An English judge generally sympathetic to Gore's belief that man is causing global warming has nevertheless ruled that Gore's book is partisan, biased, and contains many factual errors and distortions.

Why should Gore get a Nobel for a book (and film) filled with factual errors?

Why shouldn't the Nobel be reserved for actual scientists who have some expertise in the area -- and a record of accuracy? Rather than a political hack?

OpenMarket.org
Court Finds Inconvenient Truths
Iain Murray | 10/10/2007 @ 9:17 am

The British government decided that it would be a good idea to send copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to all schools, with then Environment Secretary (now Foreign Secretary) David Miliband declaring that “the debate over science is over.” Well, it may be, but not in the way Gore portrays it. A truck driver and school governor, Stuart Dimmock, took the government to court, alleging that the film portrays “partisan political views,” the promotion of which is illegal in schools under the Education Act 1996.

The judge has decided that this is indeed the case and that the Government’s guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students’ attention:

"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.

The inaccuracies are:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* 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.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* 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.

* 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."


This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and - in one case - making things up. These inconvenient truths for the former Vice President have been covered up or obscured by the hype surrounding his film. Students will now realize that there are significant shortcomings and inaccuracies in the way the global warming scare has been presented to them. This is a victory for honest debate, a victory for science and a victory for education.

http://www.openmarket.org/
2007/10/10/
court-finds-inconvenient-truths/

I’m playing a drinking game today: a shot for every wingnut I can find who points out the obvious liberal bias of the Nobel committee, citing either

a) the 2005 Peace Prize for Mohamed El Baradei (tried to rain on the neocons’ happy to Iraq), or

b) the Literature Prize from the same year for Harold Pinter (has some kind of unreasonable beef with American imperialism).

I expect to be wrecked by mid-afternoon.

Hans, the judge made so such finding. Iain Murray has simply misrepresented the decision:

The judge rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the distribution of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to British schools. Justice Burton agreed that

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie. This has been misreported by the press as a conclusion that the movie contain nine errors.

My analysis is here.

samuil: Or the Peace Prizes to Arafat, Kissinger, Sadat, Menchu, Carter...

This wasn't hard to predict, though it's kind of depressing.

Funny. We'll see in a week if the Onion agrees.

Samuil:

I was going to post almost exactly the same thing.

Instead, I'll suggest a longer-term drinking game for regular Volokh readers: take a shot everytime some major institution or other is accused of having been greatly damaged/destroyed because liberals/leftists have taken it over. This would include not just the Nobel Committee, but also:

Higher education (professors and/or students) (extra shot if the word "Marxist" or "communist" is used);

Public education at the primary-high school level (extra shot if unions of school teachers are blamed);

The "mainstream" media (extra shot for mention of Dan Rather);

The ABA (extra shot for claims that "lawyers" in general or big firm lawyers are liberals);

Significant numbers of religious leaders (extra shot for claims that clergy don't understand economics);

White-collar, permanent employees of government agencies (extra shot for snide use of the word "bureaucrat" and/or for claim that their conscious goal is to undermine Bush).

Any non-U.S. legal body or its decisions (extra shot for accusing certain S.Ct. Justices of not caring about U.S. sovereignty).

Why shouldn't the Nobel be reserved for actual scientists who have some expertise in the area -- and a record of accuracy? Rather than a political hack?

C'mon, it's not that bad. They gave one to Arafat, after all.

Alfred Nobel invented many things, including dynamite. He thought his explosives would bring peace, and perhaps they did eventually. Europe has lost its taste for organized warfare, having returned to the prehistoric style of trying to bash rival tribesmen with any available object. Since these battles occur mostly at soccer matches, societies sustain little damage.
That result was hard to predict in 1895, when Nobel wrote his final will. Feeling kinda bad about the whole merchant of death thing, he dedicated his fortune to prizes, mostly given in fields like science, where progress has been cumulative for centuries, but also for contributions to world peace. So far, the world peace biz has not produced a Newton, and there is little in the way of tested peace theory. Considering the complexity of the system, this is understandable. The recipient of a Prize must be alive at nomination, so the real effects of an individual on history are often unknown at the time. Add the likely makeup of the committee that awards the Peace Prize, and you end up with a recipe for a prize that I would probably hide in a closet, or refuse if I wasn't hard up for cash.

Nice try, Orin, but Scrappleface had that joke about 2 hours before you did.

Maybe after Bush ghost-writes a few books, he will be eligible.

Very similar choice to Jimmy Carter a couple years back. The award has no value at all anymore, does it?

JosephSlater: What a coincidence! The right wingers also believe that all those institutions have had to bend to the will of the powerful 'homosexual activists' as well.

Only Rush is willing to tell it 'like it is.'

So now the moment of truth arrives: has Al Gore been playing up the global warming issue because he genuinely cares about it, or has he only been using it as a means to be a Democratic Party talking head by attacking its ideological opponents? If Gore actually cares about this issue, he'll step into the Democratic primary race and use the office of the President to actually do something about global warming. If he actually cared, he'd do it, because Gore himself constantly argues that we must do something in the next few years to stop global warming or we are screwed. Why would he leave that task to the most Bush-like candidate in the Democratic Party - Hillary Clinton - when he could do much more himself?

I'm calling Gore out. Let's see what he REALLY stands for.

As usual, it depends on what Justice Kennedy's self-dramatizing muse tells him to do.

sss33, great job "calling Gore out." If you could get sss1-32 to join you, he'll have to cave into the pressure and at least make a statement.

Manbearpig is going down.

It's super cereal.

I hear Gore is going to produce "An Inconvenient Truth" as a musical. He wants to add a Tony and Grammy to his list of awards for fashionable faux science.

HAHAHA...the best you guys can do to insult al gore is quote from an old south park episode!? that's kinda sad especially when gore wasn't funny in it. the best part of that episode was watching cartman hide all of that fake treasure in his rectum...including the full sized crown.

I think I'm qualified.

Joseph - if I bring up all 7 in one comment, will you drink 7 shots in a row?

Nick

Only someone telling tall tales and selling snake oil will consistently refuse to debate.

It's now been one year, 9 months, 1 week and 23 1/2 hours since Al Gore was sent the first of a series of registered letters, inviting him to publicly defend his conjecture in a University venue. But he still hides out. And that, folks, says it all.

amfield, Al Gore has not brought Peace to the World. He is the messenger of the information of abrupt climate change due to global warming the denialists have tried (unsuccessfully) to shut out. That is why he won the Nobel prize -- he succeeded in overcoming the denialists censorship of what everyone knows and see is happening that is threatening the survivial of all human life.

I'm pretty sure annual giving of the award is not mandatory

They've skipped various years, due to wars for instance.

Elmer

He thought his explosives would bring peace, and perhaps they did eventually

Actually, he thought nitroglycerin was so terrible in its potential effects that he wished to make amends...

"I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse and award the prize to Bush in a 5-4 vote."

Limiting their consideration to the "present circumstances," of course.

amfield, Al Gore has not brought Peace to the World. He is the messenger of the information of abrupt climate change due to global warming the denialists have tried (unsuccessfully) to shut out. That is why he won the Nobel prize -- he succeeded in overcoming the denialists censorship of what everyone knows and see is happening that is threatening the survivial of all human life.

Thanks for this. Also, how exactly was there attempted censorship? Was the censorship attempted merely by putting out a contrary message? If the censorship was the result of putting out a contrary message, Mr. Gore (who I will christen “the fearmongerist” to match your use of “denialists”) is attempting, by use of a message contrary to that of the "denialists", to censor a scientific debate he pronounced over. As such, since he’s a censor himself, he is undeserving of a peace prize based upon the criterion you’ve set out.

"First off, Global Warming hasn't been fully proven to be man made." and "Only someone telling tall tales and selling snake oil will consistently refuse to debate."

Here is my response:

Let's argue two sides of:

1. whether Abraham Lincoln was shot;
2. whether the Appollo astronauts actually landed on the Moon;
3. whether the Holocaust occurred; and
4. whether abrupt climate change is occurring due to global warming.

In sum, there are certain factual occurrences which cannot be refuted. In essence, they don't have two sides, only one.

The most significant instance of just this is, the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.__(2007), already ruled last term that abrupt climate change due to global warming is occurring as a matter of law.

There is no other side.

Oh, wait, despite the definitive, landmark Supreme Court decision, there might still be some objections, as I have seen before/asserted below:

"With all due respect:

The problem I have with this post is that a 'ruling' is not the same as a fact.

The references to Lincoln, the Holocaust, and Apollo are all verifiable facts bacause they have happened. Coastal Florida under water will only be a fact after coastal Florida is, indeed, under water."

My response:

The Supreme Court's ruling adjudicated the fact that abrupt climate change due to global warming is occurring and sea levels will rise.

Therefore, the set of four facts in the set of "FACTS" are just that facts; it is irrelevant to the set of provable facts that one is a finally adjucated fact. It is still a provable fact. It just so happens to be provable not under a Daubert/Kumho Tire expert scientific screening/proof by expert testimony and/or expert report, but instead by preclusion doctrines preventing relitigation of (debating, arguing, reproving, and reviewing) the fact over and over.

So these kinds of arguments, conjecture and speculation, e.g.,

"Humanity has gone through at least 2 ice ages in the distant past, after that the climate began to warm, so was neolithic man producing green house gasses? I don't think so. So the world climate is warming right now, I'd be willing to bet a billion dollars that in a few thousand years the climate will begin to cool again, and the cycle repeats itself. Now there's no doubt Humans are responsible for some of this, but how much really, and is there really anything we can do about it? Probably not,"

have already been foreclosed, need not be admitted, heard, or considered.

Nor did the Supreme Court limit their seminal decision, Mass. v. EPA, ultimately and effectively supporting Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize, to the 'present circumstances;' that's why the EPA must regulate the carbon emissions/greenhouse gasses to prevent the sea level rise.

A no brainer.

In a year when there is no clear cut leader in the Heisman Trophy race, don't be surprised when Al shows up at the Downtown Athletic Club in December to pick up that prize too.

Syd,

Those organizations tried to alleviate suffering. They also intervened to save people from war. Gore was trying to make a scientific argument.

Wouldn't a Prize in an area of science have been more appropriate? Or is his science not good enough to qualify?

Let's see what the Investor's Business Daily has to say [it's short & to the point]:

Run, Al, Run!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 12, 2007 4:20 PM PT

For burning lots of jet fuel spreading panic around the globe, Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace Prize. But if he really thinks his global warming theory could withstand public scrutiny, why not run for president?

The former vice president is supposedly the greatest debater in the world. CNN's "Larry King Live" saw him wipe the floor with Ross Perot on NAFTA in 1993. He also out-soundbited Jack Kemp in the 1996 vice-presidential debate.

But in 2000, an unlikely challenger — a Texan given to mangling language — was to puncture Gore's aura of invincibility. Al's sighs of impatience while debating George W. Bush symbolized the frustration of the liberal elite when confounded by simple horse sense.

Maybe those seven-year-old chinks in his armor are why Gore steadfastly refuses to debate climate experts who challenge his alarmist hypotheses. As the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels points out: "The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or fluffed each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any global warming scientist not of his choice."

Earlier this year, Gore at the last minute scaredy-catted out of an interview with Denmark's biggest newspaper and "Skeptical Environmentalist" author Bjorn Lomborg. Gauntlets have also been thrown down by Cato and Chicago's Heartland Institute.

Look at some of Gore's distortions:

• He conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming.

• His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end.

• Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years.

If Al Gore really believes all that hot air, then why not enter the world's brightest spotlight: the presidential sweepstakes? (Don't hold your breath.)

j_i, "MKD-P,

There is no other side.

Ah, you're either with us or against us."

I'm with the side the Supreme Court (Mass v. EPA) decided was the right one. What other side is there?

I didn't know that. Can we really credit Al Gore with inventing the Internet to overcome global warming? LOL

Who got quoted on SNL?

Mary, your understanding of Massachusetts v. EPA is embarrassingly bad. To put it simply: It did not hold what you think it held.

Nick

NickM, I don't get embarrassed when someone can convince me to see it otherwise; I have an open mind, but I did read the entire case myself (not just Cliff Notes).