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.
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate.
The judge concentrated only on nine points, which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” The judge used the term “errors” in inverted commas throughout his judgment.
Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor, and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.”
However, the single web page titled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. There is also a reference to an IPCC document, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to.
Each of the nine “errors” that he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.”
Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith.
However, in this connection, it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature, stating that there is a threat where there is none, or exaggerates the threat where there may be one.
All of the errors point in one direction — towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.”
The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors.
The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.
Read the rest from SPPI
