NationStates Jolt Archive

A judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth, was biased one sided propaganda. He ordered that students required to watch the movie be warned that Gore's film is filled with unsubstantiated claims and that schools be required to give ......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eagore128.xml

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3661743&page=1

I'm hoping America's legal system follows suit and also places restrictions on or bans Inconveniant Truth from American schools.

I'm sorry, but you fail, and of the news sources you posted I'd bet you only really read the daily mail.

From the guardian:
Mr Brennan said: "The judge's ruling 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, which is now available on the TeacherNet website." He added: "Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. Schools have a special role to play in helping pupils understand its causes and in exploring if and how we should respond.

"The court's decision recognises that the secretary of state 'understandably formed the view that An Inconvenient Truth was an outstanding film and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils.' "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge, to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.

Yeah, it's political. British law says if you show something political in schools it has to be accompanied by written guidance.

To continue the article
"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 ruling today detracts from that."

Mr Johnson said at the launch that Mr Gore's film sent a "powerful message about the fragility of our planet" and would stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming.

I'm sorry, but you fail, and of the news sources you posted I'd bet you only really read the daily mail.

From the guardian:


Yeah, it's political. British law says if you show something political in schools it has to be accompanied by written guidance.

To continue the article

I love it when they are pwnd by their own sources.

A judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth, was biased one sided propaganda. He ordered that students required to watch the movie be warned that Gore's film is filled with unsubstantiated claims and that schools be required to give ......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eagore128.xml

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3661743&page=1

Bwahaha that is simply not true.

The ruling found that 8 claims made in the film, did not have enough scientific eviandace to back them up, and has recommended that schools still be allowed to use this film, but with teacher notes for discusion highlighting these 8 points.

And the lesson we learned today:

Read your own sources before you make claims about what they say.

I'm hoping America's legal system follows suit and also places restrictions on or bans Inconveniant Truth from American schools.
Why? Too inconvenient for you?

And the lesson we learned today:

Read your own sources before you make claims about what they say.

Well, here's another source. I've read it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301071,00.html

Note the detailed description of Gore's convenient untruths, with quotations from the court's decision. I especially like the first point:

Gore asserted that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Gore's "wake-up call". It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia." The judge added that "the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

Leave it to Fox to report the truths that other sources omit.

Algore, you've been pwn'd :p

Fox reports truth? Since when?

Fox reports truth? Since when?
Since the liberal media took over.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

A good source.

They're saying that the film does have errors but it can be shown. It called it 'one-sided', which doesn't necessarily mean politically biased.

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

Since the liberal media took over.

Do read what you write before you post? Do you know how silly you sound?

Since the liberal media took over.

You know, put in context, your post actually reads like you're suggesting the liberal media took over Fox, and that is why Fox reports the truth.

Your distinct lack of grasp for the subtleties of the written word amuse us greatly.

A judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth, was biased one sided propaganda. He ordered that students required to watch the movie be warned that Gore's film is filled with unsubstantiated claims

Good for the judge. Cookies and milk for him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

A good source.

They're saying that the film does have errors but it can be shown. It called it 'one-sided', which doesn't necessarily mean politically biased.

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

If one sided isn't politically biased, then what is it? :rolleyes:

If one sided isn't politically biased, then what is it? :rolleyes:

Yes because all things that are biased to one side or the other has to be political.:rolleyes:

Well, here's another source. I've read it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301071,00.html

Note the detailed description of Gore's convenient untruths, with quotations from the court's decision. I especially like the first point:



Leave it to Fox to report the truths that other sources omit.

Algore, you've been pwn'd :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

BBC listed them too, and I scarcely think that a handful of errors in a movie makes him "pwn'd".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/

Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors

A UK judge has ruled that schools are allowed to show Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but only if the film is accompanied by guidance highlighting the areas where the ex-vice president of America strays off the scientific terra firma, the BBC reports.

Mr Justice Burton said teachers could show the film, but must highlight nine assertions in the film that are not supported by mainstream scientific consensus, including a claim that polar bears are drowning on long swims between icebergs.

Despite these rogue Arctic ursines, the judge seems to be happy that the main thrust of the film is not political, nor likely to indoctrinate anyone.

Other problem areas included an assertion that the sea would rise up to 20 feet "in the near future" as ice in Greenland or Western Antarctica melts. The judge said this was an alarmist statement. He added that scientific consensus held that that kind of sea level rise would be possible if Greenland's ice melted, but that that melt would happen "after, and over, millennia".

The judge also dismissed Gore's claim that the retreating snowline on Mount Kilimanjaro could be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, saying that the science to establish such a link does not exist.

The government sent copies of the film to all secondary schools in England, while the ruling administrations in Wales and Scotland did the same. But school governor Stewart Dimmock of Dover, a member of the New Party, took the government to court, saying the distribution breached rules governing what may be shown in schools.

The judge said Mr Dimmock has "substantially won" the case. He found that "but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act". These sections cover political indoctrination and the treatment of political issues in schools.

Dimmock said he was "delighted" with the outcome, which also saw him awarded two-thirds of his £200,000 of legal fees.

The government also professed itself happy with the ruling, noting that the judge had not taken issue with the mainstream arguments in the film. ®

Hmm, doesn't seem to me that the judge thought it was too one-sided.

It just has a few unsubstantiated claims in their, and the judge wanted those highlighted.

So he's not really talking about the film being one-sided or political, as is bolded up there.

Nice try though.

If one sided isn't politically biased, then what is it? :rolleyes:

It's as one-sided as a film that teaches that 2+2=4 and not 5. It's one-sided because the other side has absolutely nothing.

Yeah, it's political. British law says if you show something political in schools it has to be accompanied by written guidance.

Although perversely it's not only legal for British schools to teach religion as fact, it's mandatory. Sometimes I think our education system was devised by a deranged mime on steroids. :(

It's as one-sided as a film that teaches that 2+2=4 and not 5. It's one-sided because the other side has absolutely nothing.

Is it just me or are the global warming deniers borrowing tactics from the evolution deniers? 'Teach the Controversy' anyone?

Well, here's another source. I've read it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301071,00.html

Note the detailed description of Gore's convenient untruths, with quotations from the court's decision. I especially like the first point:



Leave it to Fox to report the truths that other sources omit.

Algore, you've been pwn'd :p

The Fox report focuses on the errors which no one is denying are there. It doesn't focus on the actual legal decision as the other sources do. Upon further inspection it seems that far more of the information Gore used was correct rather than false. Much of it is drastically editorialized as well. Who owns the Daily Mail? Who owns Fox?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

A good source.

They're saying that the film does have errors but it can be shown. It called it 'one-sided', which doesn't necessarily mean politically biased.

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.
the Guardian (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8)[The] High Court ruling stated the film must be distributed with new guidance notes for students and teachers to prevent "promoting partisan political views".I think that's enough to suggest that the Judge believed that the film's "one-sided" views were political in nature.

Yes because all things that are biased to one side or the other has to be political.:rolleyes:

Do you know what politics is?

Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

I think that pretty much sums up the average view of what politics is.

Very little isn't political. Anything which involves humans or even living creatures is.

It's like art. Alot artists will tell you anything is art, they are just lucky enough to live off theirs, however some people like to narrow the definition.

Okay that sounded really condescending sorry, didn't mean it like that.

Fox reports truth? Since when?

Any day now.

Is it just me or are the global warming deniers borrowing tactics from the evolution deniers? 'Teach the Controversy' anyone?

Aren't they one and the same usually?

It's as one-sided as a film that teaches that 2+2=4 and not 5. It's one-sided because the other side has absolutely nothing.

This is just total bullshit. But I can't be bothered right now, I don't want to argue with a bunch of people who think they are scientists giving them the authority to dismiss views without backing.

Although perversely it's not only legal for British schools to teach religion as fact, it's mandatory. Sometimes I think our education system was devised by a deranged mime on steroids. :(

Mandatory to teach, but not to learn. :p

On topic, that of Gore's moviefilm docu-whajumacallit...I dunno. No doubt it exaggerates here and there, but then, that's to be expected. I personally have my doubts about it all - climate change? Yes. Man-made? Not so sure, but most likely. I haven't read all the information yet, so I'm not in the place to make such a decision.

I do however believe that carbon-neutral and carbon-offsetting is a load of [censored].

This is just total bullshit. But I can't be bothered right now, I don't want to argue with a bunch of people who think they are scientists giving them the authority to dismiss views without backing.

I'm sure if you asked, then someone would post scientific backing. Or do you expect someone to explain the entirety of the global warming theory any time it's brought up in a post? It's been done over and over again. Denialists just like to ignore those posts.

I'm sure if you asked, then someone would post scientific backing. Or do you expect someone to explain the entirety of the global warming theory any time it's brought up in a post? It's been done over and over again. Denialists just like to ignore those posts.

And everyone else seems to like posting rhetoric like this, so much so that eventually everyone on nationstates believes it. There is very rarely a real scientific debate on NSG to do with global warming, and when there is it just goes around in circles.

*sigh* another Bushvik. :rolleyes:

A politician made a politically biased film? And I thought he would make a film that gives equal time to the messages he doesn't want to send out.

A judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth, was biased one sided propaganda. He ordered that students required to watch the movie be warned that Gore's film is filled with unsubstantiated claims and that schools be required to give ......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eagore128.xml

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3661743&page=1
The movie was one-sided? To be brief: duh. Do you think Al Gore is going to present a side he doesn't believe to be true? No, he's trying to make a point, and I saw it and think he did a pretty good job making that point.

And everyone else seems to like posting rhetoric like this, so much so that eventually everyone on nationstates believes it. There is very rarely a real scientific debate on NSG to do with global warming, and when there is it just goes around in circles.

It goes around in circles because one side refuses to post any evidence.

This is just total bullshit. But I can't be bothered right now, I don't want to argue with a bunch of people who think they are scientists giving them the authority to dismiss views without backing.

I'm not a scientist. However, I trust the conclusions of those that are, and, well, does the IPCC report really have to be linked again?

Since the liberal media took over.

They never left.
They're THAT good.

*sigh* another Bushvik. :rolleyes:

Get the shovel. Gonna get cold soon, and the compost needs to be reconstituted.

I scarcely think that a handful of errors in a movie makes him "pwn'd".
Shhhh! It makes s/he feel "big" :p

Any day now.

Are you talking law of averages?

Do you know what politics is?

Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

I think that pretty much sums up the average view of what politics is.

Very little isn't political. Anything which involves humans or even living creatures is.

It's like art. Alot artists will tell you anything is art, they are just lucky enough to live off theirs, however some people like to narrow the definition.

Okay that sounded really condescending sorry, didn't mean it like that.

Do I know what politics is? What a fuckin' silly question. No I have no idea, please do enlighten me.

If all bias is policital then what of two kids in the playground agrueing over which footie team is the best? Oh wait yeah that is political!:rolleyes:

And now, in a move certain to stoke up (self) righteous indignation in people sharing the OP's view, Gore and the IPCC have been awarded a Nobel prize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm).

:)

And now, in a move certain to stoke up (self) righteous indignation in people sharing the OP's view, Gore and the IPCC have been awarded a Nobel prize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm).

:)

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

Sure it's one-sided. It's the side of the climate scientists. Do you think he should have presented the flawed arguments of the detractors and why?

I'm hoping America's legal system follows suit and also places restrictions on or bans Inconveniant Truth from American schools.

I agree.

...


Why the hell do people need a judge to tell them that a one-sided documentary is biased?

Sure it's one-sided. It's the side of the climate scientists. Do you think he should have presented the flawed arguments of the detractors and why?
Flawed? Aren't you the presumptuous one.

Flawed? Aren't you the presumptuous one.


Well give us what you got then.

Well give us what you got then.

S/he's got Michael Crichton! :p

Other than that ... tick ... tock ... tick ... tock.

...


Why the hell do people need a judge to tell them that a one-sided documentary is biased?

Same reason they need right wing bloviators telling them what is right and is wrong.
And strangely enough, there's undiscriminating audience aplenty.

Well give us what you got then.
I am indifferent to the whole debate. When Judgement passes, it will matter not one whit. But I do want to know why you think the other side is flawed.

Same reason they need right wing bloviators telling them what is right and is wrong.
And strangely enough, there's undiscriminating audience aplenty.
True. Only God is Author of Right and Wrong.

True. Only God is Author of Right and Wrong.

But his/her press secretaries are fucking DOLTS!

'cept for one or two, actually. :p

The problem with those who worship at the Altar of Gore in the Church of Leftarianismesei: consensus doesn't mean anything is science, evidence does. Who cares what the majority opinion is? If the majority of people or the majority of phsycists stopped believing in gravity they'd still be wrong.

Has the evidence collected so far shown an increase in average temperatures? Yeah, a slight one, like a degree over the last 110+ years. And that data isn't complete because there weren't weather stations in as many places now as there were then. Even today some stations are placed way to close to pavement that can distort readings.

The question that should be asked is "are the doomsday scenarios presented in Gore's movie accurate?" and the answer is no. Some timelines were accelerated and some effects were exaggerated but still presented as fact. The Power Point presentation is a distortion of the evidence meant to provoke phear and garner attention.

Just because your friend says something is true doesn't make it so. If he says 1 + 1 = 2 then you can do the math and see that he's correct but if he says that a baseball thrown at 5 mph 100 yds away and will strike you with the force of a semi at 6k mph 1/2 sec later you can tell he's distorting things pretty badly and shouldn't trust him. If he tells you that flying less often is good for the environment but then takes 100+ trips in a private jet producing more pollution than 5 people in a lifetime in the span of a year you should wonder if he's really committed to his cause or just trying to exploit.

The problem with those who worship at the Altar of Gore in the Church of Leftarianismesei: consensus doesn't mean anything is science, evidence does. Who cares what the majority opinion is? If the majority of people or the majority of phsycists stopped believing in gravity they'd still be wrong.
How 'bout this ... who gives a fuck what a politician has to say about it at all? Listen to the scientists and the people who have the experience, know-how, and credibility to understand the situation.
And yeah, pay attention to what's really happening yourself.
I live somewhere where the problems of drastic climate change are evident, obvious, and imminent. People who're talking shit about what they don't know because rightwing corporate fellators make sure there's as much anti-regulation/legislation bullshit propaganda saturation as possible are not ... repeat ... NOT ... fucking experts at it, and should be given no more due dilligence than the wafting you would give a casual fart.