Sunday, October 14, 2007

Inconvenient Fictions in the Gore Docu - Call for Oscar to be Withdrawn

Let's see, erasing the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period from the "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures, false photos from irrigation-drained lakes claimed to be "drying up from climate change", claims the 2005 hurricane season with Katrina, et al, was a harbinger for the future... until 2006 and 2007 turned out to be a hurricane bust... well there is a warming going on with a melting back of floating sea-ice which won't change the sea-levels, but Mars is also showing a loss of polar-cap size, so the idea that humans are responsible begins to appear more and more suspect the longer one investigates.  A variable Sun might explain things better but, oops, can't even mention that as all those climatologists are "deniers"!  But wasn't this the same Mr. Gore whom Bill Clinton sent to Europe, to twist the arms of Tony Blair and other EU nations into accepting hormone-contaminated American beef and GMO products, which even Americans have been refusing to eat, in increasing numbers?  And isn't it just possible, that the big push on this from the Tennessee Senator, who is the son of a Tennessee Senator, just might have more to do with nuclear power plants and the gigantic vested interests in the Tennessee Valley Authority and its nuclear complexes?  Just as the Texas oilman's son promotes petroleum?  Are any of them truly interested in renewable energy systems, or is that all a "convenient ploy" for whatever their favorite pollution might be?  Pardon me, but I have more solar panels on my modest home than Al Gore does on all his mansions combined -- and the Clinton/Gore team didn't even do as much as Jimmy Carter (ech) about the energy crisis, with nary a single solar collector added to the White House, nor any push for more fuel-efficient cars, much less programs to reduce petroleum dependency over the 8 years of Clinton/Gore.  Even the hated Bush has lived for years in a modest energy-efficient passive solar home in Crawford Texas, a tiny home with a very small "carbon footprint" as compared to the sprawling Gore Palace in Tennessee.  What was that Native American saying about "walking your talk".   J.D.

Think tank: Withdraw Gore film's Oscar
Citing court ruling, compares situation to sports stars found to be 'cheats'
Posted: October 12, 2007

On the eve of Al Gore's award of the Nobel Peace Prize, a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards asking that the Oscar given to his film "An Inconvenient Truth" be taken back in response to a British High Court ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.

Muriel Newman, director of the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis "the situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats."

"In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next place-getter elevated," she said, according the Australian Associated Press. "While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.

British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore's documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."

The Nobel panel announced today Gore won the peace prize along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their efforts to spread awareness of "man-made climate change" and to lay the foundations for fighting it.

But Newman, the AAP reported, pointed to the British ruling, which requires teachers to tell students of 11 inaccuracies in Gore's film.

"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism," Newman said. "Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not."

"An Inconvenient Truth" won Oscars in 2006 for best documentary and best original song.
Dimmock took the British government to court after then-Environment Secretary David Miliband launched a plan to send "An Inconvenient Truth" to all British schools, announcing the scientific debate over man-made global warming "is over."

The judge, however, sided with Dimmock, who alleged the documentary breached the Education Act of 1996 by portraying "partisan political views."

The court ruled the Guidance Notes to 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.
The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:

    1.      The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

        2.      The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
        3.      The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
        4.      The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
        5.      The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
        6.      The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
        7.      The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

        8.      The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
        9.      The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
        10.     The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
        11.     The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

At a news conference today, Gore said he would accept the Nobel Prize on behalf of all global warming activists and donate 100 percent of the cash award to the non-profit
Alliance for Climate Protection, "focusing on changing the way people think about the urgency of the climate crisis."
"This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now," he said.
Gore pointed to a report two weeks ago that claimed melting of the polar ice cap is accelerating.

"It truly is a planetary emergency, and we have to respond urgently," he said.


Critics slam Nobel winner
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

THE award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN's top climate panel on Friday has prompted a fresh chorus of criticism from global warming sceptics -- with one dubbing the award "a political gimmick".
The former vice-president has an Oscar for his film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, and the Nobel prize proved a laurel too far for some of his detractors.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus cast doubt on Gore's contribution to the cause of peace, the ostensible purpose of the Norwegian prize.
In a statement, the climate change sceptic said he was "a bit surprised that Al Gore has received a peace prize because the connection between his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear".
In Norway, the main opposition party expressed its surprise at the decision.
Gjermund Hagesaether, from the far-right Progress Party, said: "We believe it is strange to give the prize to Al Gore for having made a film on climate that is subjective, one-sided and full of one-sided assertions."
In France, a sour note was sounded by a leading French climate sceptic, former Socialist education minister and award-winning geochemist Claude Allegre.
He brushed off Friday's announcement as "a political gimmick", saying: "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics, it's designed to intervene in American politics. It's scandalous. There's a presidential election upcoming in the United States, and it's well known that Gore wants to run."
The White House -- which Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000 after the intervention of the US Supreme Court -- was studiously neutral on the award.
Others queried the Nobel's focus only on climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of A Sceptical Environmentalist, said: "The Nobel Prize committee should have focused on the other great forgotten problems like malnourishment, malaria, the lack of free trade in farming, rather than climate change."
And one of the world's foremost meteorologists called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not responsible for global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:

Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?