Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

Gore ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Film Contains Nine Factual Errors, UK court decision finds

Gore ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Film Contains Nine Factual Errors, UK court decision finds

Newly-minted Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth contains nine significant errors of fact which absent guidance and an opposing point of view, would be sufficient to ban the film from being shown in UK schools.

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock.

The BBC has more:

Mr Justice Burton told London’s High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its “one-sided” views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

“I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act”, he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

  • Mr Gore’s assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said this was “distinctly alarmist” and it was common ground that if Greenland’s ice melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.
  • Mr Gore’s assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
  • Mr Gore’s reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”

Gore climate film’s ‘nine errors’

See also, Do several convenient half-truths make “An Inconvenient Truth”?

If anyone in blogurbia has a link to the complete decision, please post it in comments below.

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

12 October, 2007 Posted by | 1996 Education Act, Al Gore, alarmism, An Inconvenient Truth, BBC, Britain, charts, Chicken Little, data representation, England, film, global warming, graphs, Great Britain, half-truth, High Court, IGPCC, inconvenient, London, London High Court, movie, Nobel Peace Prize, nobel prize, politics, propaganda, skepticism, Stewart Dimmock, truth, UK, United Kingdom | 1 Comment

‘Children of Men’ is a Thoughtful, Provocative Science Fiction Drama

‘Children of Men’ is a Thoughtful, Provocative Science Fiction Drama

Children of Men
Universal Studios, 2007 (Widescreen Edition)

by Henry Edward Hardy

Children of Men is a brutal and provocative vision of modern society stressed beyond its breaking point. It is 2027, and no children have been born for 18 years. Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is a civil servant and former radical now working for the totalitarian civil administration in Britain. Theo is played with shell-shocked stupor by Owen. Theo fails to react visibly as a nearby shop blows up and a woman runs out screaming, holding the remains of her arm in her remaining hand. Owen’s best friend is broadly portrayed by Michael Caine, who channels John Lennon in his character of aging hippie “Jasper”.

Theo’s life of quiet desperation is shattered when his ex-wife-turned revolutionary, Julian (played by Julianne Moore), has him kidnapped and bribes him to assist in smuggling a young woman out of the country. Britain stands alone as much of the world descends into terrorism and anarchy–but it is a future Britain with much in common with dystopian novels such as George Orwell’s 1984.

Children of Men has much of the immediacy of a hand-held camera or a first-person view. A six minute sequence, apparently filmed continuously, represents the harshest and most realistic-appearing combat footage in cinema since Saving Private Ryan. The computer effects are undetectable; everything looks harshly, painfully real.

Children of Men is full of eclectic references, from Pink Floyd’s Animals to Banksey to Picasso to The Godfather to TS Elliot. When Theo and his companions enter a immigrant detention facility, one man in a metal cage stands in the Christ-like pose of the hooded man from the infamous Abu Ghraib photos. They are inducted to the detention facility through a metal series of aisles like a cattle corral over which hangs a sign reading “Homeland Security”.

Children of Men can be viewed as a futuristic road movie, a dystopian science fiction parable, or as a harsh and stinging attack on the repressive anti-terrorist and anti-immigrant policies of today. It is refreshing to see an action scene in which the hero or anti-hero doesn’t pick up a gun or use violence to resolve the situation. Director Alfonso Cuarón has produced a cataclysmic tour-de-force worthy of consideration and repeated viewing.

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

A version of this review was previously published by Current.

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

5 September, 2007 Posted by | 1984, Alfonso Cuarón, Britain, Children of Men, Clive Owen, dictatorship, dystopia, George Orwell, immigration, Julianne Moore, media, Michael Caine, movie, movies, Orwell, repression, review, scanlyze, science fiction, terrorism, UK, video | 4 Comments

A New ‘Great Game’ In Afghanistan?

A New ‘Great Game’ In Afghanistan?

The head of the British Army has made clear Britain’s quasi-imperial ambitions in Central Asia. The British Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt says that Britain is, “On the edge of a new and deadly Great Game in Afghanistan.” The “Great Game” was a term coined by a British Intelligence Officer, Lt. Arthur Connoly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in 1834, to describe the rivalry between the British Empire and Russia in Central Asia. Dannatt envisions a state of permanent war. He asks, “how do we prepare ourselves for potentially a generation of conflict?”

Dannatt’s speech is here: CGS speaks on “Tomorrow’s Army, Today’s Challenges”

Mentioned in The Guardian: Miliband leaves way open for Iraq troops reduction

Dannatt has attracted considerable controversy regarding public comments which have been seen as suggesting that Britain should withdraw from Iraq: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal

So Dannatt’s comments about Afghanistan are perhaps more a warning than an endorsement of Her Majesty’s Government’s position.

See also, What if Bush has a strategy working as intended in Iraq and Afghanistan? What could it be?
New Great Game (wikipedia)

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

28 August, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, Army, Britain, CGS, Chief of Staff, grand strategy, Great Britain, Great Game, Iraq, military, news, oil, peace, permanent war, Richard Dannatt, scanlyze, speech, strategy, war | Leave a comment