Please see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...

How do you explain these incovenient lies?

-- Claims of 20 feet sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica.
Evidence is that will not melt for millennia.

-- Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands. Court
observed that this was a false claim.

-- Gore claims global warming will "shut down the Ocean Conveyor." The
judge said this was "very unlikely."

-- Graphs showing carbon dioxide versus temperature over 650,000 years
were claimed to be an exact fit. The judge said that, "The two graphs
do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts."

-- Snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming.
Deforestation reducing moisture into upslope winds is the cause.

-- The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by global
warming. The court determined this was false.

-- Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The court
determined it was "not possible" to attribute singular events to
global warming.

-- Polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. Gore misread
the study. In fact, four polar bears drowned due to a particularly
violent storm.

-- Global warming caused species losses including coral reef
bleaching. The court found this claim difficult to support.

On Oct 16, 3:04 pm, Tunderbar  wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> How do you explain these incovenient lies?
>
> -- Claims of 20 feet sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica.
> Evidence is that will not melt for millennia.
>
> -- Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands. Court
> observed that this was a false claim.
>
> -- Gore claims global warming will "shut down the Ocean Conveyor." The
> judge said this was "very unlikely."
>
> -- Graphs showing carbon dioxide versus temperature over 650,000 years
> were claimed to be an exact fit. The judge said that, "The two graphs
> do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts."
>
> -- Snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming.
> Deforestation reducing moisture into upslope winds is the cause.
>
> -- The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by global
> warming. The court determined this was false.
>
> -- Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The court
> determined it was "not possible" to attribute singular events to
> global warming.
>
> -- Polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. Gore misread
> the study. In fact, four polar bears drowned due to a particularly
> violent storm.
>
> -- Global warming caused species losses including coral reef
> bleaching. The court found this claim difficult to support.

Here's a partial excerpt from the judge's decision in that UK case.
The judge did take Gore's movie to task for the errors you mention.
He also concluded that it was a great movie and "broadly accurate,"
and that the only places he could challenge it was where it disagreed
with the latest IPCC reports.

Are you endorsing the latest IPCC reports now, Tunderbar?
=========================================
Here, for anyone who's interested, is a link to Justice Burton's full
ruling.  Just below that are a few significant excerpts from the
ruling
----------

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
¬-----
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court
(Administrative Court) Decisions >> Dimmock v Secretary of State for
Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Cite as: [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
¬-----
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
--

EXCERPTS FROM THE RULING

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
¬-----
  Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin)
  Case No: CO/3615/2007


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT


  Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
  10/10/2007


B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BURTON
____________________


Between:


 Stuart Dimmock
 Claimant


 - and -


 Secretary of State for Education and Skills
(now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families)
 Defendant
____________________


Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for
the Claimant


Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the
Defendant


Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007
____________________
SNIP


I viewed the film at the parties' request. Although I can only
express
an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as
witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best
documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly
professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic
presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is
to
persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global
warming.


It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film
- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific
research and opinion - but that it is a political film, albeit of
course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that
there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such
global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary
expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many
of
which are spelt out.


Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr
Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are
political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision,
which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies,
which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:


"(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are
taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing ...


(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage
directly
and indirectly various forms of activity.


(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed
for
the future.


(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that
consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."


Martin Chamberlain, who, with equal skill, has adopted a very
realistic position on the part of the Defendant, does not challenge
that the film promotes political views. There is thus no need to
consider any analysis or definition of the word 'political' (which is
plainly not limited to party political) such as that in McGovern v AG
[1982] Ch 321 at 340.
SMO{


It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that
AIT
was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show
it
to pupils. News releases were issued on 2 February 2007 by the
Department for Education and Skills (I shall ignore its subsequent
change of name) ("DES") and by DEFRA, the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs.


SNIP


SNIP


The Film


I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:


i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,
albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented
politician
and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a
political programme.


ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his
skeleton:


"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is
very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed
journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:


(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over
the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate
change");


(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");


(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
effects on the world and its populations; and


(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
statement, that:


"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film
is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's
scientific
community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the
IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis
of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options and adaptation and mitigation.


Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the
preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on
Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change,
published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of
Climate
Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III
on 4 May 2007.


A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness
Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set
out
by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the
last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to
man-made greenhouse gas emissions."


For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept
that
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific
consensus.


iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall
refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out
the
mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself
depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus"
expressed
in the IPCC reports.


SNIP


However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above ,
the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when
there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not,
save for the most informed science teachers.


I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when
he says that:


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


Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is
because
the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord
with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain
respects not to accord with the IPCC report.


But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on
those
areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are
errors
or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore.


Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or
exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously
helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.


In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently
persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it
was
those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to
concentrate.


It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not
relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an
assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the
context
of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All
these
9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the
evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by
reference
to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.


The 'Errors'


1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be
caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near
future.


In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32
scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as
follows:


"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half
of
West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the
sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco
Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low
Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to
tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai,
there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east
Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the
impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are
displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a
100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade
Center
memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again.
This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this
precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water
would breach the levee in New Orleans."


This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'.


 It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would
release
this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that
the
Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea
level
rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line
with the scientific consensus.


2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated
because of anthropogenic global warming.


In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific
nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no
evidence
of any such evacuation having yet happened.


3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".


In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about
where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North
Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind
coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of
the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by
the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the
Ocean Conveyor ... At the end of the last ice age ... that pump shut
off
and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age
for
another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen
again,
because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big
chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]".


According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor
(known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or
thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is
considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.


4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the
atmosphere
and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.


In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of
650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in
temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they
show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement
that
there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore
asserts.


5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.


Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt
Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is
noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr
Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above).


However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that
it
cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro
is
mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.


6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc


The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a
catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally
accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an
attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to
result from other factors, such as population increase and over-
grazing, and regional climate variability.


7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.


In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New
Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there
is insufficient evidence to show that.


8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.


In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear
desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says:
"A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are
finding
polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to
60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."


The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one
which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found
drowned
because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the
future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of
regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it
plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.


9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.


In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of
global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like
this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in
jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate
1000 times greater than the natural background rate."


The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that,
if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there
would
be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless
corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of
climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-
fishing and polluting, is difficult.


The Guidance


As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to
establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to
schools
is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7
above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate
change
and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance
Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not
sufficient
simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational
website.


The format of the Guidance Note put on the website is helpful, in
splitting up consideration by reference to the three different
categories of teachers who may make use of the film, those teaching
science, geography and citizenship, and to include a chart, by
reference to the various scenes of the film, which both includes
descriptive passages and raises questions for potential discussion. I
have no doubt that some teachers of science or geography will have a
much broader knowledge of the subject than is simply contained in the
film and in the existing Guidance Note, and will be in a position to
assist in the stimulation of such discussion.


However, as set out in paragraph 13 above, that is plainly not so for
the majority of teachers. In any event it is important that, in such
guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only
so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should
not
appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending
the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving
their imprimatur to it.


SNIP --

On Oct 16, 8:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...

The Judge has been conned by the alarmists
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 is the CAUSE of GW

wrote in message 
news:1192565906.196107.311290@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 8:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>> Please 
>> see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> The Judge has been conned by the alarmists
> THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 is the CAUSE of GW

k00k-a-d00dle-d0000!!

On Oct 16, 1:04 pm, Tunderbar  wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> How do you explain these incovenient lies?
>
How do you explain that you have very obviously
not read the link before you commented on the
post?  That link answers your questions.

On Oct 16, 1:18 pm, v9256kj2pnj6...@jetable.com wrote:
> On Oct 16, 8:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> The Judge has been conned by the alarmists
> THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 is the CAUSE of GW

You're just as wacko as Tom the Chemist.

On Oct 16, 5:20 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> On Oct 16, 1:18 pm, v9256kj2pnj6...@jetable.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 8:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> > The Judge has been conned by the alarmists
> > THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 is the CAUSE of GW
>
;> You're just as wacko as Tom the Chemist.

Well you and the Queen (NOT in denial, just floundering in the mud
without valid science), are doing here what is the normal thing for
climatology buffs which is to submit partial data to support your
invalid conclusions and promotions.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

HERE IS THE ACTUAL BRITISH LEGAL DOCUMENT FROM THE DAMN JUDGE. YOU
LYING TWITS WILL NOT POST THIS BECAUSE IT IDENTIFIES 9 INVALIDITIES
THAT THIS JUDGE FOUND IN HIS REVIEW OF THE FILM. THIS LEVEL OF
INNACURACY VERGES ON DELIBERATE FRAUD.

GUIDANCE AS TO THESE DETERMINED INVALIDITIES OF THE FILM WERE ORDERED
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE DID NOT PROHIBIT THE SHOWING OF THE FILM ACCORDING
TO THE LAW IN QUESTION OF POLITICAL AGENDA.

Continue on, little poppycock twit. Just from your posts on these
discusions, I can say that I have never met someone so dishonest and
willing to tweek the truth and ignore the truth like you do. Yours is
a very dangerous psychological disease.

KDeatherage

On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...

""It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not
relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an
assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context
of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these
9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the
evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference
to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. """

A QUOTE FROMT THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED POPPYCOCK LYING TWIT.

On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...

"""""However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from
the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic
exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in
support of his political thesis""""

ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE SELECTIVELY MISSED WITH
YOUR DISJOINTED AND DERANGED LITTLE INTELLECT,
POPPYCOCK LYING TWIT

On Oct 16, 3:18 pm, Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile
 wrote:
> On Oct 16, 3:04 pm, Tunderbar  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> > How do you explain these incovenient lies?
>
> > -- Claims of 20 feet sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica.
> > Evidence is that will not melt for millennia.
>
> > -- Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands. Court
> > observed that this was a false claim.
>
> > -- Gore claims global warming will "shut down the Ocean Conveyor." The
> > judge said this was "very unlikely."
>
> > -- Graphs showing carbon dioxide versus temperature over 650,000 years
> > were claimed to be an exact fit. The judge said that, "The two graphs
> > do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts."
>
> > -- Snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming.
> > Deforestation reducing moisture into upslope winds is the cause.
>
> > -- The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by global
> > warming. The court determined this was false.
>
> > -- Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The court
> > determined it was "not possible" to attribute singular events to
> > global warming.
>
> > -- Polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. Gore misread
> > the study. In fact, four polar bears drowned due to a particularly
> > violent storm.
>
> > -- Global warming caused species losses including coral reef
> > bleaching. The court found this claim difficult to support.
>
> Here's a partial excerpt from the judge's decision in that UK case.
> The judge did take Gore's movie to task for the errors you mention.
> He also concluded that it was a great movie and "broadly accurate,"
> and that the only places he could challenge it was where it disagreed
> with the latest IPCC reports.
>
> Are you endorsing the latest IPCC reports now, Tunderbar?

Nope. They are bullcrap too, insofar as the cause of gw is concerned
and the IPCC's projected calamities.

But the big question is why are Gore's prophecies so far out of step
with the IPCC's?

Even these two nobel laureates are 20 meters apart on projected sea
rise alone.

You'd think that they'd agree on something.

> =========================================
> Here, for anyone who's interested, is a link to Justice Burton's full
> ruling.  Just below that are a few significant excerpts from the
> ruling
> ----------
>
> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------> ¬-----
> You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court
> (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Dimmock v Secretary of State for
> Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)
> URL:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
> Cite as: [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------> ¬-----
> [New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
> --
>
> EXCERPTS FROM THE RULING
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ¬-----
>   Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin)
>   Case No: CO/3615/2007
>
> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
> QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
> ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
>
>   Royal Courts of Justice
> Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
>   10/10/2007
>
> B e f o r e :
> MR JUSTICE BURTON
> ____________________
>
> Between:
>
>  Stuart Dimmock
>  Claimant
>
>  - and -
>
>  Secretary of State for Education and Skills
> (now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families)
>  Defendant
> ____________________
>
> Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for
> the Claimant
>
> Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the
> Defendant
>
> Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007
> ____________________
> SNIP
>
> I viewed the film at the parties' request. Although I can only
> express
> an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as
> witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best
> documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly
> professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic
> presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is
> to
> persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global
> warming.
>
> It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film
> - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific
> research and opinion - but that it is a political film, albeit of
> course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that
> there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such
> global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary
> expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many
> of
> which are spelt out.
>
> Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr
> Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are
> political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision,
> which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies,
> which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:
>
> "(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are
> taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing ...
>
> (ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage
> directly
> and indirectly various forms of activity.
>
> (iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed
> for
> the future.
>
> (iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that
> consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
>
> Martin Chamberlain, who, with equal skill, has adopted a very
> realistic position on the part of the Defendant, does not challenge
> that the film promotes political views. There is thus no need to
> consider any analysis or definition of the word 'political' (which is
> plainly not limited to party political) such as that in McGovern v AG
> [1982] Ch 321 at 340.
> SMO{
>
> It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that
> AIT
> was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show
> it
> to pupils. News releases were issued on 2 February 2007 by the
> Department for Education and Skills (I shall ignore its subsequent
> change of name) ("DES") and by DEFRA, the Department for Environment,
> Food and Rural Affairs.
>
> SNIP
>
> SNIP
>
> The Film
>
> I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
>
> i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,
> albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented
> politician
> and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a
> political programme.
>
> ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his
> skeleton:
>
> "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is
> very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed
> journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
>
> (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over
> the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate
> change");
>
> (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
> carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
>
> (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
> effects on the world and its populations; and
>
> (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
> which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
>
> These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
> supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
> journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
> scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
> statement, that:
>
> "The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film
> is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's
> scientific
> community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the
> IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive,
> objective,
> open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-
> economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis
> of
> risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
> options and adaptation and mitigation.
>
> Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the
> preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on
> Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change,
> published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of
> Climate
> Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III
> on 4 May 2007.
>
> A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness
> Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set
> out
> by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the
> last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to
> man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept
> that
> the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific
> consensus.
>
> iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall
> refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out
> the
> mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself
> depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus"
> expressed
> in the IPCC reports.
>
> SNIP
>
> However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above ,
> the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when
> there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not,
> save for the most informed science teachers.
>
> I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when
> he says that:
>
> "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate
> change in the film was broadly accurate."
>
> Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is
> because
> the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord
> with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain
> respects not to accord with the IPCC report.
>
> But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on
> those
> areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are
> errors
> or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore.
>
> Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or
> exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously
> helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> ""It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not
> relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an
> assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context
> of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these
> 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the
> evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference
> to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. """
>
> A QUOTE FROMT THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED POPPYCOCK LYING TWIT.

Keith - So we can assume that you, like the judge, now rely on the
IPCC report for your views on climate change?

On Oct 16, 6:08 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE SELECTIVELY MISSED WITH
> YOUR DISJOINTED AND DERANGED LITTLE INTELLECT ...

.. Keith? Are you talking about  yourself here, Keith?
===========================================
Quote from the Ruling:

"The Film


I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:


i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,
albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented
politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to
support a
political programme.


ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his
skeleton:


"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is
very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed
journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:


(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over
the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate
change");


(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");


(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
effects on the world and its populations; and


(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
statement, that:

"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film
is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's
scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report
of the
IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
socio-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis
of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options and adaptation and mitigation.

Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the
preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on
Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change,
published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of
Climate  Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working
Group III on 4 May 2007.


A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness
Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set
out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over
the
last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to
man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept
that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present
scientific
consensus.

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall
refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out
the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact
itself
depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus"
expressed in the IPCC reports ....

So do you now agree with this ruling, Keith?  Do you agree with the
"consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports?

And presumably, since you're citing Mr. Justice Burton, you also agree
that while "there are errors and omissions in the film,"
nevertheless, "It is substantially founded upon scientific research
and fact,
albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician
and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a
political programme."  ??

>Please see:
>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Also
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

Interesting how badly what the judge actually said was spun by the
corporate media...

-- 
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence:  http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

On Oct 16, 10:32 pm, "CONVERT_Good_Republicans: BUILD_Green_Majority"
 wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>
> > > Please see:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thin...
>
> > ""It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not
> > relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an
> > assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context
> > of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these
> > 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the
> > evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference
> > to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. """
>
> > A QUOTE FROMT THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED POPPYCOCK LYING TWIT.
>
> Keith - So we can assume that you, like the judge, now rely on the
> IPCC report for your views on climate change?

If you assholes didn't twist the truth and distort facts, you would
have nothing to say.

It is easy to prove also that the IPCC is invalid and therefore all of
the rest of Algores propaganda flick is also invalid and fraud.

The IPCC's views are based upon statistical rendering known as the
'hockey stick' graph. This was adopted in 2001. Since then, there have
been quite conclusive analyses which proves the invalidity of this
graph, which is based upon tree rings from one species of north
american pine.
This graph deliberately does not depict the medieaval warm period or
the little ice age. This is done so that a heightened and false
perception of unnatural warming in the very recent years can be
depicted.

Also, the CO2 levels represented are clearly invalid.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Despite valid and accurate criticism by the worlds best scientists,
the IPCC is unable to rectify it's invalid science. The cases is also
proved therefore, that the IPCC is not able to do scientific
rendering. Scientific work must be done purely in the interest of the
truth, and the IPCC must acknowledge valid criticism and correction of
it's data. The results of the consensus of the climatologists is
entirely based upon the false rendering of data and statistics.

KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease.

On Oct 16, 10:41 pm, "CONVERT_Good_Republicans: BUILD_Green_Majority"
 wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:08 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE JUDGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE SELECTIVELY MISSED WITH
> > YOUR DISJOINTED AND DERANGED LITTLE INTELLECT ...
>
> .. Keith? Are you talking about  yourself here, Keith?
> ===========================================
> Quote from the Ruling:
>
> "The Film
>
> I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
>
> i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,
> albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented
> politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to
> support a
> political programme.
>
> ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his
> skeleton:
>
> "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is
> very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed
> journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
>
> (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over
> the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate
> change");
>
> (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
> carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
>
> (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
> effects on the world and its populations; and
>
> (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
> which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
>

These are four lies.
1)Temperatures are no higher than in the 30's according to the
statistics from NASA. Why only refer to 50 yrs. There was a medieaval
warm period in which temperatures were much higher than now. And a
little ice age, 1600 to 1850. This and all other evidence shows normal
temperature fluctuations. This statement is criminal fraud.

2) There is no scientific support for this statement. In fact, there
is now enough data from statistics to prove this wrong. According to
the IPCC, CO2 has risen nearly 1/3 since the thirties. Yet the
thirties were warmer or as warm as present. So according to the
statistics, there is no evidence that this increase in 1/3 of CO2 has
had any effect upon temperature. This statement is fraud, and is only
repeated without scientific establishement of any relevant fact either
in the laboratory or in statistics.

3) This is scaremongering. There could be climate change, as the
natural record indicates. People would have to deal with these
changes. Since this is not caused by the use of energy, destroying the
convenient use of energy as the cause of the warming, is a crime
beyond comprehension. In facing climate change, the world needs
available and cheap energy.

4) This is also a direct lie. China surpassed the US by 10% in CO2 in
2006. In 10 years they will be doulbe the US output.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

This means it is a FACT, that any reductions in US emissions will have
no effect upon concentration increases or possible effect upon
climate.

In 1970 world output of CO2 was 14 billion tons. In 2000 world yearly
output was 24 billion tons. But during this time concentrations in the
air rose at a steady 12-13 billion tons. 1ppm = 7.8 billion tons.
According to these statistics, even a reduction of 1/2 of world output
would still result in the same yearly concentration increase in the
air.
Proof that the proponents of AGW have absolutely no viable prograom
for their contentions. This is a crime.

If someone's car is broken down and you take money to fix it when you
are unable to fix it and have no actual plan to fix it, this is a
crime. To prove that the car is broken down does not mitigate the
crime of this fraud.

The agenda of AGW has absolutely no program. NO proof that CO2 affects
temperatures. And no program that is viable to reduce emissions other
than direct genocide of a considerable portion of the population.

KDeatherage
The AGW bunnies,
They keep going,,, and going

K  wrote:

>The agenda of AGW has absolutely no program. NO proof that CO2 affects
>temperatures. And no program that is viable to reduce emissions other
>than direct genocide of a considerable portion of the population.
>
>KDeatherage
>The AGW bunnies,
>They keep going,,, and going

         We have to forgive those in Europe and other countries that
have so much of their socialist tax base tied to retail sales, especially
gasoline and diesel fuel.      The $87 cost of oil must hurt some of
those governments really hard, it is double what they were paying
a couple of years ago, and the higher cost of the oil has to be
absorbed by the governments or passed on to an already
burdened retail business industry, and ultimately to the public,
possibly pushing petrol toward $10 a gallon.

         I feel sorry for the oil companies here, they keep trying
to push the price up toward $3 a gallon (what is that in euros,
about $2 ?), but people quit buying and it falls back below $2.60.

         There is no shortage of oil, it is time to remove oil from
the commodities market, and not allow excess money in pension
and money funds to inflate the market.

On Oct 17, 8:36 am, Whata Fool  wrote:" I feel sorry
for the oil companies here"

Well that says it all, sorry about your sorrow and unhappiness, but
maybe you should worry about the cost of people filling their tank,
just like you are concerned about home heating costs (well you say you
are, just like you said you have ran a company so its hard to decipher
your deceit from your half truths), oops, did I reveal your
hypocrisy...

On Oct 17, 10:44 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:36 am, Whata Fool  wrote:" I feel sorry
> for the oil companies here"
>
> Well that says it all, sorry about your sorrow and unhappiness, but
> maybe you should worry about the cost of people filling their tank,
> just like you are concerned about home heating costs (well you say you
> are, just like you said you have ran a company so its hard to decipher
> your deceit from your half truths), oops, did I reveal your
> hypocrisy...

There goes the Dr Phil of AGW again. Deducing from analyses of
personality of those that state the clear fact that AGW is not based
upon actual science, although it has a following among those that are
paid in the field of science, that there is actually a valid
presentation of facts or any fundamental support for their conclusions
and BELIEFS, although they cannot produce this directly.

Brilliant logic. We very well shall see how this holds up in US law.
According to the stale rhetoric of the believers, anyone that
disagrees with them is the only one in the world that disagrees with
the multitudes of scientists that do agree. Obviously these fanatics
are rejects from mathematics. Probably why they seek intellectual
confirmation in their repetition and belief of lies and disinformation
of the hysteria and paranoid beliefs of AGW.

Your disinformation of the uneducated will only carry you so far.
Algore speaks of 'global enlightment'. As usual, he uses terms for
effect without interest in the truth. With actual global enlightment
will come the irrestible politcal movement to lynch Algore.

What happened to your walk in the woods? Hope you didn't breath in any
COW FARTS while you were humping and loving on the trees!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHhahahahahaHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
KDeatherage

KDeatherage

On Oct 17, 9:37 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> If you assholes didn't twist the truth and distort facts, you would
> have nothing to say.
>
> It is easy to prove also that the IPCC is invalid and therefore all of
> the rest of Algores propaganda flick is also invalid and fraud.
>
Keith - This is your position on the IPCC, we all know that.

But several posts back in this message string, you accused Roger G. of
being a "lying twit" for his "selective" reading of the judge's
decision in the Dimmock case.

Aren't you quoting selectively here yourself, Keith?

Because the judge did find Gore's film to be "broadly accurate,"
although with several listed exceptions, right?   And the judge
criticized Gore for "errors" in the film ONLY when the film departed
from the conclusions of the latest IPCC reports.

 Right?

Which means that the judge whose ruling your admire, Keith, also holds
to the findings of an IPCC report that you're saying is dishonest and
worthless.  The judge you're relying on for intellectual ammunition
against Gore is accepting everything you hate about the IPCC's
conclusions, it looks like.

I mean, you can read it in the ruling:

EXCERPT FROM MR. JUSTICE BURTON'S RULING IN THE DIMMOCK CASE:

"The Film


I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:


i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,
albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented
politician
and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a
political programme.


ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his
skeleton:


"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is
very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed
journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:


(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over
the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate
change");


(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");


(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
effects on the world and its populations; and


(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
statement, that:


"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film
is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's
scientific
community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the
IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis
of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options and adaptation and mitigation.


Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the
preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on
Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change,
published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of
Climate
Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III
on 4 May 2007.


A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness
Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set
out
by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the
last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to
man-made greenhouse gas emissions."


For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept
that
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific
consensus.


iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall
refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out
the
mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself
depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus"
expressed
in the IPCC reports ...."

Are you now endorsing this reasoning, Keith?


-------------

On Oct 17, 9:56 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:" There goes the Dr Phil
of AGW again."

Na just somebody who wants to point out flaws in logic, and fool is a
perfect example...

On Oct 17, 2:43 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 9:56 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:" There goes the Dr Phil
> of AGW again."
>
> Na just somebody who wants to point out flaws in logic, and fool is a
> perfect example...

Now if that is not the biggest self inflated lie of the week.
You wish to impose laws, taxes and modification of our lives and
economy. Yet you will not even face the fact that the rapidly
increasing growth of China and India, entirely negates any emission
reduction by the US. China surpassed the US by 10% in 2006. If they
maintain this rate, they will be double the US emissions in 10 yrs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

So what the hell do you want? Just to screw with everybodies lives,
when this will not even effect output of CO2. Actual concentrations in
the air do not follow output. According to the facts from the last 40
yrs, reduction of the world output by 1/2 will not change
concentration increase.

So you show me some logic in your psychological motivation to continue
pushing for economic suicide behind the control of CO2 emissions.
Yours is a form of communal insanity that is compulsed to screw with
other peoples lives, regardless of the truth or facts you must
distort.

An analogous disease is rabies, or hydrophobia. This disease
constricts the throat muscles of the dying animal. It cannot drink
water and as it is dying of thirst it is compelled to bite into other
animals for the liquid blood. There is nothing to be done for this
fatal disease but to shoot or euthanize the diseased animal.

In the meantime, no measurable effect of recent increases in CO2 on
temperature statistics can be detected. And there is no laboratory
documentation of this property of CO2.

KD

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Oct 17, 9:56 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:" There goes the Dr Phil
> of AGW again."
> 
> Na just somebody who wants to point out flaws in logic, and fool is a
> perfect example...
> 
> 
Dr Phool is it true that it takes less energy when you marry your sister 
or a close family member?

On Oct 17, 2:13 pm, Talk-n-Dog <WatchDog@talk-n-dog..com> wrote:"Dr
Phool is it true that it takes less energy when you marry your sister
or a close family member?"

Some of the natives of this country used names and languages unique to
their family and house so they did not inter marry, but i cant imagine
anybody or thing that's matches a description of something of your
lesser quality, so i really wont spend the energy naming you...

"Talk-n-Dog" <WatchDog@talk-n-dog..com> wrote
> Dr Phool is it true that it takes less energy when you marry your sister 
> or a close family member?

Ask your father.

On Oct 17, 6:37 am, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>
> Interesting how badly what the judge actually said was spun by the
> corporate media...
>
Bruce, I think this is a particularly interesting comment on the
Dimmock/Gore controversy from the people that you linked to at
RealClimate:

15 October 2007
Convenient Untruths
Filed under: Climate Science- group @ 9:49 PM
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the
showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools.
The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the
causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly
accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been
a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the
judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in
the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as
'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were
points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were
actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).

There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, "An
Inconvenient Truth" was a movie and people expecting the same depth
from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible
standard. Secondly, the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is
substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth
that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they
weren't). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how "Guidance Notes"
for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion
of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted
support - AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for
informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth
IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-
date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted
(particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis's wiki), and it is
clear that the purported 'errors' are nothing of the sort. The
(unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have
any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual
climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this
confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons.

In the spirit of pushing forward the discussion, we have a brief set
of guidance notes of our own for each of the 9 issues raised. These
are not complete, and if additional pointers are noted in the
comments, we'll add them in here as we go along.

Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting
of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels
20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified,
but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin
air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was
around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then,
global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today - and
given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect
in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which
this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have
discussed previously.

Pacific island nations needing to evacuate Much of Tuvalu is only a
few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact
them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways -
increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion
from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that. The
government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate
islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can
potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.
In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: "That's why
the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New
Zealand", which is out of context in the passage it's in, but could be
said to only be a little ahead of it's time.

Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor The movie references the Younger
Dryas event that occurred 11,000 years ago when, it is thought, a
large discharge of fresh water into the North Atlantic disrupted the
currents, causing significant regional cooling. That exact scenario
can't happen again, but similar processes are likely to occur. The
primary unresolved scientific issue regards how quickly the
circulation is likely to change as we move forward. The model
simulations in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the
circulation - by about 30% by 2100 - but there is much we don't
understand about modeling that circulation and future inputs of
freshwater from the ice sheets, so few are willing to completely rule
out the possibility of a more substantial change in the future.
Further discussion on what this really means and doesn't mean is
available here and here.

CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record Gore stated
that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age
signals had a complex relationship but that they 'fit'. Again, both of
these statements are true. The complexity though is actually quite
fascinating and warrants being further discussed by those interested
in how the carbon cycle will react in the future. We've discussed the
lead/lag issue previously.

A full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that
it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible
explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the
southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth's orbital geometry warms
the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then
leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Gore's terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities,
but the crux of his point-that the observed long-term relationship
between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding
of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations-is correct.
Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel
burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that
the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to
increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be
larger than we might anticipate.

Kilimanjaro Gore is on even more solid ground with Kilimanjaro. In the
movie, the retreat of Kilimanjaro is not claimed to be purely due to
global warming , but it is a legitimate example of the sort of thing
one expects in a warmer world, and is consistent with what almost all
other tropical mountain glaciers are doing. There is indeed some
ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether or not the retreat
of ice on Kilimanjaro is related to the direct effects (warming
atmospheric temperatures) or indirect effects (altered patterns of
humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation influencing Kilimanjaro's ice
mass) of climate change, and that argument isn't yet over.

But these arguments would be of more relevance if (a) we were not
witnessing the imminent demise of an ice field that we know has
existed for at least the past 12,000 years and (b) most of the other
glaciers weren't disappearing as well.

Drying up of Lake Chad It is undisputed that Lake Chad has indeed
shrunk rapidly in recent decades. While irrigation and upstream water
use are probably contributing factors, the dominant cause is the
reduction of rainfall across the entire Sahel from the 1950s to the
1980s and with rainfall today still substantially below the high point
50 years ago. There is substantial evidence that at least a portion of
this drying out is human-caused. A few recent papers (Held et al,
PNAS; Chung and Ramanathan and Biasutti and Giannini) have addressed
causes ranging from Indian Ocean changes in sea surface temperature to
the increase in atmospheric aerosols in the Northern hemisphere. Gore
uses this example to illustrate that there are droughts in some
regions even while other areas are flooding. Unfortunately this is
exactly what the models suggest will happen.

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a
legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our
inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that
could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that
Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution
issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual
hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics
of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by
storms, may indeed be.

SNIP -- Go to RealClimate web page for the rest of the article

"Tunderbar"  wrote
> Nope. They are bullcrap too, insofar as the cause of gw is concerned
> and the IPCC's projected calamities.

I see, so you reject the standard by which the judge, judged Gore's film.

So you disagree with the judge then that the film is widely accurate.

And what is your... Ahahahahahaha... Reaction to the claim made by 
scientists that Gore's most excellent documentary "An inconvenient truth" is 
a "paragon of scientific communication with the public."

I agree with that acessment of the film.

"Tunderbar"  wrote
> How do you explain these incovenient lies?
>
> -- Claims of 20 feet sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica.
> Evidence is that will not melt for millennia.

  No time frame was given for the melt.  It's a matter of dividing a volume 
of melt by the earth's surface are.  It's a simple calculation that we now 
see that you agree with.  You just don't like the time frame - which you 
have fabricated for yourself.

  Ahahahahahahaha.....


"Tunderbar"  wrote
> -- Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands. Court
> observed that this was a false claim.

  Evacuations are underway.  Negotiation has set an upper limit on the 
number of people who are being resettled per year.


"Tunderbar"  wrote
> -- Gore claims global warming will "shut down the Ocean Conveyor." The
> judge said this was "very unlikely."

  Gore didn't say that either.  Here is what he did say..

"At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North 
America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North 
America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on 
the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came 
rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty 
dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And 
that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into 
an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have 
here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. 
That is a sudden jump. Of course that's not going to happen again, because 
the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice 
anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We'll come back to 
that one. "


"Tunderbar"  wrote
> -- Graphs showing carbon dioxide versus temperature over 650,000 years
> were claimed to be an exact fit. The judge said that, "The two graphs
> do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts."

  They show that temperature and Co2 levels are highly correlated Nearly 
perfectly in fact. Which is the dependent and which is the independent 
varialble is not easily seen in the chart.  But the science is clear on the 
fact that CO2 is playing the role of signal amplifier.  Causing addional 
warming.

  You assert it causes none.  Ahahahahahahahahah....




> -- Snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming.
> Deforestation reducing moisture into upslope winds is the cause.

  This is what Gore says about Kilimanjaro...

"This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a 
friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a 
couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies 
glaciers. Here's Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the 
decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro. "

  Oh, and by the way, deforestation MIGHT be playing a part, but it is not 
the major cause of the vanishing of the snow on that mountain.


> -- The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by global
> warming. The court determined this was false.

  Wrong on both counts.  Lake chad is most definately caused in large part 
by regional warming and reduced rainfall.  The Judge decided that there was 
no linkage to this lake in the IPCC reports.



> -- Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The court
> determined it was "not possible" to attribute singular events to
> global warming.

  Sorry, Gore didn't say that either.

  Here is what he did say...

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit 
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused 
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit 
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, 
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll 
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf 
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that 
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there 
are no words to describe it."

wrote
> The Judge has been conned by the alarmists
> THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 is the CAUSE of GW

  Do you have any scientific proof that ducks come from duck eggs?

  Please provide it here.