High Court: Gore’s movie is one-sided, alarmist and exaggerated

George C. Landrith

A High Court in Great Britain has ruled that Al Gore’s “shock-u-mentary,” An Inconvenient Truth, was “one-sided,” “alarmist,” and “exaggerated.” The judge also said that it promoted “partisan political views.” Moreover, the high court ruled that it could not be shown in schools without an accompanying warning as to its partisan and inaccurate nature.

The legal dispute began when a father accused government run schools of using Gore’s movie as a tool to “brainwash” children with political propaganda that masqueraded as a serious scientific discussion.The Court agreed that the movie breached educational standards of objectivity and was not well founded in science or fact.

The Court cited nine examples of significant scientific errors in Al Gore’s movie.

First, Gore claims that sea levels will rise by up to 20 feet in the near future due to melting ice caps. The High Court ruled this claim “distinctly alarmist.” The truth is the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel that accepts much of Al Gore’s climate change views, predicts a sea level rise of as little as seven inches. Many experts say even the IPCC’s estimate is too high.

Second, Gore claims that low-lying Pacific atolls (islands of coral that encircle a lagoon partially or completely) have already been evacuated. The High Court found no evidence of this at all. Apparently, just a sheer fabrication.

Third, Gore claims that climate change is causing, or will cause, the Gulf Stream to shut down. The High Court found no reliable evidence of this, but said some scientists believe the Gulf Stream may slow over many, many centuries.

Fourth, Gore shows graphs over the last 650,000 years which depict that precisely as CO2 has risen, temperatures have risen as well. The two graphs Gore prepared for his movie depict an “exact fit.” The High Court found that “the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.”

Fifth, Gore says that melting snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is caused by human induced climate change. The High Court ruled that it cannot be established that melting snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is caused mainly by human induced climate change.

Sixth, Gore claims that the drying up of Lake Chad is a catastrophic result of climate change. The High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support such claims.

Seventh, Gore claims that hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The High Court held that there was no scientific evidence of that. Interestingly enough, CNN meteorologist, Rob Marciano, recently said the same thing. Citing numerous inaccuracies with Gore’s movie, Marciano said, "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."

Eighth, Gore claims that polar bears are drowning and becoming endangered as a result of climate change. The High Court found that only four polar bears had been found drowned recently and it was the result of a storm, not melting ice or climate change. Moreover, the most recent survey of polar bears by the Canadian government shows the population of polar bears has increased almost 300 percent since mid-1980s.

Ninth, Gore claims that coral reefs are bleaching because of climate change. However, the High Court held that such claims cannot be substantiated due the large number of contributing factors and complex causal relationships.

As one who has been writing about climate change issues for about a decade, I am glad to have a High Court in Great Britain finally say many of the same things that I have been saying for a long time -- Al Gore’s views on climate change are exaggerated, alarmist, one-sided and politically partisan -- not science. That is just another way of saying “An Inconvenient Truth” is political propaganda. Now a court has ruled it so.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org