Further Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s Film
An Inconvenient Truth
The New Party Report
Many will recall that last month New Party member Stewart Dimmock scored a notable victory in the High Court when judgement was handed down on the UK Government’s decision to distribute Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to all secondary schools in England. The court flagged up nine clear cut inaccuracies in the film.
However, the inaccuracies listed by the court reflected only the sample requested by the Judge. The witness statement of Professor Robert Carter lists 20 such errors rather than the 9 detailed in the judgement. The New Party has today published the full transcript from the case along with the witness statements of Professor Carter and Lord Monckton.
A New Party spokesman commented, “We have published these court papers in order to show the full extent of the errors and exaggerations in the Gore film. We hope that by doing so we will enable teachers to be better prepared if they decide to use this film in the classroom. We also hope that school students will find the material helpful in conducting their own research into the issue.”
Distributing the film without highlighting the inaccuracies is unlawful. High Court Judge, Mr Justice Burton, stated that “there would have been a breach of sections 406 and 407 of the [Education] Act  but for the bringing of these proceedings...” He therefore awarded Stuart Dimmock two-thirds costs against the Government.
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
3 October 2007
The decision by the UK government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 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. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 storm.
* 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.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* 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.
Not all of the inaccuracies in the film were fully considered by the court as the judge requested a sample on which to consider the case. Professor Carter's witness statement (reproduced below) lists 20 inaccuracies in the film.
Source: The New Party