Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report:
a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An
Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.
It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this
Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?
For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver
filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in
England's public schools.
According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart
Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc
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.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to
the attention of school children.
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence
global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that
this is not correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising
CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found
that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2
lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert
had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events
to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept
that this was not the case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned
due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had
misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was
because of a particularly violent storm.
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream
throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that
this was a scientific impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral
reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to
support this claim.
8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt
causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that
Greenland will not melt for millennia.
9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the
evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred
years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation
of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable
to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be
a false claim.
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an
American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can
make similar determinations.
Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media
wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?