This is a good example of how skeptics and denialist are themselves Alarmist in that they have sensationalized the comments from the Judge.

The Judge never called any of the findings actual errors.

In contrast, the plantiff Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon.

And just to prove that Gore qualifies as a Climate Expert about as much as Bonzo the Chimp, here's another little tid bit from March of 2000
that will drive our Global Warming Church Members up the wall. It's seems their High Priest had a little bit of trouble whilest going to school!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

Notice the source is ALSO The Washington POST, NOT the Washington Times, but the POST!!!!

Further proof that this is all about BS, politics and brainwashing on the part of a washed up bitter liberal politician with nothing better to do!

The Denier STRIKES AGAIN!!!!

you know brett, i think you enjoy stirring the blankety blank up...first paragraph from TEAM GORE (what a joke) says it all...we cannot scientifically debate the judgement handed down that we lost because our science was bad, therefore, we will imply that evil forces are against us and smear their reputation implying its a vast BIG OIL and BIG COAL conspiracy...kinda funny though looking at the background of the picture... he has all the smoke and mirrors that would make even the best illusionist enviable...too bad there isnt a picture of TEAM GORE's private jet includied in the props puffing out co2 leaving a con trail over the planet...if i was a hacker, that would be a priceless insert...

Andrew:
Can you explain one more time how funding from someone you don't like can make a fact into a lie.
I am just having a hard time with that concept.
However, if it is indeed legitimate, all the IPCC reports should then be ignored as they are surely biased by the political body that funded them.
Thanks

In defence of the former Vice President turned evangelist: he never forced the British primary schools to view the docu-drama. As a case in law, the plantiff's disagreed (and despite Andrew's vehement denials, there are valid scientific as well as mathematical questions concerning many AGW theories or studies) on many points, and convinced a judge of thier point of view.

AL GORE's spokesperson validated the skeptics point of view by this remark:

"Former Vice President Gore does not solely rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As many know, the IPCC operates on a consensus driven process requiring the approval of all governments involved. As a result, its findings are often believed to be conservative"

This is quite interesting that the former VP has taken issue with the "settled science". AL GORE, it turns out ignored a vast plethora of "peer reviewed" studies, and the educated opinion of 30,000 scientists. He can now join the ranks of other "denialists". AL GORE's spokesperson even went as far as to state that the IPCC is more a political institution than a scientific body, where consensus over-rides everything else. AL GORE even now admits that it does not soley relie on the most agust body of climate science in the world. In other words, he cherry picks what he likes, and ignores the rest.

Could it be there is a fissue in the AGW Camp? The IPCC is now a "conservative" body - i.e. it does not go far enough.

The judge's criticism's were very conservative and accurate. He could have listed many more errors but the ones he listed are incontrovertible.

Gore's response is wholly inadequate and really quite pathetic.

I have a novel idea: suppose our contrarians try actually reading the material before commenting.

sammy k writes:
you know brett, i think you enjoy stirring the blankety blank up...first paragraph from TEAM GORE (what a joke) says it all...we cannot scientifically debate the judgement handed down that we lost because our science was bad, therefore, we will imply that evil forces are against us and smear their reputation implying its a vast BIG OIL and BIG COAL conspiracy...kinda funny though looking at the background of the picture... he has all the smoke and mirrors that would make even the best illusionist enviable...too bad there isnt a picture of TEAM GORE's private jet includied in the props puffing out co2 leaving a con trail over the planet...if i was a hacker, that would be a priceless insert...

Here is the paragraph that "sammy k" is apparently referring to:
With a column titled "Fact Checker," it is difficult not to lose the forest for the trees. First and foremost, An Inconvenient Truth presented thousands and thousands of facts. We stand by our initial statement. We were gratified that a UK High Court judge, a layperson with a full docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. A generation of schoolchildren will become more educated about global warming and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

Perhaps sammy will share with us where, among these words, he found anything about "evil forces", "BIG OIL", "BIG COAL", "conspiracy" -- or anything else.

It certainly appears to me that "sammy k" either (a) didn't read the paragraph or (b) read it and decided to lie about it here.

Gary writes:
Can you explain one more time how funding from someone you don't like can make a fact into a lie.

Gary, it tends to work the other way around. The right wing is becoming VERY ACCOMPLISHED at using funding to make LIES into "facts".

The modus operandi of these players is to flood an arena with lies, repeat them relentlessly and loudly, with the goal of overwhelming the truth through sheer brute force. It is not very different from provoking a mob to haul away a troublesome individual and forcibly silence him or her.

It will continue so long as the liars are allowed to practice their craft without complaint from the rest of us.

Addressing Point 2 in the Gore_Team's response: On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise.

Vanuatu is a Y-shaped chain of islands made of a base of basaltic and andesitic volcanic rock with a covering of coral limestone atop them. Some of the islands have no coral at all. The islands are the result of the subduction of the Australian Plate beneath the Pacific Plate at a rate of 9 cm/year. This high rate of subduction results in numerous earthquakes. The most recent was a 5.5 temblor on September 15. On August 1 of this year a 7.2 magnitude quake was recorded in the region. If anything (as described on the geography page of the Vanuatu Homepage), the islands are rising due to the tectonics and volcanics.

However, the older Miocene-age volcanic islands may be settling into the ocean basin just as the Hawaiian Islands are doing. This would result in an apparent sea level rise when actually the islands are sinking.

The Gore_team's answer is actually a non-answer and really doesn't address the error.

I found the explainations to be unsatisfactory.
That is not to say they are wrong, since I can't prove them to be wrong and they can't prove them to be right, I can only say that they don't sound convincing. More like attempts to cover up embarrasments.
Much of the movie was deliberatly vague so that an implied message could be sent without actually commiting to solid statements.
Since I believe Gore's motivations are purely monitary in nature, and the IPCC's motivations are purely political, I am not convinced by any of the statements.
It is still a missleading and alarmist propoganda film in my opinion.

bt,

at first i thought i wouldnt even respond to your attempt to call me a liar or suggest i didnt read the article...however, i recognize that one of your tactics in your disenginous attempts to discredit anyone that does not believe in AGW, is to try and get the last word in after someone posts a comment as if you won the argument...my comment to you is thus; your long tirade of name calling is proof i interpreted the article perfectly and you have no other argument to contradict that interpretation other than name calling...try and have a nice day, you seem to me to be really rather emotional about this AGW thingy...is it because the scamsters are experiencing a little bit of global meltdown in your farce of a theory?

BT, looks like you're the one who didn't read...

You wrote a fairly extensive inflammatory reply blaming Gary and SammyK for lying, failing to read the link themselves before commenting and generally spreading propaganda. That's hardly a way to convert anybody to your way of thinking.

YIKES! Melting Ice sheets of Antartica is very unlikely, they are atop rather high mountains and will likely stay there. As for Greenlands Ice sheets, We will have to see but a similar thing as these Ice accumulations are on mountains. Searising from Artic Sea Ice melting won't change anything as the Sea Ice is already in the sea! Same for Antarctic Sea Ice. Gore Responce says Two island villages were evacuated due to rising sea....but it is also known that Pacific Islands can also subside, sink....so that is hard to accept as rising seas as more islands should be affected. The recent ballyhoo that the Atlantic Conveyor Stopped for a few days was found out to be an error, the buoy's did not account for the myriad vageries of currents in an ocean....the Atlantic Conveyor never stopped, it moved...the buoy's were in eddies...AHH the C02 thing...It is my understanding that the C02 showed a marked rise PRIOR to ICE AGES...LOL, Snows and Mountain tops, Hmmm, I say Geo Engineered melting on purpose by secret government operations. Weather Weapons in use. Kake Chad and Katrina.. more weather weapons in use. I read a report that the Polar bears are fine. THe bleaching of coral reefs has also been atributed to Ozone Depletion, which contrary to popular belief, was cause by the years of atmospheric nuclear weapons being detonated...trashed the Ozone Layer from the 1940's till the 1960's.....Water Polution is also big killer of corals.

Moan moan moan, the DVD will still be presented in schools. Al gore lost nothing.
The nine errors were found and chosen by the judge, which led to a fair and balance ruling. The judge played it safe, using these nine examples out of the thousands of claims made by Al Gore to suggest that opinion may have been presented as fact in a few cases. The ruling was designed to save the time of the court by making a decision that allowed the film to be shown while disarming the plaintiff and preventing further appeal.
It�s a good result, providing extra publicity and encouraging greater debate while allowing team Gore to confirm the questionable details contained in the film
How many of these so called, nine errors, remain mistakes?

In order to achieve 80% reduction, essentially all transportation will have to be banned. This includes ships and bicycles. The extra respiration produced while exercising makes it dangerous by IPCC standards.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052037.stm

Of course we could send nuclear powered commercial ships into Middle Eastern ports as a way to "control the climate" and "protect the environment."

You really should not use this site to push politics. This is a weather information site and should just be that. I personally am tired of reading global warming this and that on this site when the space could be used for something useful pertaining to real events like current weather. (Reply: we have a lot of discussion on real weather with several other blogs on this site. I do not believe there is any shortage of that. Brett) If politics are going to be used and discussed on this site then we should treat it from now on like any other partisan political entity.

Gore is not a scientist and has truly cherry picked data for his sci-fi piece An Inconvenient Truth. The judge is right to force classroom teachers to issue what amounts to a disclaimer before presenting the film.

As far as the response from the Gore camp, well, it sounds a lot like his old boss declaring, "I did not have sex with that woman." What's next, a new definition of the word "is"?

AGW believers - find a new spokesman

Hey SammyK! Name calling. I believe that is on page 30 or 31 of either the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" book, or the MoveOn.org Operator's Manuel!....;-D....

Global warming is fake. the1930s were hotter than now and us here in Ohio(Go Bucks!) had a really cold winter. i hope u under stand. thanks

Carson's right

sammy k continues:
at first i thought i wouldnt even respond to your attempt to call me a liar or suggest i didnt read the article...however, i recognize that one of your tactics in your disenginous attempts to discredit anyone that does not believe in AGW, is to try and get the last word in after someone posts a comment as if you won the argument...my comment to you is thus; your long tirade of name calling is proof i interpreted the article perfectly and you have no other argument to contradict that interpretation other than name calling...try and have a nice day, you seem to me to be really rather emotional about this AGW thingy...is it because the scamsters are experiencing a little bit of global meltdown in your farce of a theory?

More unresponsive diversion from sammy. He still has not offered where the Gore team's response mentioned "evil forces", "BIG OIL", "BIG COAL", or "conspiracy".

A common tactic of the extreme-right is to mis-state the words of their intended victim, then attack the victim for those words. If our contrarians are offended by my use of the word "lies" to characterize such distortions, perhaps they can offer a more acceptable word.

The re-writing of Murtha's Iraq resolution by the GOP (and effort led by Marc Morano), offers a fine example. This most recent exercise by sammy k seems to offer another textbook example.

Unless sammy k can offer some basis for his "interpretation" of the Gore team's response, I stand by my characterization of his own words.

This much I know. When my daughter is old enough to possibly have to sit through this movie in a classroom, I'll be sure to explain to her myself (I won't need a judge to do it) that it's nothing to take seriously. I'll explain about politics and how there are politicians and activists who like to use scare tactics to impose higher taxes and place more restrictions on citizens. Just as I have to reassure her that Frankenstein, T-Rex and Freddie Kreuger aren't real, so will I need to calm her whenever Al Gore, Oprah or some talking head from CNN start to blather on and on about the end of civilization.

Let's suppose, for a second, that Al Gore is wrong. But if we decided to just arbitrarily follow the guidelines laid out in his documentary, and pick up our trash, what would we ultimately accomplish?

Cleaner air, cleaner water, less dependency on foreign fuel, less dependency on "fossil" fuel; I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this.

The fact is the earth is in an ever changing flux, and definitely for the worse, and even if it has done so billions of times before, that's hardly the point. Maybe we are of a thousand inherent generations to suffer the same ambivelence toward our enviroment as our fathers who came before us by creating, through our greed and intentional neglect, a poisonous graveyard, and now the ghosts from that graveyard are coming back to haunt us.

It is irrelevant how anyone feels about Al Gore, politically. What is relevant, though, is the future of our planet, and the worst that we can do is the worst that we have already done.

Why does everyone bring up "big money" when they're trying to discredit something? The facts are that the AGW group has outspent other groups by orders of magnitude...The AGW group is the Goliath in this battle-not David with the slingshot.

BT;

It will continue so long as the liars are allowed to practice their craft without complaint from the rest of us.

What are you talking about? Your comment is a direct response to what you perceive as a lie. The comment section of this blog is nothing but one big back and forth between AGW's and skeptics. Where is this policy of allowing liars an uncontested venue written? Your statement is simply nonsense.

Phillip, "if we decided to just arbitrarily follow the guidelines laid out in his documentary"

We would arbitrarily destroy the world economy and make the needed technological innovation impossible. Reducing waste is important, but Gore's extreme and inaccurate stance is not a constructive approach. The debate needs to be sane, honest and based on fact.

"A common tactic of the extreme-right is to mis-state the words of their intended victim, then attack the victim for those words. If our contrarians are