Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver from Kent, England, sued to the British government earlier this year to keep “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown to his two sons and other children 11 to 14 years old in state-run secondary schools.
After comparing the film’s claims to documented scientific facts, High Court Judge Michael Burton ruled Oct. 10 that Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary could not be shown in British schools unless teachers informed students of the film’s “nine errors.”
What are those “nine errors,” and are they significant?
Justice Burton wrote that “An Inconvenient Truth” “is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,” but that Gore’s “apocalyptic vision” was presented in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”
Sorting science from spin. So how much of the film is “substantially founded upon … fact,” and how much is “alarmism and exaggeration”? The judge helps us sort things out.
Here are the “nine errors,” as summarized by ABC News:
1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This “Armageddon scenario” would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)
2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. (“There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.”)
3.) Global warming will shut down the “ocean conveyor,” by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future.”)
4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. (“Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.”)
5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. (“However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.”)
6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. (“It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution” and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)
7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. (“It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.”)
8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. (“The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”)
9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. (“Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.”)
Sea rising 20 feet? The error in “An Inconvenient Truth” that attracts most of the attention is the claim that global warming soon will cause oceans to rise 20 feet.
Al Gore doesn’t give a specific time frame for this catastrophe, but at least by talking about today’s population numbers, he implies it will happen in our lifetimes, or at least in this century. In the film, he says:
“If [the West Antarctic ice shelf] were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. They’ve measured disturbing changes on the underside of the ice sheet. It’s considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that’s roughly the same size -- Greenland would also raise sea level almost 20 feet if it went....”
“If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolute devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people.
“Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9-11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.”
Less melting. The images of oceans surging two full stories, covering seaports and oceanfront homes, are dramatic. The trouble is, if you’re making Gore’s argument, you have no scientific basis to claim the West Antarctic ice shelf or Greenland’s ice is about to break up and melt into the sea this century or next.
The judge said:
“This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr. Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres [20 feet] might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shares the 2007 Nobel “Peace Prize” with Gore, also talks about the oceans rising, but the IPCC doesn’t see the same urgency. The IPCC worries that the Greenland ice sheet could melt, raising the ocean 7 to 23 inches this century and up to 23 feet over a period of thousands of years.
(Note: Christopher Monckton also has calculated that, based on the IPCC numbers, melting of both West Antarctica and Greenland ice will raise the sea level only 2.5 inches over the next 100 years. That 2.5 inches is 15 percent of the total 1-foot 5-inch rise the IPCC has reported as its average of predictions for the next 100 years. Other factors would add the other 14.5 inches.)
Size matters. Now, if the oceans have a good chance of rising 23 inches over the next 93 years, we have some serious work to do. But it’s nothing compared to the massive new construction and relocations that would be required if the oceans are likely to rise 20 feet.
Justice Burton wrote:
“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film....
“Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.”
Debate truly over? The judge noted that when the British government's Environment Secretary David Milliband and Education Secretary Alan Johnson jointly announced Feb. 2, 2007, that the "powerful Al Gore film" would be shown in every secondary school in England, Milliband said:
“The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over, as demonstrated by the publication of today’s report by the IPCC.
“Our energies should now be channelled into how we respond in an innovative and positive way in moving to a low carbon future. I was struck by the visual evidence the film provides, making clear that the changing climate is already having an impact on our world today, from Mount Kilimajaro to the Himalayan mountains.”
Guidance Note. The government had contended it balanced the politics of “An Inconvenient Truth” by referring to a “Guidance Note” posted on a Web site. But Justice Burton said the Guidance Note should add a few statements and take out others, and it could not simply be left on a Web site -- it has to go to the schools along with the movie.
The old Guidance Note included “possible teaching activities” that stifled critical thinking or contrary opinions. Here’s a question the old Guidance Note offered, supposedly to get the students talking:
“Is CO2 the cause of rising temperatures or is rising CO2 caused by rising temperatures? Sceptics say we don’t know -- what is the explanation in AIT?”
“AIT” is “An Inconvenient Truth.” The Guidance Note was saying, in effect, Some people say this and others say that, but what does the Bible (AIT) say? “Plainly this is unsatisfactory,” the judge found, “since it is common ground that the explanation in AIT is at best materially incomplete.”
‘Pressure politicians?’ The old Guidance Note also told students:
“Consider the reason why politicians may have wanted to ignore climate change. …
“What pressures can be put on politicians to respond to climate change?”
The government has revised the Guidance Note to the satisfaction of the judge, who considers the IPCC’s findings, not Al Gore’s, to be the scientific consensus. The Guidance Note now addresses the “nine errors” and suggests questions more likely to encourage students to challenge the conventional wisdom on global warming.
‘Constructive litigation.’ Justice Burton:
“[If] it has taken this hearing to identify and correct the flaws, it is impossible to think that teachers could have done so untutored. I am satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the more one-sided views of Mr. Gore, and, to some extent, by silence in the Guidance Note, those views were adopted, or at any rate discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was given), there would have been a breach of ss [sections] 406 and 407 of the [1996 Education] Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated. Indeed the spirit of co-operation in which this hearing has been carried through is a tribute to constructive litigation.”
Balance ordered. The (London) Guardian:
Awarding Mr. Dimmock two thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000 against the government, the judge said: “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new Guidance Note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”
These sections ban the political indoctrination of schoolchildren and require political views to be presented in a balanced way.
After Justice Burton issued his ruling, both Stewart Dimmock and a spokeswoman for Al Gore claimed victory. I don’t know who won, but for the first time, I had the feeling the debate on global warming had begun.
Finally.
Frank Warner
See also: Christopher Monckton: 35 inconvenient truths.
See also: Al Gore’s solutions to global warming.
See also: Are climate experts changing their minds on global warming?
See also: Wharton professor J. Scott Armstrong bets Al Gore $10,000 that the planet has stopped heating up.
Hi,
Al Gore's truth says humans are
causing global warming via our
generation of CO2. Others are
not of this opinion.
As Frank Warner draws out a true
point in his article...the debate
for the truth has finally begun!
Voltaier, a French philosopher,
once said "Before we begin our
debate/conversation, let us define
our terms."
So as the debate begins the terms
we need to have clear scientific
knowledge and understanding of are:
1. What is the entire mechanism
by which CO2 is generated by us
humans? And;
2. What is the entire mechanism
by which CO2 is generated by
the earth?
Thanks, and Good Luck,
Let the debate begin.
Frank Henry
Cottonwood, Arizona
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: [email protected]
Posted by: Frank Henry | October 16, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Well let's take a few of these and look at the actual science:
1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
two things here. First, the IPCC has backed away from the 20 foot claim, and says at most 3 feet - and that's the absolute WORST possible scenario.
Second, Greenland's glaciers are growing, not shrinking.
4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years.
That's true: but the relationship is that as temperatures rise, so does C02 by as much as an 800 year lag. This is because the ocean releases more C02 when the temperature rises, and stores more when it is cold. Think of the sea as a huge CO2 battery.
5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming.
While scientists since the 1800s have noted that the glaciers on Klimanjaro were shrinking, since 1998 they have been growing.
6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming.
The funny thing is, other areas nearby have gotten more water. Some of the Andes glaciers shrank, others grew. Is it specifically lying to tell only part of the picture? No, Gore might just be inexcusably uninformed.
Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming.
No reputable or capable atmospheric scientist on earth believes this. They uniformly reject it and point out that it was inevitable that New Orleans be hit by a hurricane eventually, and the devestation was caused by an incompetent, corrupt government and the refusal to build better flood protection levees despite being told repeatedly by experts that they wouldn't withstand a storm even weaker than Katrina.
Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice.
As the judge notes the only study finding drowned polar bears took place after a huge storm, and lacks any previous data to compare against. There is absolutely and factually a greater population of Polar Bears now than in any previous time in their history, according to the experts. This stresses their food supply, so they are traveling further and going places they previously had not, however.
And that's just the errors the judge mentions. There are a lot more.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 16, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Is the IPCC backing away from saying the oceans could rise 23 feet over several thousand years?
And on Kilimanjaro, I thought the new scientific thinking was that the recent lack of snow was the result of deforestation at the foothills. Without the forests, the idea is, the area cannot hold enough moisture to produce the snows it once had.
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 16, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Is the IPCC backing away from saying the oceans could rise 23 feet over several thousand years?
The latest 2007 IPCC report absolutely reduced it to 3 feet (1 meter) at the outside, the most. They also reduced the maximum temperature increase by a significant amount.
Gore bases his entire powerpoint show on the 2001 IPCC report, which included the hockey stick graph that is the laughing stock of the scientific community. They've since abandoned much of what he's using for his movie and book, and talk.
Not that he's changing his story, because it was never about the environment, it was always about a crusade, a way to get notice, attention, money, and power.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 16, 2007 at 07:23 PM
The IPCC's February 2007 Fourth Assessment Report said oceans could rise 23 feet (7 meters) over a period of millennia.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 17, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Sea Level Issues
If you access publicly available information on the size of the Greenland Ice Cap, it is fairly easy to calculate an estimate for its potential effect on sea level. You need to know the size of Greenland (don’t go by maps, they exaggerate its size), the surface area of the oceans and the average thickness of the ice. I did the calculation myself and come up with 4.6 meters. While this is substantially less than the 20 feet suggested, it is in the ballpark. It is only a rough estimate and does not take into account the effect of expansion when water temperatures increase. I do not believe that Gore said this would happen by any specific date. He just said if the ice cap melted, that’s what would happen. This statement is incontrovertible. The debate is over whether such an event is likely. The judge did not believe it was. By the way, the numbers for Antarctica are much higher.
The problem with stating something as a hypothetical is that people deliberately misinterpret you as saying it will happen and accuse you of being alarmist. Antarctica, at least, is melting. It is not alarmist to point out real possibilities. The important question in my mind revolves around the complexity of the Earth system. There may well be positive feedback loops and catastrophe events triggered by the accumulated impact of gradual changes. Examples are the creation of the Scablands by a sudden release of fresh water, or the creation of the Mediterranean Sea, or the onset of the Younger Dryas. Another might be the takeover of the Atlantic fisheries by jellyfish. Things are connected in startling ways. The core problem is that there are things that we don't know about the System, but we do know from geologic history that it is capable of misbehaving to our detriment. Let me quote from a Science editorial from 2006, March 24:
Posted by: jj mollo | October 17, 2007 at 12:26 PM
The judge said, in effect, that he does believe the ice cap is melting, particularly around Greenland, but that it would take thousands of years of continued melting for it to rise the 20 feet Gore was talking about.
I believe that, as Gore was talking about the 20-foot rise in the movie, he was showing animated graphics of New York City being flooded. That gave the impression this 20 feet of flooding was about to happen in this century.
If you're doing a serious documentary, you've got to nail down things like dates, and avoid implying false chronologies or false urgency. Gore could just as easily have said the Earth will freeze and die some day, as it probably will.
That ocean-rising question, it seems to me, is the most important question in the global warming debate. The height of oceans affects everything, and the timing of its rise affects how urgently we must respond and how much money we'll have to spend on the response.
One or 2 feet means pull back from the banks a little. Twenty feet means run for the hills.
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 17, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Interesting, the information I have from earlier in the year from the IPCC clearly states they believed it would raise no more than 1 meter. So now what, which is true?
In any case, the 20 foot estimate was based on the absolute worst possible case scenario, and was clearly stated as being in this century, at least in the 2001 report.
The movie shows a huge flood of water pouring into New York like the ludicrous Day After Tomorrow movie, when even if this somehow takes place it would be a matter of rising an inch every few months at most, which you can adapt to rather than a sudden wall of water.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 17, 2007 at 02:57 PM
The British judge, Justice Burton, did a wonderful job with the subject. I hope every school begins its study of global warming with a reading of that Oct. 10, 2007, opinion.
The link is in my post, at the words, "his ruling."
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 17, 2007 at 05:52 PM
From the Science article I quoted, it is suggested that 50 meters is the worst case scenario. I presume this would involve complete melting of the Antarctic ice as well as Greenland. There would probably also be expansion of sea water from rising global temperatures. What could cause such a thing? I can imagine a variety of processes that could lead to that outcome. You could too if you weren't convinced that it's impossible. The thing that worries me is that there may be a runaway chain reaction waiting to happen that we don't know about yet. In other words, we are pushing our luck with this CO2 stuff. We're like a kid playing with a mousetrap when we don't know how it works.
Posted by: jj mollo | October 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Then again, we could take some drastic measures to cool things off, just in time to find out we were in for a natural Ice Age all along. Man, that would be bad timing.
By the way, I've seen lots of references to doubts about warming in most of Antarctica. Is it true the snow is getting deeper there? (Maybe the snow can get deeper even if the ice is thinning.)
Another point: Several people have been arguing that average temperatures haven't risen in at least 10 years. That's interesting, in that our extra CO2 doesn't seem to be pumping up the heat. On the other hand, if the last 10 years are the hottest 10 years of the last 150 years, and if the current heat is melting Greenland's ice, that ice is going to continue melting until average temperatures actually go down. (And they're aren't going down.)
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM
No, you have it wrong. I'm not convinced it's not impossible, I'm convinced that it's not going to happen and that the science clearly shows differently. I reject it because the evidence doesn't support it, logic doesn't support it, and the fantastical, hysterical shreikings of people like Vice President Gore are causing harm.
And Greenlands ice is not melting it's getting thicker.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 18, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Now wait a minute. Who says Greenland's ice is getting thicker?
Posted by: Frank Warner | October 18, 2007 at 02:19 AM