Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

A Response to Team Gore: 35 Inconvenient Truths

By

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

Read the full response:

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. The judge also said he agreed with the IPCC and it’s findings on AGW, and that most of the film was correct.

    On that basis he would ban TGGWS, since it is disagrees with the IPCC.

  3. What from Monckton – might as well ask the bloke down the pub. A bloke who doctors his own Wiki pages. Come on Paul – go back to Pielke – this stuff is just crap.

    If you’re going to insist on “prohibiting the political indoctrination of children” – that’s the end to all history books and literature. Do you guys actually run this tripe with a straight face. I guess noone should snigger eh?


  5. Nice to see Gore’s spokesperson continues the thread of “truths” with exaggerations,porkies and attacks on anyone who disagrees with Gore.
    (waits patiently for SJT and Luke)….

  6. Luke,

    Thanks for revealing Monckton’s crapulence, but as you are a bit short on detail, perhaps you could fill us in just where Geoff has got it wrong, and where Al has got it right.

  7. Allen it’s a threshold test for gullibility. See how many you can get. Here’s one.

    ” A well-established tree very close to the Maldivian shoreline and only inches above sea level was recently uprooted by Australian environmentalists anxious to destroy this visible proof that sea level cannot have risen very far.”

    Total fabrication ! Don’t assume you’re dealing with a fair go here.

  9. “until recently by the National Tidal Facility of Australia show a mean annual sea-level rise over the past half-century equivalent to the thickness of a human hair.” WRONG – it’s in several mm year

  10. “when the scientific literature is unanimous to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration. ”

    No it doesn’t – and Moncky boy should cite his refences. Pure unsubstantiated opinion. You can’t get the temperature rise simply with orbital forcings.

  11. “Research by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, cited by Ms. Kreider, has been discredited by more recent findings that wind-shear effects tend to nullify the amplification of hurricane strength which he had suggested, and, of course, by the observed failure of hurricanes to gain strength during the past 60 years of “global warming.”

    NO – Emmanuel hasn’t been discredited at all – and the above totally misrepresents the situation – there is an increase in the power index of fast storms and multi-decadal forces and inter-annual like wind shear are important. Nobody is saying they’re not. What a try-on.

  12. At this popint we’re only at a canter – could get the guns out – but why bother – wasted effort.
    Fancy using Axel’s tree !! giggle and sneer.

  13. Luke

    It’s like those zombie movies. You kill em, and think the’re dead, but they rise up again. How many times do you have to beat them up?