern technological people, have done wrong by Mother Nature. Having thus sinned against nature, we are warned that we will suffer the consequences. There will be massive flooding and terrible storms, destroying our homes and ways of life; millions if not billions of people displaced, homeless, wandering. Fresh water will be hard to find; we will thirst and our crops will fail. Pestilences and plagues confined to tropical climates will spread, and many of us will die."
He scoffs at this portrayal.
Look at this scoffing:
What’s the equivalent of buying global-warming insurance? Actions to lessen the rate of warming or offset potential effects of global warming. The intriguing thing is that most of the actions we would take to “insure” ourselves would benefit us even setting aside the issue of global warming. We would plant trees to take up carbon dioxide; and we would burn less coal, which, aside from its greenhouse gas contributions, is highly polluting both to mine and to burn (and especially hazardous for the miners). We would generate electricity from solar and wind energy, abundant in many places that do not have petroleum reserves; this would reduce international strife over access to oil and gas. We would increase plantings even in our cities, making urban life more pleasant. We would lower our energy costs (when you take into account all the costs of fossil fuel energy including the oil depletion allowance and wars fought over petroleum resources. We would help save endangered and threatened species. Viewed this way, it would make sense to do the equivalent of buying global-warming insurance.
Forget about empty debates as to whether or not global warming is going to bring catastrophe and whether it is our fault. Take action that is carefully chosen to both combat global warming and benefit living things with or without global warming. And be particularly careful not to act in such panic as to do things that are dangerous and damaging to life on Earth.
Does lying ever stop being the first thing you people try?
"Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate."
You're going to have to point out my lies, Moonbat.
I searched his whole website and couldn't find that quote. Could you post the link please?
Thanks.
It's in my original link to the WSJ article above. You may have to have a subscription, but you can get a 2 week trial for free.
Here's the whole paragraph:
"Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change."
First of all, I'm admittedly not going to pay to subscribe to a website, so I'll take your quote at face value. Even with that, I see nothing in it that "exposes" Al Gore or the UN network of scientists as "irrational alarmists". He describes "some colleagues" as justifying the use of exaggeration. "Some colleagues" is hardly the bulk of climate scientists.
It's your faulty summation which is arguably a lie. If you realize that you're mischaracterizing Botkin as "exposing Gore and the UN web of scientists" as "irrational" + "alarmist", then it's a lie. If you don't realize it, then you're simply a victim of incomprehension, probably due to bias.
I doubt there's anyone here who justifies the use of exaggeration or alarmism to sway opinion. I assume the same for you, which is why I find your comment ironic.
You're right Neon. Algore was exposed as a fraud long ago. So rather than saying he "exposes those like Algore and the U.N. “network of scientists” for what they are: irrational alarmists who either have no clue about the science, or greatly exaggerate the negative effects of warming deliberately in order to influence policy", I should have said he "denounces those like Algore..."
It is hard to understand your logic. You think it a good idea to waste time arguing about global warming and to attack Al Gore for pointing it out. There is no dispute that global warming is occuring and that humans are partly responsible.
If you don't feel it necessary to take any steps to reduce CO2 levels, you are in very deep denial.
Here you go:
"He scoffs at this portrayal."
Where in his website do you find anything that would make you believe that he thinks scientists who are convinced of global warming are "irrational alarmists who either have no clue about the science, or greatly exaggerate the negative effects of warming deliberately in order to influence policy." ?
He may consider, on the other hand, that YOU are an irrational alarmist running in circles issuing dire warnings about these "environmental chicken littles" and pushing your own agenda-based misinterpretions of the opinions of scientists to further your political cause.
And he is funded by....?
SAVE DEMOCRACY VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The court found 9 details to dispute, but did not show them to be "errors" though the court uses the term.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do
I guess if you're in the WORLD IS IN PERIL crowd you're holed up in a bunker somewhere. Have enough of the Gore kewl-aid on hand?
Hee haw...and that dumb crowd that insists that the earth revolves around the sun...
man everyone knows that the sun revolves around you, les.
"Okay, everybody quiet please! QUIET PLEASE!! Listen up..."
"Thank you for coming today, and thanks to Alabama University for allowing us the use of their baseball field for this gathering."
"...eat me..."
"All of you in the 'WORLD IS IN PERIL' crowd, to your right is the 'Muslims are going to kill us' line, and to the right of that is the 'Hillary presidency' line. Please....QUIET! LISTEN! PLEASE!!!"
"...eat me raw..."
"Uh, Rah Rah Rah...that's the spirit. Now, go to your correct lines now, please! Those who have not yet chosen a line, find a counselor to help make up your mind for you. Mr. Limpaugh, Ms. Coulter..."
"...fu-kyue!..."
"...Mr. Hannity, and Mr. Boortz can be found at various locations down the right foul line, and Mr. Savageweiner is available in left field."
"...fu-kyue you too, kid..."
what i find interesting is that everyone assumes the world will end if temperature goes up. The models conflict with real world histry, yet we are all supposed to scurry to buy solar cells and bikes. Notably one wonders why noone is talking about improved food supplies.
further can anyone point me to an article where the model has a feedback system mimicking albedo?
Improved food supplies? We are expected to loose some % of our overall landmass to flooding, the #1 source of water, meltoff, is going away, and you somehow think we are gonna get more food production?
longer growing season baby. only need about 20 days in indiana to get two grain crops in every year. i believe that means more
You need water to feed those plants. I know for a fact they sure don't like salt water. You plan on draining the great lakes to feed that indiana corn?
rain fall is adequate. those hurricanes are great when they spin down. there are several rivers too. I might add that half the state is drained swamp baby. we need a 750 foot (+ or - 50 ft) rise in oceans for carmel to be beach front property
totally missing it, aren't you? Less water from runoff means smaller lakes and rivers. Less water means less available for growing, because growing competes with human consumption and animal maintenance. You are either planning on adding dogs and cats to your daily diet or perhaps deciding on becoming a vegan?
cant have it both ways. if there are MORE hurricanes I will have MORE runoff and my soil is a sponge. LESS hurricanes may mean LESS runoff (we do get rain anyway) and point to a serious flaw in climate models. Either way seems like you have a problem in the run off issue.
My first thought was you meant snow melt but with and average January high of 34 degreas there just isnt a snow pack for long
Glad you're covered. I'm sure you won't mind all of the displaced folkes squatting on yer property who just want to eat and drink too. Stock up on yer ammo and buy a machine gun, my guess is you're gonna need it.
my guess is i wont. labor shortage hereabouts is drawing foreigners like crazy so im pretty sure there wont need to be any squatters unless they like life that way
I'm just gonna laugh along with you for now, because I like your style. We can have a beer together one day!
You should come and live in Australia. We are going through a major drought here, most cities are on harsh water restrictions and our dams are roughly around 15% full. So yeah rainfall might be adequate for you, but its hardly adequate for the local farmers down-under.
Same thing here in the American South. Mandatory water restrictions and no outdoor fires. In my locality we haven't had any measurable rain in 40 days. The only state in the entire country that isn't affected by the drought is Iowa.
drought due to quiet hurricane season and hurricanes are supposed to be more frequent now not less
i thought australia had been dry for some time. "the western desert lives and breathes at degrees"
and arent local short term weather events to not be considered?
I think you analysis is a bit Hoosier-centric. You do realize there is an effect outside of Indiana?
Much of the Southeast is in severe drought. Is global warming going to improve that or not? It is impossible to tell for certain. You don't even know for sure what will happen in Indiana for that matter. It always amazes me that you guys deride AGW for its inherent uncertainty and turn around with absolute certainty about how AGW will increase the food supply. Amazing.
You're demonstrating a profound lack of understanding. There's a reason it's more correctly referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming." Warming is part of the equation, because the warming of the planet, as we've already seen, melts the polar ice.
Significant melting can have a number of effects. Among them, lots of fresh water flowing into the Atlantic can change the course of the Gulf Stream which doesn't just make for great swimming off of Florida, but also curves north and brings warmth to Europe. If that changes, and that warmth no longer runs up the coast of Europe, you'll see significantly colder winters in Europe.
All sorts of scenarios like this have been proposed. So they're not all about warming. And regardless, if they happen relatively suddenly, and our civilization which has taken thousands of years (by some estimates, almost SIX THOUSAND years!) to get to where it is, can't adapt... we're looking at starvation, drought, and probably significant turmoil and warring over basic resources like food and water.
a low opinion of humanity. when krakatoa cut loose there was world wide crop failure and yet that event is history.
ps...the ice caps wont melt rapidly except on geologic scales
Yes, I have a low opinion of humanity:
my guess is i wont. labor shortage hereabouts is drawing foreigners like crazy so im pretty sure there wont need to be any squatters unless they like life that way
im mossing your point. anyone who comes to indy can get a job. ANY ONE
The warring over food and water part is what earned Gore the Nobel PEACE prize, for those who still don't get it.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." Uh.. okay.
Not to toot my own horn but I think I should get the award because of my dedication in leading all here to to become 'perfected' conservatives. Because by doing so, then maybe there would be no more strife at MMFA and maybe prevent future email flames from Solon and Nerzog and other hot-under-the collar liberals which may contribute to global warming and conflict. Yes, reducing the volume of heated replies here at MMFA may indeed reduce man made global warming . After all, maybe we can all get along!
Alfred Nobel wrote in his will that the peace prize was to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
If making a movie that may be correct and may reduce conflict but actually meets none of the requirements set forth by Al Nobel wins the award, then I surely my work here is equally justified.
Should I win, let me tell you now, I may share the award with all my name-calling friends here. :-)
Better luck next year, AA. Enough sour grapes for now.
; )
The judge doesn't seem to have an ax to gring on this. Thats good.
The ole Noise Machine is spinning along pretty good here. Curious emphasis.
As an experiment I'd like to catch a sample of these members of The Axis of Weasels. Find them relaxed and say, "Al Gore." You think a spittle shield would be a good idea?
Outside of conservative think-tanks, junk scientists (whose theories and models are quickly and laughably dismissed, like William Gray here) [link to www.realclimate.org]
and ordinary people parroting talking points and Gore insults, I haven't seen anything to convince me that GCC is: 1) anthropogenic; 2) getting worse; 3) a problem that warrants immediate action.
What are the nine errors?
a boiled potato, a beer and the seven horsemen of the apocolypse.
a boiled potato, a beer......mmmmmmmm...(homer-ish)
sorry. Has anyone noticed that the rightwingnoisemachine has started to repeat the phrase " nine MAJOR errors"?
As opposed to" makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus."
That is especially ironic considering the Big Oil's complete denial itself is "not supported by the mainstream scientific consensus".
Snoppy, please refrain from any mathematical problems on this site. The 'rithmatic that some of the Cons are told to use may have them disputing your total of nine. Having them understand words is tough enough. Where's Dex?
My bad, per a column today on consortiumnews.com the judge is a right wing twit. Futher info on firedoglake about the case and the so called errors.
So, the media ignored the OPINION of a JUDGE?? I'm sorry, when in the hell did a JUDGE get put in charge of telling us exactly what's going on with our climate?
Personally, when it comes to CLIMATE, I would tend to look toward the conclusions of an ACTUAL METEOROLOGIST, like maybe one of the world's foremost in the field. Dr. William Gray, perhaps. He's had a thing or two to say about OwlGore. And, funny enough, the media has ignored him, too:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
So, when OwlGore says that more and bigger hurricanes are coming, maybe, just maybe, we'll think back to this PROFESSIONAL METEOROLOGIST who says OwlGore is FULL OF IT!!
I will refer you back to the last headline on Media Matters for Oct. 15th.
I thought "Bush Lies" meant you were calling Bush a liar, but now I see it means you are here to propagate his lies.(Or you could be saying that Bush prefers a supine position)
Have you taken a look at the 2,600 "scientists" who agree with OwlGore? Go ahead and take a pulse of that crowd of people. Podiatrists? Electrical engineers? Macroeconomic experts? Why are these "scientists" given credit when they say that they agree with the "Unreliable Hoax", but when one of the top METEOROLOGISTS IN THE WORLD says otherwise, he's smeared and discredited. I think I know why. Global warming is a religious cult. The followers are nothing more than the Jonestown and Waco crowd clones. Like I said, buy a good coat while they're still cheap.
Man, I thought you people were proud of being able to think for yourselves and for being open-minded?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html
Try this site, honey. It will explain things to you.
Can you provide a link of the 2,600 scientists you are talking about? I would take an honest Podiatrist any day over any scientist who works on behalf of the fossil fuel industry(I don't know if this is the case with Grey but it is with just about every other detracter).
And by "cult" do you mean "international consensus"?
Also here's a refute of Gray's major claim:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
If you have an open mind maybe you will read this.
"So, the media ignored the OPINION of a JUDGE??" (Bushlies)
I think you've missed the ball here. The media ( and their Republican sheep who post here)has been going berserk about this judge, and distorting his ruling to discredit Al Gore.
What the media ignored is what the judge actually said, and, as usual, the facts.
Dr. Gray seems to be basing "his" theory in conjunction with the number of hurricanes from 1900-1950. Are his numbers accurate? Who kept track of hurricanes in 1900? What was a hurricane then as compared to present day? Are his numbers correct? Just a few questions for Bushlies. Do you feel that we track hurricanes in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean better now or then? Do you think all of Al Gores' concerns are false?
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Always good to point out the obvious: climate change is upon us; the actions we take or fail to take now will affect generations of people. Everyone who can read should be educating themselves about it; not trying to deny that it is happening.
Nice post, Mary. A site that is promoting the sale of a DVD. Real objective. Nothing like getting the whole story. The first bullet on that page says:
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
No mention of the REST of recorded history, huh? Read my link, open your eyes. Buy a good coat. GLOBAL COOLING is on the way.
<>Make it a nice, warm, fur coat. Mankind: saved from the coming doom of global cooling- by the Eskimo.
Have a nice time explaining to your grand children why you tried to oppose efforts to take action to positively affect our climate...you know, how humans exist on this planet.
Perhaps you dinosaurs hope to become oil eventually as a future legacy...(fun fundie science)
What I find amusing about this whole matter is that the points criticized by the judge are areas where he found that Gore's assertions differ from those of the IPCC.
To the extent the righties go after Gore on this, to that same extent they are supporting the findings of the IPCC, the very agency predicting "catastrophic" effects of global warming!
I notice none of the clips in the video refer veiwerrs to any raw data, like say a transcript of the judges ruling, or realclimate.org . I'd like to reiterate another posters observation that the phrase "major flaws" is nowhere to be found in the court documents that the talking heads are refering to. One judge in one country made one ruling on 9 nit picking "errors" in one movie. Hardly a refutation of mountains of data collected by thousands of scientists over the last 100 years.
The ignorant comments on here make me laugh. That is all.