Roverdc:

Could you please give us an example of what you are talking about here? i.e. a reference to a paper which was presented to the IPCC but which was "ignored".

Simply, I'd rather the priority for 11-14 year old kids be on reading, writing, and arithmetic. This film, if it has to be shown at all, should be aimed at the 16+ age group in a debating group, not as part of their general education.

As far as I know, Gore did not make this film as an educational tool to be shown in UK schools. If parents want their kids to see it, or if kids want to see it, there are plenty of free downloads.

Hi Providor

I can't let you get away with this cop out.


This was the basis of the court case:


So while you are semantically correct to say Gore is not in error in his assertion - you accept, he is using an event which IPCC think has a low probability, and is not the consensus view, even of the GW science fraternity.

He has deliberately used this low probability scenario to elicit an emotional response to his propaganda, that is brainwashing pure and simple.

It is interesting that on these pages, many who have followed the arguments, consider the films best use in schools, is to teach children how political bias and emotional propaganda, can be used to twist people's perception of reality.

This man has just won a Nobel prize for this distorted over emotional vision - that says a lot about the impact his views have on leading politicians!

Another point - you seem to consider the fact that Dimmock was supported by Durkin as somehow wrong.

This was a case brought before a judge to consider evidence.

Do you object to a review of this kind - or is your objection, that someone who is publicly presenting a case (however flawed) against the IPCC view, should dare to support a proposal to question the methods and science behind another's opposing view, a view which is to be used to manipulate our children's understanding of the science.

Or is it simply that, while supporting showing Gores film to help children understand GW - you object to showing the TGGWS as it has been criticised as having inaccuracies, and may mislead.

Glynne:

That annoys me. You asked me "Why was the judge wrong to criticise this?" and that is the precise question I answered. My answer is not a justification of Gore's presentation of this issue, it is my evidence for why the judge was wrong to make that criticism.


No! He is using an event of unknown probability, and the IPCC view (which seems to be what the judge defines as the "consensus") is that we really don't have a very good idea what might happen regarding the polar ice sheets and sea level.

So Gore is no more "wrong" to say that we might get 7m of sea level rise than he would have been if he'd said it will only be half a metre.


I have seen no evidence that Durkin is in any way personally involved with this case. I have seen it reported that Robert Durward founded the "New Party" of which Dimmock is member, that Durward is also the founder of the Scientific Alliance, that the Scientific Alliance has links with an Exxon-funded US right-wing "think tank", and that Martin Livermore, a Director of the Scientific Alliance, was the sole scientific advisor to Durkin when he was making TGGWS. I've also posted a link to a newspaper article that says that Viscount Monckton, who is part of a counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, is funding the distribution of TGGWS to schools and that Monckton wrote the manifesto of the "New Party" and was one of Dimmock's backers.

I have not as far as I can remember expressed a view as to whether any of the above is right or wrong, I've merely said that in my opinion it is in the public interest that we know who is paying for all this and what their true motives are.


Absolutely not, I already said that I am quite pleased with the way this is all turning out.


Again, absolutely not. Anybody who thinks they have a better explanation of the causes of climate change than that given by the IPCC is perfectly entitled to question the science behind the IPCC reports. But if they want that opposing view to be taken seriously, they have to present valid evidence through the established process and have it judged with the same scientific rigour as that used by the IPCC.


I have to say I'm getting a bit tired of having to repeat myself. I have said at least twice on this thread that I think that TGGWS should be shown in schools alongside AIT, provided it has first been subjected to the same judicial scrutiny as AIT has undergone, and appropriate guidance explaining it's shortcomings is issued to schools.

Hi Providor
Apologies for annoying you -that was certainly not my intention.


The main thrust of my argument is that throughout the film, Gore has deliberately selected an event with the highest emotional impact, to condition the thinking and long term response of his audience.

In the case of the antarctic ice sheet it is reasonable to assume that the IPCC consensus view will almost certainly be the most probable outcome.
So it is not unfair to describe Gore's selected event to be of lower probability, and was likely chosen for its emotional impact rather than to present an objective scientific appraisal.

It appears the purpose of this film is not to inform, in the scientific or educational sense - it is to condition the response of the viewer.

Not good material for educating children or anyone else for that matter.


As for Durkin - I may have mixed him up with Durward - no matter the names are not important, is the principle I am getting at.

As I said above;

Together with Gore on the Apocryphal side of the fence, we have vast global vested interests, Government funded agencies, and not least the likes of FOE and Greenpeace who depend for their survival on funding raised by concerns about this issue.

And you make the comment;


Seems to me an unbalanced competition.
When you add to this the career shattering denigration of those who question the received wisdom of the Green lobby, seems like its going to be difficult to get to the truth.

My view is that neither, "The Inconvinient Truth" nor the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" reach the standards required to be used as educational material about this subject - and neither should be used in schools in that way.

As examples to teach children how, political bias and emotional propaganda, can be used to twist people's perception of reality, "The Inconvenient Truth" is a text book case.
TGGWS is an example of a poorly presented and edited rebuttal.

There is of course another consideration - I wonder what the Durkin programe would have been like with the budget and resources that were spent on "The Inconvenient Truth"?

I still maintain it is important to remember the film was brought here by Scottish and Southern Energy, who paid for it to be shown in schools in Scotland.
Miliband was to see it went to all schools in the UK!

For infromation
CRE Energy, a subsidiary of Scottish Power made requests to Ofgem to be able to use the Compulsory Purchase Act to acquire land. CRE said their aim wasto extend their network of windfarms across the UK and stated this would be helpful to prepare for the possibility of having to acquire land and/or wayleaves compulsorily

I have also mentioned Gore's idea to turn off the lights nationally, as a 'gesture' but it was vetoed by the National Grid,keepers of Britain's power supply on safety grounds! Apparently some rock performers have criticised the idea. It was said the power surge could disrupt suppply and even endanger hospital patients on life support machines.
See article in the Sunday Times June3rd 2007

That's OK Glynne, it's just that I'd answered your specific question ("Why was the judge wrong to criticise this?") and you seemed to be criticising what I'd said as if I was answering a different question ("Was Gore wrong to do it that way?"). No matter.

Your reminder of Dimmock's justification for bringing this case highlights why I'm so interested in the funding and motivation aspects of this issue. He talks of wanting his kids to have an education "free from bias and political spin", but now it begins to look like the agenda all along was to create a situation where his backers could justify putting an even more biased and politically spun film into schools. To criticise AIT as "falling far short of the standard required" and then to send copies of TGGWS to schools is such rank hypocrisy it demolishes any moral credibility they may once have had in bringing this case.


I accept no such thing! I haven't read the entire AR4 report, but I have not seen any assessment of the probability of ice-sheet collapse and subsequent massive sea-level rise, other than what I quoted above which says that the probability of such an event is unknown. And whilst they give a "likely" figure of between 0.18 and 0.59 metres, they qualify this by saying that it is based on the assumption that the contribution from the ice sheets will only increase at the same rate as it is currently, but that if the WAIS collapsed it would add another 5 or 6 metres. So I do not accept that the scenario portrayed in AIT has any lower probability than any other scenario. Until we gain a better understanding of ice-sheet dynamics, we just don't know. That's not to say, by the way, that Gore was necessarily right to put it the way he did - I really don't want to comment further on that until I've seen the film again and reminded myself of exactly what he said.


Yes of course he did, I said so myself quite a while back. But as I've already agreed, emotional impact is exactly what the film is intended to achieve. Where we differ is that you seem to think that makes it OK to reject the entire film, whereas I (and the High Court!) still consider the film to be a broadly accurate portrayal of the scientific consensus.

In the red corner we have had the Governments of the most powerful nation on Earth and the major oil and coal exporting nations, and the vested interest of the entire oil, gas, coal, automotive and aviation industries. In the blue corner we have had the scientific establishment, the reluctant, lukewarm compliance of most of the other Governments, the vested interests of the renewable energy / carbon reduction sector and the environmental campaign organisations. Sounds like a pretty fair fight to me.

Oh, nearly forgot. Today's climate change joke :-)

What you mean to say is that we seem to think that it makes it OK to make children aware of the political bias, and you seem to think that this shouldn't be an issue.

Regardless, a film could feasibly be an entirely accurate objective portrayal of the science, and still be unsuitable for viewing in schools without forewarning. These things are not absolutes, nor are they mutually exclusive

Has Dimmock personally been actively sending copies of TGGWS to schools? Or are you just speculating? All you've said so far is that he may or may not know someone who was a scientific advisor on that film, not that he's actively seeking to promote it, or have it shown in schools.

The "you" I was referring to was Glynne, not the plural "you" who disagree with me on this. But in any case, you are once again attributing to me a view which is the opposite to that which I have expressed.


The schools are getting that forewarning Stu, because the judge insisted on a hard-copy of the guidance notes being included in the pack.


Not as far as I know. But the Sunday Times report I referred to says that "the campaigners behind the High Court case" planned to send copies of TGGWS to schools. I think it is not unreasonable to speculate that Dimmock and his "backers" have similar views about AIT.

Well Glynne didn't say it was okay to 'reject the whole film' either. I was responding to your comment, meant as it was for Glynne, because so far I have agreed with the vast majority of things Glynne has said here and I am currently sharing his viewpoint. Nowhere has he suggested that the best thing to do would be to reject the whole film.

I fail to understand one thing: if you're happy with the court judgement, and I'm happy with the court judgement, and Glynne's happy with the court judgement, then where's the argument coming from? It seems that either there is a level of inconsistency in one side or the other, or that there's something of a lack of communication occurring.

Perhaps you should start another thread Kozmicstu
How about "Errors in the DVD Wind Power in the UK"
See BWEA website

Hi Providor
I am by no means an expert on the antarctic ice sheet - and rely on you for the science.

But just to tidy up;
You said
My comment was
(should have read "you will accept.")

Which I further explained.

To all of this you responded with,


What you are saying (I think) is that no one knows, its all a best guess!

So Gore deliberately chose an event of unknown probability, which is not the consensus view of the IPCC to frighten the world into accepting his version of GW.

I think the Judge was morally quite right

I have a good idea what the Green lobby would say if that sort of approach was used to show a flaw in the Green theology.

Providor sorry about the delay but I've been away. This did not get anywhere near as far as that before being suppressed and no I am not allowed to tell you anything as I was made to sign a non disclosure agreement when I inadvertently recieved a copy of the information. I cannot use it to change anyones mind about the eco lobbby's methods but it certainly opened my eyes as to how bad the case was before it was polished up by the suposedly impartial scientists.

Tizzy, are you trying to be ironic? Why would you want the priority for 11-14 year olds to be "reading, writing, and arithmetic"? Surely at least 90% of them will have already mastered those by that age, and the vast majority of them would just get bored, which would lead to many of them causing trouble?

Do you really think their general education should ignore issues as important as this? Or that this important topic should be restricted to the tiny number of students who take interest in debating groups?

Hi Aidan

The discussion and question here, is not whether students should be taught about global environmental issues and science.

It is whether this particular film "An Inconvenient Truth" is suitable for that.

There are those who believe the film is an attempt to indoctrinate by the use of worst case scenarios and inaccurate information, presented as a realistic future, for material and political ends.

The real problem of course, is that if politicians and populations, accept this film as a factual representation of the future, they will make decisions to attempt change that apocryphal vision.

If these decisions are inappropriate, the cost to all of us will be immense.

Hi Glynne

I am well aware of the original question, but I saw Tizzy's comment had gone unchallenged.

I know - I did read what you wrote before. I think it's quite a silly view, but it does emphasise the importance of my previous comment. No book or film is going to be 100% accurate, so critical thinking is very important, and is something that must be taught in primary schools!

That's not the real problem at all! The real problems are climate change and rising sea levels.

Attempting to change it is not a problem. Not attempting to change it is a problem!

That depends what decisions are made. The cost of solving the problems has been greatly exaggerated by those with a vested interest in the status quo. We can easily afford it. But the cost of inappropriately doing nothing could be hundreds of times higher.

We should be very concerned. Climate change is a real problem. Though there is still a lot we don't know about what happens in the atmosphere, we do know that some gases absorb a lot more infared than others, and we know there has been a breakdown in the correlation between weather and sunspot activity. So even if Al Gore has overestimated its severity, that's no excuse for ignoring it. As for melting Antarctic ice, it now appears to be melting more quickly than we thought. The permanent floating ice shelves have melted, and without them to resist the shear force, the glaciers move faster. Also, there is now known to be quite a lot of liquid water under the ice. Where there is water, it prevents the rocks from exerting a friction force on the ice. Again, this results in the glaciers moving faster.

Then there is the question of whether it is man made and if it is necessary to decieve to make people believe in the case for man causing the changes. If the eco lobby believe it is justified then they are no better than Goebbels.

If it is not necessary to decieve then give us all the data instead of constantly repeating the conclusions of some politically and commercially motivated organisations. Gore's carbon trading bureaucrats with no product to justify their fortunes they are raking in from us as taxpayers and the UN funded IPCC with its wealth redistribution by the back door agenda are two well known examples.
Remove any legal restraints on releasing any data and force all organisation of both persuasions to put any information in the public domain whether for or against their case with equal prominence.

Films are about emotive indoctrination and should not be used for a supposedly scientific subject but we all know the aim was not scientific it was about making more taxation acceptable on the back misguided and blinkered environmental assesments.

To all
Issues are being sidelined which should be investigated before the Climate Change Bill goes through Parliament next month to receives Royal Assent next year





You cannot ignore the facts and wind farms in the North East as Malcolm Wicks described in his letter to me are 'having no problems' is in fact a nonsense.

It depends on the standard you expect of them. To the standard of English of a reasonable GCSE pass only about 65% currently meet it when it should be 90% minimum for the modest level expected.

Still learning that B***sh*t pays is clearly a useful life skill these days or there would be no question as to whether time would be better spent on other activities. How about learning how to cook a healthy meal for example, if lessons on unquestioning obedience to government propaganda are to be used on children.

Roverdc:

So what you seem to be saying is that you have had access to one piece of information, which you are not allowed to disclose, which you say was suppressed before it ever got into the public domain. And on the strength of that alone you feel that you can justifiably say


On the basis of one suppressed "dissenting voice" that you claim to know about, you conclude that any dissenting voice is suppressed. Sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that.

And anyway, surely if you truly believe that the world is being lied to about GW and that you have information that blows the consensus position out of the water, you have a moral obligation to reveal that information in spite of your non-disclosure agreement? What's the worst that could happen if you did? Mr Dimmock is reported to have been able to raise a few grand to cover his legal costs, I'm sure if you talked to the right people you could do the same!


That really is way over the top. The guidance for teachers that now accompanies the film in the schools pack is very clear about the film's partisan views and warns teachers to be particularly aware of their duties which arise because of the political content of "An Inconvenient Truth". It says:


Teachers are advised that "because of the controversy around the subject and the way in which it has emerged it is an ideal subject to draw out investigation and discussion skills."

The guidance goes on to highlight which specific scenes in the film deal with the political issues, and suggests a number of questions that teachers should get students to consider, including:


That doesn't sound like "lessons on unquestioning obedience to government propaganda" to me. It sounds like an attempt to teach a balanced and objective way of looking at the issue.

Glynne:

That's an awesome responsibility - I'll do my best not to let you down!


That's about how I see the current situation. We just don't understand all the factors well enough to say with any confidence what is going to happen to sea levels. We are confident that, depending on how much or little we manage to reduce GHG emissions, sea level will rise by between 18 and 59 centimeters by 2100, provided that glacial outflows do not increase any faster than they have done for the last few years. This is what you and the judge (wrongly in my opinion) interpret as the "consensus position". But we also know that if the Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheets collapse, there would be an additional 6 metres of rise. And because we don't understand ice-sheet dynamics very well yet, that event has to be assigned an unknown probability.


Yes. But if that outcome's probability is unknown, then by definition so is that of any other outcome. The "likely" label attached to the 18 - 59cm prediction is only valid if we ignore the (unknown) probability of ice-sheet collapse.


The judge's definition of "consensus" was that "the IPCC 4th Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus." The whole report, not just selected bits of it such as the 18 - 59cm prediction. Therefore, since the possibility of ice-sheet collapse is acknowledged in the IPCC report, that possibility forms part of the "consensus view of the IPCC". So you are quite wrong to say that the scenario presented in AIT was not the consensus view.


I do not accept that interpretation of Gore's intentions. He is not trying to "frighten" people, he is trying to arouse them from ignorance and complacency. His message is essentially optimistic, in that he proposes that the "worst case" scenario can be avoided if we take collective action now. And it's not "his" view of GW - the vast majority of his film, as acknowledged by the judge, is an accurate portrayal of the current knowledge.

I've now obtained a DVD of AIT and will re-evaluate my opinion of the judge's comments when I've finished examining the film in detail.

Thanks very much Providor,

I've quickly scanned your post on the guidance notes - So far they seem reasonable.

What do you think - you presented them with only this comment.
Well it took a court case to put them in place, the government certainly had no intention that children should be presented with this sort of balanced appraisal.

I'm not going to have time to sit through the film again - but I (and I'm sure others) will be interested in your opinion.

One thing is obvious - no one person is in a position to fully understand all of the interactions, the whole thing is horrendously complex.

Its a pity the academic debate has become intolerant of viewpoints that disagree with the mainstream theology.

It's hard to say, without seeing the version of the guidance notes that were in place before the judgement.


That's for sure! That's why I get so irritated by the simplistic certainties of those who inhabit the extremes of the GW debate, and by those who demand that we do nothing until we have 100% proof that we know all there is to know about the problem.


I'm not sure that's actually true. Viewpoints that are expressed via the established process and backed up by credible evidence are all treated with equal respect, whether they support or oppose the mainstream science. Any that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny are rejected, and that's the way it should be. You can't really blame the scientific establishment for looking with doubt and suspicion upon work that is published without peer review by organisations with a vested interest in a continuation of "business as usual".

Glynne Providor for your interest
From Planning ,the magazine of the RTPI 19 Oct 2007
Reference to the award of The Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore was said to be shadowed by a High Court Ruling earlier that his film has 9 scientific errors Through said to be broadly accurate it was criticised for some “alarmist” claims
The film to be shown to schoolchildren must only be shown with guidance notes.

Surely climate change is happening as always and whether man made or not we will all do what we can to help
Ten years ago when Robert Swann the explorer drew attention to this nothing much was said. When Gore first wrote the book it did not seem to give much cause for concern. Yet once Scottish and Southern Power brought the film to the UK .... well you know the rest.

Providor you are either incredibly naive or self deluded. Every study on assessment of data shows that a paper esposing the reader's viewpoint is never critically assessed. Any paper opposing it must be absolutely 100% perfect to merit an equivalent rating.

When the two viewpoints are not receiving an equal funding the one best funded must look better even when the case is good but extremely badly made or the reverse as in the IPCC. The supposedly impartial organisation in spite of requests has omitted showing any actual data on the projects to measure levels of natural emissions an obvious starting point for any comparison of two sources.

The so far extremely sloppy and removed from context data I have been able to trace is so full of, we have ignored low level seepage round the volcanic core, and similar let outs that we can reasonably assume the instead of the 4-5% worst case that man emits it is almost certainly well below 2%.

The persistant ridiculing the effect of cosmic bombardment and other effects rather than investigating them on the grounds of "focus" in inexcusable for any scientist and a symptom of political manipulation being dominant especially when the resulting funds extorted by the fraud are directed to aid not to environmental improvement.

As for the need for 100% all I am asking for as that we get a real 75% not as any modelling study would give the probability given the range of unknowns 55% max. This does not constitute likely and very certainly not very likely it actually is slightly posssible, at best.

With this level of unknowns it is very likely that the action taken is actually damaging and not beneficial at all.

As an example the elimination of acid rain increases the effective co2 global warming by the same amount as the reduction in the sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides effect the breakdown of methane.

Lizabeth:

I'm aware that Scottish Power was behind the distribution of AIT to Scottish secondary schools, but "brought the film to the UK"? As far as I know the film and DVD were brought to the UK by the company that produced them - do you have information that suggests otherwise?