Andrew Bolt

Monday, October 08, 2007 at 10:52am



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/judge_rules_children_be_warned_against_11_of_gores_untruths



A British judge rules that Al Gore told a string of untruths in
An Inconvenient Truth and children should be warned:



In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first
amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that ...
(e)leven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the
attention of school children.



The inaccuracies are:



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.



The new Guidance Notes, very grudgingly amended, are here. Would
that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.



This isn't the first time, of course, that global warming
scaremongerers have been dismissed by a court in which evidence
still counts.


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"[Kyoto represents] the first component of authentic global
governance" French President Jacques Chirac

"[Kyoto is] about levelling the playing field for big businesses
worldwide.".
Margot Wallstrom, EU Environment Commisioner

"We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will
then flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor

"So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we
might have."
Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford
University

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen"  Sir John
Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest
chance to bring about justice and equality in the world"
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:03:15 +1000, Bonzo wrote:

> Andrew Bolt
> 
> Monday, October 08, 2007 at 10:52am
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/judge_rules_children_be_warned_against_11_of_gores_untruths
> 
Here's a link to the actual teacher manual for the film - 56 pages
> http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf
> 
<snip revised points>

On Oct 8, 1:03 am, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> Andrew Bolt
>
> Monday, October 08, 2007 at 10:52am
>
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> A British judge rules that Al Gore told a string of untruths in
> An Inconvenient Truth and children should be warned:
>
> In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first
> amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that ...
> (e)leven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the
> attention of school children.
>
> The inaccuracies are:
>
> 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.
>
> The new Guidance Notes, very grudgingly amended, are here. Would
> that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
>
> This isn't the first time, of course, that global warming
> scaremongerers have been dismissed by a court in which evidence
> still counts.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "[Kyoto represents] the first component of authentic global
> governance" French President Jacques Chirac
>
> "[Kyoto is] about levelling the playing field for big businesses
> worldwide.".
> Margot Wallstrom, EU Environment Commisioner
>
> "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will
> then flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor
>
> "So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
> dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we
> might have."
> Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford
> University
>
> "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen"  Sir John
> Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
>
> "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
> environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest
> chance to bring about justice and equality in the world"
> Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister


The article failed to mention:

1.  Gore's side (the UK government) won the case, the judge rule that
the film may be shown to school children in classrooms.  The case was
filed to block the showing.

2. The ruling is not finalized, there might be appeals to get a
greater victory.

All 11 are incorrectly paraphrased in Bonzo's post about the UK court
victory of Gore's film, in some case reversing the meaning of the
amended guidance.  Look for youself, here is the actual amended
guidance document:

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf

In general, the guidance compares the IPCC position with claims or
implied claims from the film.

Is Bonzo finally endorsing the IPCC's position?

On Oct 8, 1:03 am, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> Andrew Bolt
>
> Monday, October 08, 2007 at 10:52am
>
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> A British judge rules that Al Gore told a string of untruths in
> An Inconvenient Truth and children should be warned:
>
> In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first
> amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that ...
> (e)leven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the
> attention of school children.
>
> The inaccuracies are:
>
> 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.
>
> The new Guidance Notes, very grudgingly amended, are here. Would
> that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
>
> This isn't the first time, of course, that global warming
> scaremongerers have been dismissed by a court in which evidence
> still counts.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "[Kyoto represents] the first component of authentic global
> governance" French President Jacques Chirac
>
> "[Kyoto is] about levelling the playing field for big businesses
> worldwide.".
> Margot Wallstrom, EU Environment Commisioner
>
> "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will
> then flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor
>
> "So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
> dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we
> might have."
> Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford
> University
>
> "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen"  Sir John
> Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
>
> "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
> environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest
> chance to bring about justice and equality in the world"
> Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

"Tom"  wrote in message
news:1191956481.921815.208880@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> All 11 are incorrectly paraphrased in Bonzo's post about the UK
court
> victory of Gore's film, in some case reversing the meaning of
the
> amended guidance.  Look for youself, here is the actual amended
> guidance document:
>
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf
> In general, the guidance compares the IPCC position with claims
or
> implied claims from the film.
> Is Bonzo finally endorsing the IPCC's position?
>


NO WAY, EVEN AFTER HELL FREEZES OVER, WOULD I DEIGN TO AGREE WITH
ANY OF THE NONSENSE BEING SPOUTED BY THAT BAND OF SINISITER
ZEALOTS KNOWN AS THE IPCC!

I don't remember the corrupt IPCC agreeing, for example, that
Kilimanjaro melting is a local phenomenon, or that Antarctic ice
is growing, or that hurricane Katrina was not the result of
climate change, ... etc, etc .....

Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

On Oct 10, 12:35 am, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> "Tom"  wrote in message
>
> news:1191956481.921815.208880@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...> All 11 are incorrectly paraphrased in Bonzo's post about the UK
> court
> > victory of Gore's film, in some case reversing the meaning of
> the
> > amended guidance.  Look for youself, here is the actual amended
> > guidance document:
>
> http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20g...
>
> > In general, the guidance compares the IPCC position with claims
> or
> > implied claims from the film.
> > Is Bonzo finally endorsing the IPCC's position?
>
> NO WAY, EVEN AFTER HELL FREEZES OVER, WOULD I DEIGN TO AGREE WITH
> ANY OF THE NONSENSE BEING SPOUTED BY THAT BAND OF SINISITER
> ZEALOTS KNOWN AS THE IPCC!
>
> I don't remember the corrupt IPCC agreeing, for example, that
> Kilimanjaro melting is a local phenomenon, or that Antarctic ice
> is growing, or that hurricane Katrina was not the result of
> climate change, ... etc, etc .....

Here's what the revised guidance for the film says on Kilimanjaro:

"Although many of the
examples in this
scene are well
chosen to illustrate
the effects of human induced
climate
change, the causes
of the recession of
snows on Kilimanjaro
are complex and
related to local
factors. It cannot be
established that this
is mainly attributable
to human-induced
climate change.
[IPCC AR4 WGII SPM
p8]
[IPCC AR4 WGII, TS
p48 and Ch 9, p 439-
440"

>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
> deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
> 1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
> we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
> greenhouse gases."
> 2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
> climate change to man-made causes"