Al's Gourd: desafinado!
- From: Lord Valve <detritus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:48:01 -0700
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Think tank: Withdraw Gore film's Oscar
Citing court ruling, compares situation
to sports stars found to be 'cheats'
Posted: October 12, 2007
11:21 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Located at: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58111
On the eve of Al Gore's award of the Nobel Peace Prize,
a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards
asking that the Oscar given to his film "An Inconvenient
Truth" be taken back in response to a British High Court
ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.
Dr. Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for
Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and
Executive Director Bruce Davis "the situation is not unlike
that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are
found to be drug cheats."
"In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of
their medals and titles, with the next place-getter
elevated," she said, according the Australian Associated
Press. "While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is
necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be
British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday
Gore's documentary should be shown in British schools only
with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart
Dimmock, who claimed the film contained "serious scientific
inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."
The Nobel panel announced today Gore won the peace prize
along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change for their efforts to spread awareness of "man-made
climate change" and to lay the foundations for fighting it.
But Newman, the AAP reported, pointed to the British ruling,
which requires teachers to tell students of 11 inaccuracies
in Gore's film.
"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his
so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are
quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism,"
Newman said. "Good documentaries should be factually correct.
Clearly this documentary is not."
"An Inconvenient Truth" won Oscars in 2006 for best documentary
and best original song.
Dimmock took the British government to court after
then-Environment Secretary David Miliband launched a
plan to send "An Inconvenient Truth" to all British
schools, announcing the scientific debate over man-made
global warming "is over."
The judge, however, sided with Dimmock, who alleged the
documentary breached the Education Act of 1996 by
portraying "partisan political views."
The court ruled the Guidance Notes to Teachers must make
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.
Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the
attention of school children. The inaccuracies, according to
the court, 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
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 seven meters,
causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the
evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40
centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no
such threat of massive migration. (LV inserts: so you can
get a handle on how massive a con game this crap is, 7 meters
is 23 feet. 40 cm is only 15-3/4" - a 17.5-fold exaggeration!)
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.
- Prev by Date: Re: Al's Gordo: The leftist gasbag's inflation continues...
- Next by Date: Re: some Fender Blues Deluxe questions
- Previous by thread: OT: Gore Peace Prize... screech! Fling poo!
- Next by thread: Re: Al's Gourd: desafinado!