An inconvenient judgment against Al Gore

November 2007

Film & TV

We were not quite sure what heading to put this story under, but, a High Court judge in London had agreed with a complaint made by a school teacher that Al Gore’s film,  An Inconvenient Truth was not entirely accurate and contains certain unsubstantiated data. Mr Justice Barton said schools could screen the film but must make available balancing materials. For example Gore claimed that sea levels could rise twenty feet in the ‘future’ whereas the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests less than a tenth of this figure (18 inches) over the next 100 years. The judge also found no evidence that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice and that the film was guilty of ‘alarmism and exaggeration’. However the judge also commented that there was good support for the four main hypotheses of Gore’s film – that climate change is mainly caused by human created emissions; that global temperatures are rising and will continue to so do; that unchecked climate change will cause serious damage; that government and individuals can reduce the impact of climate change. The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a school governor from Kent, with funding from a variety of climate change sceptic sources. If you are interested (and Dimmock has an interesting collection of supporters) see the Observer  newspaper of the 14th October 2007 at pages 10-11 and

No Comments

Comments are closed.