Text 5364, 67 rader
Skriven 2007-11-21 12:07:28 av John Massey (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av GERRY FORMAN (1:123/140)
Ärende: Presidential Candidates.
================================
GERRY FORMAN -> JOHN MASSEY wrote:

 ->> HE has not save anyone much less "more lives than have
 ->> been lost in any war. A lot of his movie has been
 ->> discredited, 35 items comes to mind.

 GF> By whom?  Please explain.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Al Gore's spokesman and "environment advisor," Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by
saying that the film presented "thousands and thousands of facts." It did not:
just 2,000 "facts" in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds.
The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have
been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which
even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit
did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the
term "errors." In fact, the judge used the term "errors," in inverted commas,
throughout his judgment.

Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart
Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age
children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will
eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35
scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore's movie.

Ms. Kreider then says, "The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from
the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S.
and around the world is complex." However, the single web-page entitled "The
Science" on the movie's official website contains only two references to
articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to
a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed
in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, "The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to
perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling." He did not need
to. Each of the nine "errors" which he identified had been admitted by the UK
Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC's results are sometimes "conservative," and
continues: "Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats
that he views as the most serious." Readers of the long list of errors
described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was
acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each
of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific
literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates
the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction -
towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of
underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The
likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one
direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore's
movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in
October 2007 as being "errors." The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate
or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the
proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few
errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK
Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

Rest cut, you can read the whole thing if you like.

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)