Skip to main content

View Diary: Could the Judge Require Guidance Notes for Media Reports? (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Check the (5+ / 0-)

    lack of facts Washington Post Fact Checker on this which has:

    Video Watch
    An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore

    Al Gore believes that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming.

    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:

    And, the Post has this as conclusion ...

    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.

    And, well, there are pretty darn good arguments that Gore understated the threat because he wants to drive people to action, not despair.

    •  When I'd Read That Piece of Dreck (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, A Siegel, brein

      this morning, my jaw almost hit the floor.  The WaPo "Fact Checker" stories have an absolutely astounding way of labeling something as an inaccuracy when there is any divergence of opinion, even if the original statement was 90% or more accurate in everyone's mind.  Somehow, its author seems to expect that every single assertion must come with full documentation and backup, and that to do otherwise amounts to deliberate deception.

      A great (that is to say, horrible) example:

      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.

      Perhaps I'm just too dense to appreciate this, but it seems like they're trying to say that since we don't have any controlled experiments with coral reefs that have been sheltered from fishing and pollution, Gore's statement is inaccurate, even though he clearly acknowledged "other factors".  Grrrr!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site