A parent is urging a judge to reconsider a ruling that the government did not break the law when it sent schools copies of a film by Al Gore.
Stuart Dimmock, a father from Kent and a member of the New Party, is at London's High Court.
In late July, a judge there ruled that the decision to send the climate change film "An Inconvenient Truth" to England's secondary schools was lawful.
Mr Dimmock had argued that circulating the film amounted to indoctrination.
It is indoctrination. At worst, An Inconvenient Truth is a pack of lies; at best it is presenting a flawed and highly biased point of view. The unproven theories that it presses are the same unproven opinions as those of the government and thus for the government to send it out is, quite obviously, an act of propaganda.
But the judge, Mr Justice Beatson, ruled: "The fact that the presenter is a public figure and active in US politics does not arguably make the film as a whole one of political indoctrination.
"Nor does the showing [of] it in an educational context as a supplement to other teaching methods, and accompanied by suitable reservations and indications as to what is political and controversial, arguably the 'promotion' of partisan political views."
Yes, it fucking well does. Because we know full well that those "suitable reservations and indications" will not be detailed enough.
In the High Court on Thursday, Paul Downes, appearing for Mr Dimmock said: "Given the serious inaccuracies in the film and the misrepresentations it contains, the film is irredeemable".
He said he was seeking to persuade the court the film constituted "just over half scientific material, 30% pure politics and about 20% sentimental mush - mush there to soften up the viewer for persuasion".
Guidance notes accompanying the film pack went "nowhere near correcting these flaws - indeed they don't even set out to do that," he said.
Just over half is scientific content? Really? I would seriously doubt that. Let's look at one of Gore's most "compelling" arguments: that the ice core records show that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. Well, that is entirely true but that relationship is not the one that Gore infers.
As the Coyote blog points out, there is an 800 year lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. (I highly recommend that you read the rest of that article, as it also deals with positive feedback issues.)
The Swindle movie, however, claims that Gore is hiding something from that analysis in the scale of his chart -- that the same ice core analyses show that global temperature changes have led CO2 concentration changes by as much as 800 years. (short 2-minute snippet of this part of the movie here, highly recommended).
Well, this would certainly be something important to sort out. I have not done much real science since my physics days at Princeton, but my sense is that, except maybe at the quantum level, when B follows A it is hard to argue that B caused A.
So I have poked around a bit to see -- is this really what the ice core data shows, or is Swindle just making up facts or taking facts out of context ala the truther hypotheses about 9/11? Well, it turns out that everyone, even the die-hard global warming supporters, accept this 800-year lag as correct (Watch the Al Gore clip above -- it is clear he knows. You can tell by the very careful way he describes the relationship).
Conclusion: Al Gore is a liar.
Oh, and one of Gore's other claims is that we will see other disasters, such as hurricanes increasing in strength and frequency. Er, not according to this NOAA-funded paper, we won't.
Conclusion: even if Al Gore was unaware of this, his film is outdated.
Gore also claims that we will see sea level rises of 22 feet. In an excellent article on climate sensitivity, the Climate Sceptic concludes that no, Al, we won't.
The chief debate really boils down to those of us who think that climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to 1C (ie the degrees the world will warm with a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels) and those who think that the sensitivity is 3-5C or more. The lower sensitivity implies a warming over the next century of about a half degree C, or about what we saw in the last century. The higher numbers represesent an order of magnitude more warming in the next century. The lower numbers imply a sea level rise measured in inches. The higher numbers imply a rise of 1-2 feet (No one really know where Al Gore gets his 20 foot prediction in his movie).
So, even if this film is not "political" in nature (which it clearly is), it is very bad science. It contains superannuated theories and falsified data. It should not be shown in schools for those reasons alone.
So, assuming that this film is not going to be shown in creative writing classes—where it deserves to be—in what context will it be shown?
Schools in England are being sent a copy of the film by the former US vice-president in a package of resources for use in science, geography or citizenship lessons.
This inaccurate piece of shit is going to be shown in science lessons? What as—a teaching aid for showing how to falsify your data in order to put across the view that you want to make other people believe (even though the data doesn't support it)? Seriously, what the fuck?
And citizenship classes? What on earth has this to do with citizenship? And when the fucking cunt did they start "citizenship" classes? What the fuck is going on?
Doesn't anyone else here think that the very sound of citizenship classes is a little totalitarian? What, preceisely, constitutes a good citizen these days? It seems that I have leapt onto this bandwagon somewhat late: our government seem to have started the brain-washing already.
But what about these safeguards? You know, those ones that are going to tell the kiddies that this film may not be the Gospel truth?
Guidance notes accompanying the film pack went "nowhere near correcting these flaws - indeed they don't even set out to do that," [Paul Downes] said.
Why am I not surprised?
The government's counsel, Martin Chamberlain, said guidance notes distributed to schools with the DVD, warning against political indoctrination, would ensure that the documentary was presented in a balanced way.
Although teachers could present the film in any way they wished, they were under a duty to provide balance - for instance, by explaining to pupils that some of the views expressed in the documentary were political and asking "What do you think about it?".
What? I mean, seriously, what the fuck? That's your fucking safety net? Fucking hellski.
These guidelines should be pointing out that the film involves some serious scientific flaws and that nothing in the movie should be taken as truth, because it isn't. It is, quite simply, incorrect: it is a lie. It is contaminated data and should not be shown to anyone; let alone impressionable children who are already being mind-wiped by these eco-fascists.
And if the government insist on showing this film, then they should also provide a counter-balance in the same medium. If you believe that the Great Global Warming Swindle is too controversial (although it is rather more accurate than Gore's alarmist polemic), how about showing An Inconvenient Truth Or Convenient Fiction, an extremely measured and balanced view.
And Dr Steve Hayward has some background in science and is not simply a fucking journalist. (It bears repeating, by the way; Al Gore has no scientific qualifications whatso-fucking-ever; he is a hack, pure and simple.)
In short, An Inconvenient Truth should not be sent to schools: not because it is political (although it undoubtedly is) but because it is inaccurate, misleading, emotive and, in far too many places, demonstrably and deliberately false.