http://tinyurl.com/2lup7s [Click for hyperlinks]

An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore

AL GORE:

The melting of ice in either West Antarctica or
Greenland would result in a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet
"in the near future."

--Oscar-winning movie, "The Inconvenient Truth."

BRITISH HIGH COURT JUDGE MICHAEL BURTON:

"This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's
'wake-up call.'"While it is generally accepted that the melting
of Greenland's ice will eventually lead to rises in sea-levels
of this magnitude, this will only happen "after, and over,
millenia."

--Legal ruling, October 9, 2007.

Al Gore received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work
drawing attention to the effects of climate change. Today's topic:
Just how accurate are his assertions?

The Facts

The former vice-president has won plaudits around the world for
his work on global warming, publicized in a best-selling book,
an Oscar-winning movie, Power Point lectures, and now the Nobel
Peace Prize. The Nobel prize announcement coincided with the
conclusion of a months-long court case in Britain examining
whether An Inconvenient Truth can be shown to British school
children. The judge ruled this week that the movie can be shown
in classrooms, but only if accompanied by teacher guidance
notes balancing Gore's "one-sided views."

After listening to government witnesses, environmental campaigners,
and skeptics on global warming argue their case, the judge
described Gore's film as "broadly accurate" in its presentation
of climate change. At the same time he also listed nine
significant errors in the movie which, he said, reflected a
general context of "alarmism and exaggeration" surrounding
climate change.

Obviously, it is impossible to adjudicate this argument with
a quick post. But it is worth while at least taking a look at
the judge's nine objections to the Gore movie, which are as
follows:

1. Burton found that Gore's assertion of a rise in sea-levels
caused by the melting of icebergs in Antarctica was overly
"alarmist."

2. Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow
from the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa was
expressly attributable to global warming. The court was not
convinced. According to Burton, the scientific "consensus" is
that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot
be established.

3. Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had
drowned by "swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find
the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the
British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study
shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently
been found drowned because of a storm." See early news story
on bear drownings here.

4. Gore attributed the Hurricane Katrina devastation to
global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient
evidence to show that."

5. The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad as
a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert
testimony in front of the British court suggested that "far
more likely causes" were "population increase, over-grazing,
and regional climate variability."

6. Gore suggested an "exact fit" between the rise in carbon
dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period
of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally
agree that there is "a connection," between the two phenomena,
but claims of an "exact fit" cannot be established.

 
7. An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that low-lying inhabited
Pacific atolls are already being "inundated because of
anthropogenic global warming." The judge said that he found
no evidence of any evacuation of population from the islands
because of global warming.

8. The movie suggested that global warming could shut down
"the Ocean Conveyer," a process by which the Gulf Stream is
carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge
cited a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which concluded that it was "very unlikely"
that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although
it might slow down.

9. Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were
bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The
judge said that it was very difficult to separate out the
impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change
and factors, such as over-fishing and pollution.

Both sides claimed a victory of sorts after the verdict
was delivered. The man who brought the case, Stewart Dimmock,
said he was "elated" with the result, but disappointed that
the film could still be shown in schools. He said that the
judge's order for balancing material to be included with the
movie would keep British school children from being
"indoctrinated with this political spin."

A Gore spokeswoman said that the former vice-president
was "gratified" that the court had agreed with "the central
thesis of the film--that global warming is real and caused
by human activities." She noted that the judge had only
disagreed with a handful of the "thousands" of facts in
the movie.

The Pinocchio Test

It is way too early for a Pinocchio ruling on this one. The
question is not whether global warming is a fact, or whether
Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but whether he has
exaggerated the case in order to draw attention to the
threat facing humanity. There are good arguments on either
side. Let us hear your views.

In the meantime, here are some useful links to the debate:

The official web site of An Inconvenient Truth.

The official website of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore.

Studies from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

A British movie that claims that Gore is at the forefront of
a Great Global Warming Swindle.

A March 2007 New York Times article asking whether Gore
has been over-alarmist.

A web site supporting Stewart Dimmock, the man who brought
the lawsuit against the Gore movie.

Posted on October 12, 2007 at 10:08 AM ET