Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[daveman]

It's never helped the chicken little cultists. What makes you think you'd fare any better?

Yeah, you're right. Guess I'll just stick with being a normal person.

That ship has sailed, you are a day late and a dollar short!

Given you're an AGW cultist, your judgement is obviously flawed and can safely be dismissed.

 

[gslack]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

Wow, you post all kinds of nonsense don't you.

No dimwit, I post the facts and you post the nonsense.

Here is the Times report on the judgment AGAINST an Inconvenient Truth. And yes the judge agreed with the "theory" of AGW but he also said the movie did not present evidence to support the theory.

Total bullshit, walleyed. The lawsuit by the denier cultist was trying to stop distribution of VP Gore's film to the schools in Britain outright and it failed. The lawsuit was rejected. The judge approved the movie for distribution (it's still being shown) and he did indeed say what I quoted him as saying - "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". None of your idiotic denier cult spin can change those facts.

The lawsuit was attempting to ban the movie from schools on the basis that it constituted a kind of political advocacy without presenting opposing viewpoints, which is required under a kind of British 'Fairness Doctrine', and the lawsuit presented a very long list of challenges to the scientific basis of what Gore was claiming in the movie. The judge rejected almost all of those "alleged errors or exaggerations" and only allowed that there might be nine points that weren't fully supported by the mainstream scientific consensus.

Thinking that a judge is the best one to determine the validity of science, rather than an actual scientist, is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Apparently the judge thought so too because he said this:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the "errors" in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 "errors" that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

That's from the Justice Burton's written judgment on the case. Notice that he uses quotation marks around the word "errors"...well, he does that all through the judgment, 17 times in all, pretty much every time he uses the word. The judge is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that the plaintiff alleged were errors. Read the sentence I highlighted. The judge is being very clear that the hearing was not about analyzing the disputes about the science in the movie that the plaintiffs had raised but only whether any of the alleged "errors" differed enough from the "mainstream" IPCC assessment (and some other expert testimony), so as to require, under a British law ss407, an addendum for the teachers to read when showing the movie, stating that there are other views on those nine points and discussing them. BTW, ss407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views". Justice Burton called these nine points where he felt Gore's movie was not fully supported scientifically, "departures from the mainstream". Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but rather that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

That said, the fact is that the cutting edge of climate science actually supports most of those nine points and shows that the judge's opinions on the supposed "exaggerations" were not particularly accurate.

We can go over those nine points if you'd like and I can show you the scientific facts. It's late now so maybe later.

Hey blunder the fact the Goracle exaggerated the science is well established and even confirmed by everyone except you algorian moonies. But hey don't let the truth get in the way of your sermon.. Ahmen brother! ALL HAIL THE GORACLE!


Judge says Al Gore film has serious scientific inaccuracies | Earth Times News

That link is from an environmental news site... LOL, one of your own...

 

[IanC]

the BBC was told that they had to televise a disclaimer when they broadcast AIT. so they put it on after the mockumentary was finished and all the credits had rolled. as usual, the letter of the law and the intent of the law are two different things

 

[RollingThunder]

Wow, you post all kinds of nonsense don't you.

No dimwit, I post the facts and you post the nonsense.

Here is the Times report on the judgment AGAINST an Inconvenient Truth. And yes the judge agreed with the "theory" of AGW but he also said the movie did not present evidence to support the theory.

Total bullshit, walleyed. The lawsuit by the denier cultist was trying to stop distribution of VP Gore's film to the schools in Britain outright and it failed. The lawsuit was rejected. The judge approved the movie for distribution (it's still being shown) and he did indeed say what I quoted him as saying - "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". None of your idiotic denier cult spin can change those facts.

The lawsuit was attempting to ban the movie from schools on the basis that it constituted a kind of political advocacy without presenting opposing viewpoints, which is required under a kind of British 'Fairness Doctrine', and the lawsuit presented a very long list of challenges to the scientific basis of what Gore was claiming in the movie. The judge rejected almost all of those "alleged errors or exaggerations" and only allowed that there might be nine points that weren't fully supported by the mainstream scientific consensus.

Thinking that a judge is the best one to determine the validity of science, rather than an actual scientist, is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Apparently the judge thought so too because he said this:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the "errors" in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 "errors" that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

That's from the Justice Burton's written judgment on the case. Notice that he uses quotation marks around the word "errors"...well, he does that all through the judgment, 17 times in all, pretty much every time he uses the word. The judge is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that the plaintiff alleged were errors. Read the sentence I highlighted. The judge is being very clear that the hearing was not about analyzing the disputes about the science in the movie that the plaintiffs had raised but only whether any of the alleged "errors" differed enough from the "mainstream" IPCC assessment (and some other expert testimony), so as to require, under a British law ss407, an addendum for the teachers to read when showing the movie, stating that there are other views on those nine points and discussing them. BTW, ss407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views". Justice Burton called these nine points where he felt Gore's movie was not fully supported scientifically, "departures from the mainstream". Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but rather that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

That said, the fact is that the cutting edge of climate science actually supports most of those nine points and shows that the judge's opinions on the supposed "exaggerations" were not particularly accurate.

We can go over those nine points if you'd like and I can show you the scientific facts. It's late now so maybe later.

Wrong again Tojo. The person who brought the suit complained about the lack of scientific accuracy and the very obvious propagandistic nature of the film. He wanted the film, when shown, to be required to show the errors that were pointed out in the ruling. My gosh but you're a halfwit, and not a good on at that.

LOLOLOL....just more of your deluded misinformation and lies, walleyedretard. The parties bringing the suit wanted to ban the distribution of the film to British schools and they lost.

Dimmock case
Further information: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

In May 2007, a group of global warming skeptics led by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, challenged the UK Government's distribution of the film in a lawsuit, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills with help from political ally Viscount Monckton.[115][116] The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, arguing that schools are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views and, when dealing with political issues, are required to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

On 10 October 2007, Mr Justice Burton, after explaining that the requirement for a balanced presentation does not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view, ruled that it was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a "talented politician and communicator", to make a political statement and to support a political program.[117] The film could then, on that basis, be shown, provided an accompanying explanation was given of its scientific errors, in order to prevent political indoctrination.[118]

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine "errors", i.e. statements the truth of which he did not rule on, but that he found to depart from the mainstream scientific positions on global warming.[119][120][121] He also found that some of these departures from the mainstream arose in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of political theses.[122][123] Since the government had already accepted to amend the guidance notes to address these along with other points in a fashion that the judge found satisfactory, no order was made on the application.

Each side declared victory. Government Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan stated: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film."[124] Plaintiff Dimmock complained that "no amount of turgid guidance" could change his view that the film was unsuitable for the classroom.[125] A spokesman for Gore said: "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."[126]

 

[gslack]

No dimwit, I post the facts and you post the nonsense.




Total bullshit, walleyed. The lawsuit by the denier cultist was trying to stop distribution of VP Gore's film to the schools in Britain outright and it failed. The lawsuit was rejected. The judge approved the movie for distribution (it's still being shown) and he did indeed say what I quoted him as saying - "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". None of your idiotic denier cult spin can change those facts.

The lawsuit was attempting to ban the movie from schools on the basis that it constituted a kind of political advocacy without presenting opposing viewpoints, which is required under a kind of British 'Fairness Doctrine', and the lawsuit presented a very long list of challenges to the scientific basis of what Gore was claiming in the movie. The judge rejected almost all of those "alleged errors or exaggerations" and only allowed that there might be nine points that weren't fully supported by the mainstream scientific consensus.

Thinking that a judge is the best one to determine the validity of science, rather than an actual scientist, is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Apparently the judge thought so too because he said this:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the "errors" in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 "errors" that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

That's from the Justice Burton's written judgment on the case. Notice that he uses quotation marks around the word "errors"...well, he does that all through the judgment, 17 times in all, pretty much every time he uses the word. The judge is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that the plaintiff alleged were errors. Read the sentence I highlighted. The judge is being very clear that the hearing was not about analyzing the disputes about the science in the movie that the plaintiffs had raised but only whether any of the alleged "errors" differed enough from the "mainstream" IPCC assessment (and some other expert testimony), so as to require, under a British law ss407, an addendum for the teachers to read when showing the movie, stating that there are other views on those nine points and discussing them. BTW, ss407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views". Justice Burton called these nine points where he felt Gore's movie was not fully supported scientifically, "departures from the mainstream". Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but rather that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

That said, the fact is that the cutting edge of climate science actually supports most of those nine points and shows that the judge's opinions on the supposed "exaggerations" were not particularly accurate.

We can go over those nine points if you'd like and I can show you the scientific facts. It's late now so maybe later.

Wrong again Tojo. The person who brought the suit complained about the lack of scientific accuracy and the very obvious propagandistic nature of the film. He wanted the film, when shown, to be required to show the errors that were pointed out in the ruling. My gosh but you're a halfwit, and not a good on at that.

LOLOLOL....just more of your deluded misinformation and lies, walleyedretard. The parties bringing the suit wanted to ban the distribution of the film to British schools and they lost.

Dimmock case
Further information: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

In May 2007, a group of global warming skeptics led by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, challenged the UK Government's distribution of the film in a lawsuit, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills with help from political ally Viscount Monckton.[115][116] The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, arguing that schools are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views and, when dealing with political issues, are required to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

On 10 October 2007, Mr Justice Burton, after explaining that the requirement for a balanced presentation does not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view, ruled that it was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a "talented politician and communicator", to make a political statement and to support a political program.[117] The film could then, on that basis, be shown, provided an accompanying explanation was given of its scientific errors, in order to prevent political indoctrination.[118]

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine "errors", i.e. statements the truth of which he did not rule on, but that he found to depart from the mainstream scientific positions on global warming.[119][120][121] He also found that some of these departures from the mainstream arose in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of political theses.[122][123] Since the government had already accepted to amend the guidance notes to address these along with other points in a fashion that the judge found satisfactory, no order was made on the application.

Each side declared victory. Government Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan stated: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film."[124] Plaintiff Dimmock complained that "no amount of turgid guidance" could change his view that the film was unsuitable for the classroom.[125] A spokesman for Gore said: "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."[126]

From wikkipedia???? LOL thats the best ya got?

Well little fella lets just examine what else was said by that judge...

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22161.pdf

1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of
either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
24. In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the
most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:
“If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and
half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would
happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen
in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas.Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Dimmock v SS for Education and Skills
The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation.
The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people.
Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million
people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the
area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of
a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced
by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a
100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World
Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11
we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan.
They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict
precisely how much water would breach the levee in New
Orleans.”
25. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground
that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after,
and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it
suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in
line with the scientific consensus.

WOW... DISTINCTLY ALARMIST IS WHAT HE SAID... Thats a nice way of saying BS.

Yeah the ruling was a compromise. He let al gore show his film in classrooms but he has to include a guidance note. Stating..

The amended Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant
passage:
“[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
! AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say,
one sided views about political issues)
! teaching sta must be careful to ensure that they do not
themselves promote those views;
! in order to make sure of that, they should take care to
help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically
(rather than simply accepting what is said at face value)
and to point out where Gore’s view may be inaccurate
or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion;
! where the film suggests that views should take
particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby
their democratic representatives to vote for measures to
cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to
o er pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views
and not to promote either the view expressed in the film
or any other particular view.
The sceptical view Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Dimmock v SS for Education and Skills
Teaching staff will be aware that a minority of scientists
disagree with the central thesis that climate change over the
past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made
greenhouse gases. However, the High Court has made clear the
law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of
neutrality between views which accord with the great majority
of scientific opinion and those which do not [this was
anticipatory of my decision].
The notes set out in this guidance have been drafted in
accordance with the Fourth Assessment Reports of the [IPCC],
published in 2007 under the auspices of the United Nations and
the World Meteorological Organisation. AIT was made before
these latest reports had been published, but it is important that
pupils should have access to the latest and most authoritative
scientific information. The IPCC derives its credibility from the
fact that its conclusions are drawn from a “meta-review” of a
massive number of independently peer-reviewed journal
articles, and from the expertise and diversity of those on the
reviewing panels.”
This is in my judgment necessary and judicious guidance

My favorite part is this one.. " AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say,
one sided views about political issues)" LOL

Love that!