Orchestrated Right-Wing Lie re Gore & Global warming

We can expect a more vicious campaign by the oil industry and their puppets in the Congress and the Administration to attack Al Gore's claims of human caused global warming. The handful of scientists who reject Gore's case have all been bought by the fossil fuel industry. ---BBB

A New Orchestrated Right-Wing Lie Unmasked About Al Gore and Global Warming
by Jackson Williams
Posted October 11, 2007

In a Huff Post this week about Al Gore and a possible Nobel Prize, several conservatives who monitor our insights decided to participate in the comments section. Regarding Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, some of these commenters stated flatly that, as one put it, "England....just debunked ELEVEN lies in Gore's propaganda....Have you even checked out any of the headlines today? It is on just about every news site out there." Another wrote, "This is what the British government just ruled regarding the showing of AIT in schools."

Email
Print
Comment
Other comments said the same thing, and conservative websites are positively crowing.

One of the most over-the-top spins came from the far right Heartland Institute, funded by tobacco and Big Oil, which issued a widely copied press release this week saying that "the British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science."

There's just one problem: These are all lies, and the British Court said no such thing. In truth, the judge agreed with Gore and the film's thesis, and it is inconvenient for the Right to admit it. A review of what the judge actually wrote in his ruling proves it.

Here are the facts. A global warming denier, a British truckdriving father of two teens, sued to ban the showing of the film in the public schools. In a blow to the father, a High Court judge ruled that the film can be shown, but that teachers must emphasize to students that it's political, with a point of view. As the judge put it, "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film."

There were some things in the film the father objected to, and the judge found that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the cause and effect of climate change, there were some representations with which he took issue.

For example, the judge ruled that in the film Gore suggests that the drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro's snows and Hurricane Katrina may well have been caused by climate change, but the judge said the scientific community has yet to prove a direct link.

The judge also accepted the government's offer to rewrite some aspects of the teacher's study guide to reflect that some of the statements in the film are not 100% universally accepted.

This is really not that big a deal. Plenty of scientifically sound views are not yet 100% accepted by all scientists, as the process of scientific inquiry is always ongoing. And after all, there are even some credentialed scientists out there who still don't accept Darwinian evolution in the 21st century, for God's sake!

But get this: according to the FOX News website, the judge ruled that the film was accurate in "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals." In particular, the judge agreed "that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases')." These are quotes from the judge.

The other three key points in the film the judge agreed with: "that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts." Again, from the judge.

In essence, Gore's film hit a British High Court home run (OK, a triple) with some exceptions as to a few specific assertions sprinkled through the film, but you'll never hear this from the cadre of rightwing bloggers, or Sean Hannity, or "El Rushbo," or the rest of them.

Instead, it gets morphed into "British Court Rules Gore Film Full of Lies." Are these people stupid, gullible, dishonest, confused?

The British judge, with his ruling, has actually validated the core Gore message.

At the very least, this saga is a prime example of how those on the Right twist reality to fit their dogma, whether the issue is global warming or Saddam's WMD. Cut and Paste this to your refrigerator as a constant reminder, and if a right-winger swears to you that the sun rises in the east, set your alarm for 5:30AM just to be sure.