Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

"An Inconvenient Truth" found to be inconveniently incorrect!

BUUUUURRRRNING HOT – October 10, 2007

Recently, there was a lawsuit in the UK to challenge the accuracies of the famous Al Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" which discusses global warming. I just found out from a good friend of this site that the court has announced their decision that 11 inaccuracies must be described to school children in the UK in order for the film to be shown to them. BUUUUURRRRNING HOT has done a review of this discussion and I suggest that you go to the site and read Scott’s comments.

If you are a frequent reader of this site, most of this will not surprise you. Many of the issues have been discussed on this site. The interesting new piece here is that a court has documented this. It is also interesting that the rumor mill has Mr. Al Gore a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. I wonder if the Nobel committee has seen this new court revelation!

There is not a lot of news on this story yet. Why are the news outlets not covering this?

Below I list the inaccuracies (original source):

    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.

Read Scott’s comments on this story here.


		
		

Similar articles that you may enjoy:

4 Responses to “"An Inconvenient Truth" found to be inconveniently incorrect!”

  1. […] accomplished so great an honor. I do find it ironic that he should receive this award so soon after a UK court found 11 "un-truths" in Mr. Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth"… Former Vice President Al Gore, … was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, sharing it […]

  2. Don’t worry, the mainstream media with its vested liberal interest may not be covering it, but the editorial cartoons are.

  3. […] Thankfully, Ms. Crow has put the lyrics to her songs in the CD package.  I appreciate that gesture and she has regularly done this for her listeners.  However, the words that she is portraying are over the top.  Does she really know for a fact that the President was lying to get into a war? When I want to listen to someone exaggerate the truth, I will watch Al Gore’s movie since the British courts have already called that a political document. […]

  4. […] arguing before a judge and jury where the facts and evidence are treated as the golden standard (we know what happens when judges rule on commentary of global warming). Instead we are arguing in a world of “beliefs”. The world where everything that […]