David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he?
The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration."

Those who have an open mind

That automatically excludes you, and it is noticeable that you fail to
quote from the judgement but instead quote from a subjective, biased
assesment of the judgement.

Within the judgement we find Justice Burton observing:

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition,
do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his
political thesis."

And in his requirement to draft appropriate guidance for teachers, the
following was inserted;

"they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence
critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion; "


On the specific objections to the film:

(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying
factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with
insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication
that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading
use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and
one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils
meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an
independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the
demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences
requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in
order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

J. Burton held these comments to be useful, and the judgement makes it
clear that these objections are upheld.

Furthermore of the nine points raised, the judgement is explicit:

1. Sea level rise of 20ft ... in the near future

Judgement: "Distinctly alarmist" "not in line with the scientific
consensus"

2. ... Pacific atolls are being inundated ... (that's why the citizens
... have all had to evacuate ...)

Judgement: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation"

3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor"

Judgement: "It is very unlikely" [i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in
temperature ...

Judgement: " the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."
[i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. [recede because of man-made global warming]

Judgement: " it cannot be established"

6. Lake Chad [drying up]

Judgement: " far more likely to result from other factors,"

7. Hurricane Katrina

Judgement: "insufficient evidence "

8. Death of polar bears

Judgement: "it plainly does not support Mr Gore 's description."

9. Coral reefs.

Judgement: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report,
is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,
there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality"

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.




So much better to refer to the source, rather than biased opinion, eh?