Oregon petition: it's back

Look out for another wave of Al Gore proven wrong this time with backing of a UK High Court.

I think the appropriate response is to throw the Court's other finding back in their face:

"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."

The Court's opinion is here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Only one of the Judge's points is an "error" within the context of Al Gore's movie (the one about the gulf stream shutdown). Lake Chad, maybe, I'd have to recheck what was actually said. The rest of them are sufficiently couched and have enough scientific backing for any layman's documentary.

The court could find that Al gore is a 9 foot tall lizard who eats babies for breakfast, and it wouldn't change the science showing that we are responsible for most of the warming of the past 30 or 40 years, and that there will be a great many problems caused by it.

Here is a quote from the Judge's Opinion:

"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".

Say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge?

I'll write a post about the judges findings, but one thing to note is the judge talks about "The 'Errors'" ie he has "errors" in quotes because he is referring to things that Carter called "errors", not saying that are actual scientific errors. In fact, he said that he wasn't judging the scientific merit on those points, but that on those points there was enough evidence of a genuine scientific disagreement that students should be told of disagreement with Gore's position.

Tim

"....but that on those points there was enough evidence of a genuine scientific disagreement that students should be told of disagreement with Gore's position."

But isn't the science settled? The future nobel prize winner kept insisting it is in Convenient truth.

Funny how the judge found that what Gore says needs a disclaimer. I have been saying that for a decade.

Jc: "But isn't the science settled?"

Carter doesn't produce any science related to global warming. Nothing he says means the science is not settled. Carter an expert witness in global warming. What a joke.

JC sayeth:

But isn't the science settled? The future nobel prize winner kept insisting it is in Convenient truth.

Since JC apparently has a reading comprehension problem, I've repeated part of the Judge's ruling below, with white space, to make it easier to read:

(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.

Yes, JC, the Judge does believe the science is settled.

In the rest of his judgement he states, in essence, that Gore goes beyond the IPCC AR4 in nine of his statements (out of an entire documentary).

However, many climatologists believe that the IPCC AR4 is too conservative, and in other areas the judge is just nit-picking.

I.E. Gore doesn't state a time period over which scientists state they believe the Greenland Ice Sheet will melt, so he says teachers must say the IPCC says it may take a millenium.

Note the Judge doesn't say that Gore's statement that the Greenland ice sheet may well melt is incorrect ...

See, JC?

Shit, you don't.

Damn!

Hoggsie

"In the rest of his judgement he states, in essence, that Gore goes beyond the IPCC AR4 in nine of his statements (out of an entire documentary)."

So , you do agree then, that Gore is a snakeoiler?

I got my package today, and switched sides!

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/now-im-denier-now.html#links