| QUOTE |
| Teaching union slams Gore film ruling Oct 12 2007 by Abbie Wightwick, Western Mail WALES’ biggest teaching union yesterday accused a High Court Judge of acting like Big Brother by ruling a film about climate change can only be shown in schools if accompanied by new guidance notes to balance its views. All schools and colleges in Wales were sent free copies of Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth in a programme backed by the Welsh Assembly Government earlier this year. A High Court challenge mounted by a parent in England, which also sent out copies of the film, resulted in a ruling yesterday that the film, much acclaimed by environmentalists, could be shown in schools as part of a climate change resource pack, but only if it was accompanied by new guidance notes to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views. Last night the WAG said it was considering the ruling’s implications, although no similar complaints from parents have been made here. NUT Cymru campaigns officer Rhys Williams said he was “outraged” by the judge’s ruling which appeared to imply teachers would not support the film with debate. He said it was inappropriate for a judge to dictate how films or other creative work was taught in schools and that all literature from Shakespeare to Doris Lessing was political. “This response from the High Court in London is outrageous. It is scary. It’s like the thought police. It’s 1984 arriving in 2007,” he said. “It’s a slap in the face to teachers to suggest they are incapable of chairing a mature discussion to go with showing this film. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for a judge to say what should be taught in schools and how. The only body that could do that would be the General Teaching Council for Wales.” Making his ruling, the judge also turned film critic, highlighting “nine scientific errors” in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary. He said some of the errors had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US Vice-President’s thesis on global warming. The decision to show the film in secondary schools in England was challenged by father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of “brainwashing” children with propaganda. The judge said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools and Families to make clear to teaching staff that some of Mr Gore’s views were not supported or promoted by the Government, and there was “a view to the contrary”. He said he had viewed the film and described it as “a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film”. When the judge indicated last week what his findings were likely to be, Children’s Minister and Cardiff West MP Kevin Brennan said, “The judge’s decision is clear, that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance. We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge, to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC position on a number of scientific points raised in the film. “However, it is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion. “Nothing in the judge’s comments today detract from that.” Last night a WAG spokesman said, “We are currently considering the implications of the ruling. A copy of the film was provided to schools and colleges in Wales as part of a climate change resource pack. “The resource pack contained a clear statement drawing attention to requirements under section 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 and the need to present the material in a non partisan manner and to highlight areas of debate on climate change. “The resource pack also included lesson plans and suggestions of other activities that pupils can undertake in relation to climate change. The pack specifically included activities that aim to stimulate discussion on different points of view on the issue of climate change.” |
| QUOTE |
| Report: Mining Exec Funded Gore Film Trial U.K. Paper: Industries Backed Parent's Court Case To Keep "Inconvenient Truth" Out Of Schools Oct. 14, 2007 (CBS) It was a curious connection of politics, science, education and the courts: A lawsuit brought by a British father who objected to his school's showing of the global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" to his two children. The documentary, authored by Al Gore, won critical praise, spectacular box office, and an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary. But Stewart Dimmock, a school official and truck driver, charged that showing the film to students amounted to politically "brainwashing" them. A U.K. court sided with the schools, allowing the screenings to continue, though the judge cited several what he termed "inaccuracies" in the film, saying some actions like the melting of snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not conclusively be linked to human activities, as Gore and climate scientists contend. Gore's critics jumped on the judge's findings, as a means to further try to debunk the scientifically-accepted finding that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the warming of the Earth. But the story of a parent standing up to school administrators lost some of its "David vs. Goliath" overtone with an article today in The Observer, which reported that Dimmock was standing on well-funded shoulders. According to the British paper, Dimmock credited an obscure Scottish party, the New Party, with supporting him in the case, without much elaboration. The party promotes lower taxes and an expansion of nuclear power. The Observer has established that Dimmock's case actually received support from a network of business interests, including those with links to the fuel and mining industries, as well as a local Conservative Party figure. According to Electoral Commission records, nearly all funding for the New Party came from a mining concern, Cloburn Quarry Limited in Lanarkshire, which contributed almost 1 million pounds between 2004 and 2006. The company's owner, Robert Durward, is also chairman of the New Party, and is a long-time critic of environmentalists. He also helped form the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other global-warming debunkers (like the U.S.-based George C. Marshall Institute) that have received funding from ExxonMobil. The Observer also reported that Dimmock received additional support from another source, Straightteaching.com, which established an online payment system inviting contributions to support Dimmock's case, via a proxy domain purchased a month ago through the Arizona-based godaddy.com. When asked by the Observer who else was backing the Web site, Derek Tipp, a Conservative council member in Hampshire, declined. "There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed," the paper quoted him. |
| QUOTE |
| UK scientists defend Gore film By Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Analyst The movie can be viewed in UK classrooms Two of the UK's leading climate scientists have hit out at the judge who made the controversial ruling last week on Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth Professor Chris Rapley, head of the Science Museum (and also a Gore science adviser) and Professor John Shepherd from the National Oceanography Centre accuse the judge of misleading the public by ruling that Gore had made "errors". The professors have no grouse with Mr Justice Burton's main conclusion that Al Gore's film should be accompanied by guidance notes in class. And they agree that Gore presented some climate extreme scenarios. But they say the judge's comments themselves were liable to misinterpretation. The trouble, according to the professors, was that the judge referred to "errors" in the film. He put the word "errors" in inverted commas because the points were debatable rather than wrong. But the professors say the judge should have known the error word would be repeated in the media without its inverted commas. They say in general Gore's film presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy. And they warn that the judge himself expressed unwarranted confidence on several issues subject to considerable scientific uncertainty. Professor Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey, told BBC News that the atmosphere over climate science was so confrontational that some scientists were reluctant to discuss uncertainties in their work for fear that they would be seized on by others anxious to discredit the whole theory of manmade climate change. This, he said, was very unhealthy - and would lead to bad science. Mr Justice Burton was asked to rule on whether An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in UK schools. He agreed that it could, provided the "one sided" film was accompanied by guidance notes for teachers. The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, and who is a member of the New Party. Mr Dimmock did not want the movie distributed to schools. He called the Oscar-winner a "shock-umentary" and objected to children being "indoctrinated with this political spin". |
| QUOTE (Patsy @ Oct 21 2007, 09:16 AM) |
| I watched the CNN report last night, and it was favorable to Gore, and several times Gore was gven the credit of being right. |
| QUOTE (TNblue @ Oct 21 2007, 08:27 AM) |
| I caught the tail end of this last night on CNN. It looked very interesting. It's repeating tonight at 10:00 pm eastern, 7:00 pacific. Keeping Them Honest: Truth About Global Warming: Get the facts and the questions behind Al Gore's global warming crusade. CNN is keeping them honest. |