Thursday, October 11, 2007

One Man Challenges the World According to Gore

Stewart Dimmock of Kent, England deserves a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, though I doubt he’ll make the list.

This is the man who took Britain’s Department of Children, Schools and Families to court over their decision to brainwash children via a mandatory showing in British school’s of Al Gore’s highly politicized “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Mr. Dimmock took them to court and won a surprising victory. The High Court judge will allow the film to be shown, but it has to be accompanied by a study guide explaining the errors in Mr. Gore’s sensationalist diatribe. Actually the words the judge used to describe the film were “alarmist” and “Armageddon.”

Mr. Justice Burton deserves a large thank-you for his careful exegesis of The Terrible, Awful, No-Good World of AlGore. I never thought to see this smack-down come so soon… what a pleasant surprise.

There are nine errors the Judge found, but he begins with a damned-by-faint-praise preface to his enumeration:

…while the film was dramatic and highly professional, it formed part the ex-politician’s global crusade on climate change and not all the claims were supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus.

The fact is that few, if any climatology experts agree with Mr. Gore’s publicity stunt. His list of “experts” is risible:

Al Gore, Climate CzarAl Gore and other global warming enthusiasts are fond of reciting that 2,611 scientists have signed a letter stating that global warming poses a serious and real threat. Yet, only about one in ten of the so-called 2611 scientists had scientific expertise. And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent. Excuse me, for being underwhelmed.

Perhaps more revealing is that Gore’s list of “scientists” included landscape architects, psychologists, lawyers, a philosopher, a dermatologist, a gynecologist, and a diplomat. On this flimsy basis, as only Al Gore can, he tells us that the “debate is over” and that there is complete agreement.

The truth is that more than 17,000 scientists (not landscape architects, dermatologists or diplomats) have signed a petition stating, in part, that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” This petition was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research foundation that is not funded by industry. This petition was signed by more than 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists and by more than another 4,400 scientists with expertise on carbon dioxide’s effects on plant and animal life.

An inconvenient truth that Gore has failed to reveal are his low grades in Environmental Science when he was in college. The truth is, looking back at Gore’s life you see a trail littered with lies, including the most infamous fabrication prior to his Chicken Little global warming mythology — his claim that he invented the internet. Sure you did, Al.

Here are the nine inconvenient facts the judge listed in contradicting Mr. Gore’s film:
- - - - - - - - -

Error one

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr. Gore’s “wake-up call”. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water — “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Error two

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” — the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four

Gore: He asserted — by ridiculing the opposite view — that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

Error five

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.

Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Error six

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

Error seven

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

Error eight

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances — up to 60 miles — to find the ice”.

Judge: “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.” That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued — “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

Error nine

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Our thanks to the judge for making these substantial cracks in the foundations of AlGore’s questionable hypothesis. It is comforting to know that at least Britain has some kind of check in place to prevent a nationwide brainwashing of school children.

Soon this alarmist piece of propaganda will join its ancestors in the memory hole. Remember global cooling in the ’70s? Remember Jimmy Carter wearing his cardigan sweater while he told us that oil was quickly running out and we’d all have to turn our thermostats down? Remember the Club of Rome’s dire predictions about the limits to growth and the coming worldwide famine? Remember Dr. Caldicott’s zealous belief that the nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia was inevitable? All down the fond memory hole — “fond” in Shakespeare’s sense, I mean.

Finally we have the beginnings of Gore’s spiral into darkness. With the big money backing he has, it won’t be an immediate spiral to join the other alarmists and Henny Pennys of the last two centuries. And just because Gore’s bizarre theories are being discredited doesn’t mean we will stop hearing from him. just as Jimmah from the Ummah remains quite visible in the pages of the MSM, so will Gore.

Come to think of it, both of these charlatans are excellent examples of the Peter Principle. The Nobel Peace Prize seems to have more than its share of charlatans. A century from now their nominee lists will be as respectfullly remembered as an "Inconvenient Truth." The mills of God grind slowly...

It's unfortunate that Gaia can't sue Gore for slander.

14 comments:

Dennis Mahon said...

And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent.

Why am I not surprised?

New Sisyphus said...

Does anyone have a link to the opinion itself? That would be most helpful if some kind soul could point me to it.

livfreerdie said...

Found this. Not sure if it is what you want.

http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp


Tom

Dymphna said...

livefreerdie --

I do think your tiny url is a good explanation of the process which went into drawing up the Nine Errors.

Here is the hot link:

Inaccuracies in Al Gore

This is a link to the New Party site, of which Mr. Dimmock, who brought the suit, is a member.

It prefaces the Nine inaccuracies with this:

This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.


IOW, British children will now learn an important civics lesson on propaganda.

I only wish it could happen here.

Dymphna said...

Oops..forgot to post this comment by AK, from Canada:

"I haven't seen Gore's film (don't wanna!) but I did see a clip in a DVD preview, about how the hottest years in the past century were all recent. However, since NASA recently reversed itself and said that the hottest were all in the first third of last century, there ought to be a tenth point in that regard."

Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pleas said...

You say: "This petition was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research foundation that is not funded by industry."

How then, do you explain the following statement, taken right from the Institute's homepage: "The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds."

You might do well to check out the following web pages:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Particularly enlightening, from the last place: "When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all."

Am I right in thinking these people (whose funding, by the way, remains obscure) are no better than Gore, and possibly worse?

Dymphna said...

Well, your comment is somewhat off topic in that I am mainly addressing the Nine Errors that British children will be told to avoid.

However, you can probably find the funding sources for the Oregon Istitute by looking in "activist cash."

Meanwhile, the place you quoted,Source Watch, is part of the far-left Center for Media and Democracy.

The latter is headed by Sheldon Rampton. Here's his bio:

Sheldon Rampton is John Stauber’s partner at the Center for Media & Democracy and his regular co-author as well. Rampton has a background in left-leaning journalism, as a veteran contributor to publications such as The Nation and In These Times. He has also helped to direct the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, taking part in a project that he said “channeled more than $7 million in loans to Nicaragua” while that nation was under Sandinista (Marxist) control.

In an overview of these guys, activistcash.com says:

Despite his wild claims that federal agencies have covered up U.S. mad cow disease cases, John Stauber [the co-director] has become a quotable celebrity on the subject. In 1997, at the height of the initial mad-cow panic, a CMD press release warned: Evidence suggests there may already be a mad-cow-type of disease infecting both U.S. pigs and cattle. Rampton and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was one of only four mad-cow experts offered to reporters by Fenton Communications’ media arm, Environmental Media Services.

Mad cow disease kind of died out as a scare tactic in the US, didn't it? Not that it doesn't exist, but compared to thousands of other medical concerns, it's not even on the charts.

So you can cherry pick what you want, from whichever end of the spectrum appeals to you.

The state climatologist for Virginia, Michael Patrick (from University of VA), thinks the global climate is "robust." He, too, finds Gore's "theories" suspect and alarmist.

To get a good bead on Gore -- his background, strategy, and tactics, I suggest you read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." It's chock full of PhD meteorologists and climatologists, all saying Gore is (my paraphrase) a millenial whacko. People who cry
"Apocalypse" too often will eventually be ignored.

While I feel sorry for Gore when that moment comes, it is still obvious that he lacks all integrity. From his run for president where he tearfully described his sister's death from lung cancer and his vows against tobacco (while the family farm continued to grow its allotment of that fine weed for years after her death) to his strong-arm tactics on anyone who disagrees with his claims -- after all, consensus has been reached: shut up, y'all" -- Gore has proved himself to lack integrity or authenticity. That's what happens when your daddy decides the day you're born that you're going to be President.

Not even his home state voted for Gore. Tennessee knows what he is and they said "no thanks."

If you want a balanced view, read Bjorn Lomborg's latest book on the subject, "Cool It." Remember how in 2001, he wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and the extremists tried to drive him out? He's the original Holocaust Denier, dontcha know? Well, at least when he's not being compared to Hitler, that is.

He buys into the man-made aspects of "global" warming, but I think he does so to put that argument aside and dwell on the actual effects of such a scenario. The extremists put their hands over their ears and sing
"lalalalalala" until the moderate voices fade out.

Beats reality.

IOW, I don't trust your source, Source Watch. Just look at who they attack, and who funds them. Follow the money.

For fun, read NR's newest
blog, Planet Gore. It's a reality check from the right.

atheling2 said...

Hooray for Stewart Dimmock!

Now if only we can geth this through our own Lefties' thick heads.

Anthony (Los Angeles) said...

We shouldn't be surprised that Al won the prize --the awards themselves are a spectacular farce. I blog about them here: And the award for the biggest joke is....

(I hope I did that right....)

Gringo_Malo said...

As I wrote elsewhere, the Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the U.S. senators who voted against ratification of Algore's Kyoto Protocol. If the U.S. had signed onto Kyoto, we'd be paying third world dictators a whole lot of money for carbon emission rights, which is to say, for nothing. The third world dictators, in turn, would use the money to acquire weapons and wage war on their tribal enemies. Actually, Algore worked against world peace.

hank_F_M said...

pleas

You wrote:

This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.


In the 1920’s and 30’s meteorologists realized that in theory climate and weather could be analyzed and even predicted if you looked at the atmosphere as the “physics of currents over a spherical surface.” Unfortunately the mathematics needed to do this manually require a massive amount of man years to accomplish. But they proposed “primitive equations” to do this. In the 1950’s it was became possible to use computers to make simplified models that only used part of the primitive equations, this was the case at least into the 1980’s. There have been significant upgrades in computers and models since then. But there is still no model that has been independently validated. Some Dutch scholars recently have proposed a theory about one of the holes in the models but it will take at least ten years to check this out, incorporate into the models and see what it does to Global Warming predictions.

Many of the objections to GW claims come’s from Mathematicians and Physicists who “checked the arithmetic” on there own computers. There is also significant question from the Earth Sciences.

I think if Mathematicians and Physicists are worried their’s is a very relevant statement


My post on the subject. Warmmonger Considered for Peace Prize But my source sited 11 errors of fact, I wonder what is happening.

Dymphna said...

Gringo--

What a great idea! The anti-Kyoto understanding in this country has saved our economy.

And the EU countries have not come anywhere near the demands they made on themselves.

What these fools don't understand about human nature is that when a place is prosperous and stable, it looks around and begins cleaning up after itself. That's why Russia was such a *huge* polluter: there was stability all right, but no prosperity. In fact, one of the reasons the reports of the rise in global temp happened is that the now-flattened USSR simply closed down their reporting stations. I guess if you don't factor Siberia into your equations, things change, huh?

hank_f_m:

Thanks for the input. That was valubale.

As for the 11 vs 9 errors, it was due to the interim judge's report. The High Court removed one and conflated two...there's a link above, in my last comment, to the New Party. They explain the process...they were the ones who brought the thing to court.

Buy the next Brit you meet a pint, and thank him.

USpace said...

The Goracle will keep screaming about the existence of the Man-Bear-Pig forever...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
SCARE little children

preferably with facts
but at least exaggerate


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
judges should have NO rights

to protect children from lies
brainwashing MUST continue
.