Should British school children be warned of the bias in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth?

I should probably have pointed out to those who didn’t know that teaching partisan (i.e. extremely biased) views to children in the U.K. was outlawed by the 1996 Education Act.

‘203’ – I suppose I should have posted this link for all those who hadn’t seen it… http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf It lists all the errors in both the film and book versions. Am I biased against someone who lies through his teeth to con people into believing something? Let me think…. YES! Shouldn’t everyone be?

‘Kacky’ – You say – “It frightens me the way Republicans think they can explain away the horrible things we are doing to our planet.” Well, I suppose I agree, but don’t you think it’s just as wrong to lie through your teeth to persuade people that the situation is worse than it is? You comment: “Have fun drowning polar bears.” But you’re basing this comment on what Al Gore has manipulated you into believing. See the link above which points out that Al Gore… “Claims that polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” but this is based on a single report that found four drowned polar bears in one month in one year, following an abrupt storm.”

Remember, polar bears are actually doing fine. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, who has spent a lifetime studying polar bears, says…

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present… it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria. (See… http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stan... )

‘dana1981’ – As usual you’re in denial about how bad the film is. You say: “Should teachers have to specify… that there are people who think the Holocaust didn't happen…” and I agree that they almost certainly shouldn’t. But, let’s put this into perspective, shall we? Al Gore suggests sea-level rises that are *ten times* the IPCC’s *highest* estimates. So are you suggesting that it would be ok to teach our children about the Holocaust by showing them a film that claimed *sixty* million Jews were killed? I would argue that that would be almost as bad as teaching them it never happened.

By my submission we should be teaching our children the “middle of the road” view, not one extreme or the other.

You then say, yet again, that the film got “the basic science right”, so why don’t we simply teach the kids that ‘basic science’? Why do we have to pollute it with all Gore’s fanciful, scaremongering rubbish?

I defy you to tell me, in all honesty, that you think I’m wrong on this.

‘T’ – I tend to agree with most of what you said. However, you state that the ruling “only implies that the film is designed to support his (gore's) arguments”, and his views are extreme, which would suggest that there should be a similar film offering the case for the *other end* of the extreme – but no such film is provided to our vulnerable children. As I stated above, wouldn’t it simply be better to scrap the whole film and simply show a “middle of the road” view?

Your final comment includes… “The government in the U.K. would simply like people to realize that they do not consider it the only view…” No, you’re quite wrong, actually. In fact, it’s more accurate to say: the U.K. Government would simply like people to think that Gore’s view is the *only* view.

Remember, it’s not the Government that has decided this; it’s the law courts that are forcing them to include the new guidelines.

‘poumista’ – Your answer is slightly bizarre. Whilst, I tend to agree with your points about magazines and advertising, we’re talking about how we teach our children in school, here, which is a slightly different kettle of fish.

Your comment about the fact that this was reported in the Daily Mail is just silly. We’re talking about a law court ruling here; what possible difference does it make where it was reported? (It’s a typical Global Warming Alarmist tactic though.) I could counter by pointing out that a quick search of The Guardian’s website shows no sign of the story. Are they trying to cover it up?

‘John Sol’ – I remind you that promoting partisan views in schools is illegal in the U.K.

You say that “The judge passed no judgement on the accuracy of any information…”, but the Telegraph reports that there were “…concerns voiced by the judge during the hearing that Gore's critically-acclaimed work contained statements about global warming for which there was currently insufficient scientific evidence.” – which suggests that your statement is wrong.

You also attempt to claim the issue is irrelevant simply because it is reported by the Daily Mail. Perhaps you’d care to explain to me why a law court ruling is more or less important based on which newspapers report it?

Your final comment is “Listening does not take place unluss [sic] you are willing to be affected by what you hear.” This is rich coming from a person who has blocked me from answering their questions!!!!

‘Paul H’ – So, given your final paragraph, you’re basically agreeing with me then?

‘Paul H’ again – OK, I happy to discuss your points…

Yes, the details are a little thin, but that’s because Justice Burton is going to be delivering his full ruling next week, so we should get more details then.

You say “Accepting the science as correct, is it that controversial to argue that we probably need to take action to mitigate the effects of global warming?” Ah, a very good question indeed. Well, it depends on where you believe the science leads. Let’s take sea-level rise. The average of all six scenarios in the latest IPCC report suggests a most likely rise of about 14 inches. That’s about twice the rise of the last century, which, let’s face facts, nobody would have even noticed if the alarmists hadn’t been brainwashing people about it. So, does it really sound that bad, 14 inches in the next 93 years? That’s about an inch every six or seven years. It’s doesn’t exactly strike the fear of God into me.

But what does Gore say? 20 feet!!!! Now, to be fair, the IPCC have halved their best estimate of the highest rise from 3 feet to less than 17 inches, but still, inflating 3 feet to 20 feet is still a case of extreme exaggeration. Does Gore temper this by telling people that the IPCC’s lowest estimate is a mere 7 inches – the same as the last century? Does he heck! Why? Because he’s scaremongering.

Gore even admits this himself! He has been quoted as saying that global warming is such an important issue that it’s ok to have an “over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is”. At best that’s admitting to exaggeration, at worst he’s admitting to lying. I have little doubt that someone like you will attempt to claim that this quote means something entirely different, but I’m confident that any impartial person would agree that the phrase “over-representation” means (at least) exaggerate.

And sea-level rise is just one example. The CEI document points out almost 100 problems with his presentation. Can you honestly dismiss the whole lot as irrelevant simply because the source is the CEI? And you say the sceptics are in denial?!

Actually, for the time being, I believe the answer *is* to “do nothing”. Despite what the alarmists would have us believe, the science is not settled, as David Miliband discovered to his embarrassment earlier this year when he told a conference on climate change that the science of climate and carbon dioxide was simple and settled and was greeted with cries of “Rubbish”.

The truth is that climate change *might* be a problem *sometime* in the future, but we have problems *right now*! Should we divert resources away from these real, current problems towards fixing a possible, future problem? One example: 2 million children die every year due to a lack of clean drinking water. We could fix that problem right now with enough resources. Will *you* tell the families of the children who die why you feel that global warming is more important than their children? And will you face their questions again in the future if you turn out to be wrong?

And anyway, what would you have us do? If the UK were to shut down completely and stop all CO2 production, China would replace our CO2 contributions in just two years. So our huge sacrifice (that would likely cause a real catastrophe) would achieve what, exactly? Or should we stop China developing, perhaps? But who are you to deny the Chinese the luxuries that we enjoy?

Currently, all that’s being suggested are petty tax incentives that do little to combat climate change, but a lot to raise extra revenue and get votes. It’s all a scam, frankly.

So what do we teach the kids about policy? I don’t know, but nobody else does either – that’s the point. So we don’t teach them anything about policy, we simply teach them the science – and the “middle of the road” science, not Gore’s scaremongering take on it.

Have you read the CEI’s full report on An Inconvenient Truth? It makes interesting reading (See… http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm ) but I doubt that you’d bother.

I agree with you that an unbiased film, made by scientists, would be far better for our children, but I resent your implication that my motivation for criticising AIT is politically motivated. I couldn’t care less about Gore’s political leanings, what I care about is the truth, and in AIT that’s something that’s pretty thin on the ground.

You then say that “the science is unequivocally telling us that our actions are going to make the world a less pleasant place to live in.” But that’s utter nonsense. You’re assuming that the climate we have here, now is the best climate we could ever have, or ever have had. How can you possibly verify such a claim? You simply can’t. You are *guessing* what a warmer world will be like for us. I could just as easily claim that a warmer world would be better. For a start, cold weather in the winter kills around ten times as many people as hot weather in the summer, so there’s one way that warming would immediately benefit us.

Is it really very likely that at the exact (exact in terms of the vast timescales we’re talking about) moment that mankind becomes able to monitor his climate and notice that it’s changing, that we just *happen* to be living at the perfect, optimal climate? It’s just a little bit unlikely, isn’t it?

Let’s face facts: the whole global warming alarmist effort is to convince us that climate change is dramatic and will be catastrophic, and they do everything they can to portray it in the most extreme terms. However, we could represent the temperature change over the last century like this… http://www.michaelcrichton.com/NPC-NewVersion_file... That graph is completely accurate, just scaled differently. Doesn’t look like anything to be worried about really, does it? But every graph we are ever shown is carefully scaled to make the changes look as extreme as possible. It all comes across as somewhat disingenuous to me – and that immediately leaves me sceptical. I’m an honest guy (to a fault, I’m told), so when I find that I’m being lied to, it tends to make me wonder why.

This is why I tend to agree with Christopher Monckton’s method for assessing claims: look at the actual scientific data, and then look at what it being said about it. If what is being said is about right, then that’s fine. If what is being said is inaccurate, but the inaccuracies are as often one way as the other, that that’s not as good, but it’s still ok. However, if there are inaccuracies and they are always in one direction, then we’re being had. And with global warming, *all* the exaggerations are in one direction only – everyone always quotes the most extreme case they can find. Is this a fair representation of the science? Hardly! We’re being had. I’d stake my house on it.

The dana’s and Bob’s of this world are constantly telling us that 99+% of scientists agree. Well, if that’s really true, then 98+% of them are being very quite about it. I can’t help thinking that, in about 30 years, we’ll look back at the global warming scare and people will be saying exactly what the dana’s and Bob’s of today are currently saying about the cooling scare of 30 years ago: that it was just a few vocal people saying that, and the vast majority of scientists didn’t think it was a big problem.

As I’m constantly saying – don’t believe the hype.

‘Paul H’ again – 20 feet of sea level rise. Indeed. I read a paper recently that suggested sea-level rise from ice melt amounted to only 3.5mm per decade. By my calculations that would mean 20 feet of seal-level rise would take over 17 *thousand* years. Can we therefore agree that this claim of 20 feet of sea-level rise is pure, unfounded scaremongering?

Would that, on its own, be enough to ban it as a teaching aid in our schools?

But it’s not the only problem, is it?

How about hurricane Katrina? Was that proof positive of the catastrophe we face from global warming? I would bet that you know it wasn’t. Katrina wasn’t the “biggest hurricane ever” as implied by the film. It wasn’t even the biggest of 2005 (it was the 3rd). The truth is, if Katrina hadn’t hit New Orleans, it would have been utterly forgettable. It wasn’t even a Category 5 when it hit. It was already declining; it had reduced to a Cat 4, and fell to a Cat 3 shortly after landfall. So why the big deal? Because New Orleans is built 6m below sea-level and has flood defences only designed to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane. New Orleans was devastated 3 times by hurricanes in the 1800s, long before global warming started.

The disaster of Katrina/New Orleans had absolutely nothing to do with global warming.