Quick Fact: Hannity falsely claimed Gore was wrong to say British judge ruling on An Inconvenient Truth "favored his point of view"
In an interview with British filmmaker and climate change skeptic Phelim McAleer, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Al Gore's statement that a 2007 ruling by a British judge about Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, in Hannity's words, "favored his point of view" was "absolutely false."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Well, [Gore's] claiming that this court decision actually, you know, favored his point of view, that is absolutely false.
MCALEER: That is false.
HANNITY: Explain.
MCALEER: Well, the court case, it was a lengthy hearing, maybe a month of hearings, there was nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth they looked at and they found nine significant errors or exaggerations.
Fact: British judge concluded film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"
In his October 10, 2007, ruling, High Court Judge Michael Burton stated that while he had identified nine "errors and omissions" in the film, it 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.' "
What are you talking about?
Sure, there will be lots of food. Well there would be if we could get the right land into production.
There will also be millions of refuges moving away from the coasts. LA, DC, NY all will become uninhabitable as the seas rise.
Media Matters looked at 20 sentences in Palin's book. They found 20 errors.
Randy
HANITY: He's [Gore] claiming that this court decision, actually, you know, favored his point of view, that is absolutely false.
MALE GUEST: That is false.
Both Hannity and his guest are wrong. The nine errors the judge found include mainly exaggerations, and conclusions of Gore's which cannot be PROVEN to be the consequence of current scientific evidence. In other words, Gore COULD eventually be proven to be right on some of these points. Contrary to Hannity and his guest, the judge,
...agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “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”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Also, "Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument."
The above are taken from "BBC News Online" and "London Times Online" news articles dated October 11, 2007 (italics and bold by me). You can check for yourself at:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
In other words, the suit was brought by the equivalent of a creationist, objecting to teaching natural selection in the schools. Having decided that evolution theory was indeed consistent with the vast body of accepted scientific evidence, and appropriate as the primary theory for instruction in schools regarding the subject, the Judge threw the the creationists "a bone" to get him off everybody's back!
"Inconvenient Truth" WILL be distributed officially throughout the UK, with guidelines for teachers to use when needed, to moderate misleading statements with classroom discussion and involvement. Gore is not a scientist, he is a spokesman. I find it much easier to forgive Gore for occasional excesses resulting from enthusiasm and idealism for a cause he believes in, than I can for the cold, self-serving lies of denial by corporations, who obviously achieve more prophet by maintaining the do-nothing status quo, in spite of its obvious long-term detriment to the world society.
Interesting that Hannity latches onto a two-year old issue, over which to try to make political hay. In a minute and 15 seconds, FOX and Hannity, with their intentional distortion of the judge's ruling, score MUCH higher on the "disingenuous-politically-motivated-violations-of-truth" meter, than do any minor errors of Gore in his movie, or indeed, over his total career of involvement in speaking out on global warming.
HANITY: He's [Gore] claiming that this court decision, actually, you know, favored his point of view, that is absolutely false.
MALE GUEST: That is false.
Both Hannity and his guest are wrong. The nine errors the judge found include mainly exaggerations, and conclusions of Gore's which cannot be PROVEN to be the consequence of current scientific evidence. In other words, Gore COULD eventually be proven to be right on some of these points. Contrary to Hannity and his guest, the judge,
...agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “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”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Also, "Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument."
The above are taken from "BBC News Online" and "London Times Online" news articles dated October 11, 2007 (italics and bold by me). You can check for yourself at:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
In other words, the suit was brought by the equivalent of a creationist, objecting to teaching natural selection in the schools. Having decided that evolution theory was indeed consistent with the vast body of accepted scientific knowledge, and appropriate as the primary theory for instruction in schools regarding the subject, the Judge threw the the creationists "a bone" to get him off everybody's back!
"Inconvenient Truth" WILL be distributed officially throughout the UK, with guidelines for teachers to use, when needed. Gore is not a scientist, he is a spokesman. I find it much easier to forgive Gore for occasional excesses resulting from enthusiasm and idealism for a cause he believes in, than I can for the cold, self-serving lies of corporations, whose only motivation is short-term profit, and which are devoid of any regard for consequences.
Interesting that Hannity latches onto a two-year old issue, over which to try to make political hay. In a minute and 15 seconds, FOX and Hannity, with their intentional distortion of the judge's ruling, score MUCH higher on the "disingenuous-politically-motivated-violations-of-truth" meter, than do any minor errors of Gore's in his movie, or indeed, over his total career of involvement in speaking out on global warming.