The High Court judge has now issued his full judgement in the case brought by parent Stewart Dimmock in which he sought to prevent the government from showing Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" to pupils in British schools.
Now which did you say was Greenland again? Oh hell, who cares?
The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
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, and 3) nine 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 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.
Copied from the website of The New Party, Mr.Dimmock's backers. The judge ordered that the government pay two-thirds of the case costs.
The GOS says: We named Stewart Dimmock our Hero of the Week for taking this stand against the government. While it's hard to understand why the judge didn't completely ban the film from schools, the fact that he has spelled out its emotive, biased and highly political nature has embarrassed the government and attracted huge publicity.
A (modified) victory for common-sense, then. Well done, Stewart, and fairly well done the judge.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite