Judges Rules Against Gore

[Dr. Shane]

Judge rules Gore climate film requires guidance notes

Quote:

A judge on Wednesday ruled that Al Gore's award winning climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

High Court judge Michael Burton's decision follows legal action brought by a father of two last month claiming the former US vice-president's film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".

Stewart Dimmock wanted to block the government's pledge to send more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales a DVD of the documentary to demonstrate the need to fight global warming.

Judge Burton said the Oscar-winning film should be accompanied by government guidance notes and to distribute it without them would breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints.

But the victory was only partial, as Dimmock failed to get the film totally banned from schools.

[olger]

Good for de judge. There are still some objective people on our globe - those that haven't drowned or melted, I mean.

[Dr. Shane]

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film

Quote:

Mr Justice Burton said former US vice-president Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning.

Despite winning lavish praise from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry, Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific errors' by the judge.

At what point do Al Gore's alarmist tactics start hurting his cause? It reminds me of creationists that distort the truth in order to prove natural evolution wrong. The ends do not justify the means.

[Amelia]

Quote:

An Inconvenient Truth, was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning.

Seems to me that alot of science classes are one sided too. So all science classes should come with a warning.

[Bravus]

I actually agree with this decision - and I'm not sure 'rules against Gore' really captures it. The film presents a point of view, and it makes sense to complement that in the curriculum with a consideration of other points of view. The film is for public awareness and action, not for science education. It is also a couple of years old, in a field in which the science is changing rapidly. Al Gore is not climate change, and climate change is not Al Gore - no matter whether Gore is lauded or pilloried, climate change is going on and needs to be addressed.

[Dr. Shane]

Alarmist tactic are useful for drawing attention to an issue. Greenpeace has used them successfully on numerous occasions. It does hurt the credibility of the person or organization using them but in the long run it helps out the cause. In this case, Al Gore most likely sacrificed any political future he could have hoped for but has probably done a lot to bring more attention to the issue of climate change.

[Amelia]

Quote:

Al Gore most likely sacrificed any political future he could have hoped for but has probably done a lot to bring more attention to the issue of climate change.

Nope, since winning the Nobel Prize he can pretty much write his ticket and enter the political race with alot of backing. So said Tim Russert, the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News and host of Meet the Press.

[Dr. Shane]

As much as I like Tim Russert (I named him the most objective reporter when I was polled) I disagree with him there. Al Gore wouldn't be able to win the nomination again if he tried, which, of course, is why he isn't trying.

[Neil D]

As much as I like Tim Russert (I named him the most objective reporter when I was polled) I disagree with him there. Al Gore wouldn't be able to win the nomination again if he tried, which, of course, is why he isn't trying.

The trouble with second guessing an intellectual, is that your comparason is yourself....

and an intellectual who may not enter an areana that he is not comfortable with may be doing things totally foriegn to yourself....and that's the trouble with Gore...He's no politician....That's why he would be a good president...

[Dr. Shane]

The Noble Peace Prize is generally perceived as a liberal prize (right or wrong that is the perception). That could help Gore get the nomination but even that is doubtful. If Gore thought he could have won the nomination, he would have jumped in long ago. It is not as if he changed his mind and doesn't want to be president. He has done his homework.

[Neil D]

"....perceived as a liberal prize"

Shane....you are over reaching here....The Nobel Peace Prize is NOT concidered a political force...It is a reward for great advancement of thought, and research...

As for Gore's political ambitions....Consider this-

From One Prize to AnotherWill Al Gore now run for the White House?

By John Dickerson

Posted Friday, Oct. 12, 2007, at 10:43 AM ET

Al Gore. Click image to expand.Al Gore

Al Gore is a winner. Al Gore was right. One of the best things for Al Gore about winning the Nobel Peace Prize is that the sound bites are finally all on his side. For decades the two-term vice president has been championing environmental causes and until recently often received public scorn and derision. Now he's been rewarded with one of the most coveted prizes on the planet.

This reversal in Gore's fortunes is extraordinary. He's not only seen a rolling vindication of his environmental activism as the world becomes more consumed with combating global climate change, but his prewar warnings about the conflict in Iraq now look prescient. Meanwhile, George Bush—the other political scion with whom Gore will forever be linked because of their bitter election fight in 2000—has followed almost exactly the opposite trajectory. Unpopular and increasingly criticized by many in his own party, Bush's legacy will be the broken war. While Gore is lauded for his prescience and insight, Bush will for some time—perhaps forever—be best known for lacking those same qualities.

So, what does Al do with this prize? Wear it around his neck? Gore is meeting today with advisers to discuss how he will channel the new surge of publicity into the cause. One of those advisers told me the award will not change Gore's political calculation. He's just not running. If anything, the prize only puts more momentum behind his global-warming crusade. "It's a great honor for him," said the adviser, "but it's a bigger honor for the issue. It's huge for the issue. Think about how far things have moved in the last couple of years because of his work."

Slate, the "liberal" emag....

[Dr. Shane]

I am not the one claiming the Nobel Peace Prize is a liberal prize. Those that get their news from a variety of sources would realize that. I am simply repeating, or echoing, what is being said out there in the arena of ideas. Those that read my post in context will clearly be able to distinguish that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment.

My point is this. If Al Gore Jr. were to try and use his Noble Peace Prize as some kind of launch pad for a presidential campaign, those that already consider it to be a liberal prize would be all the more successful in getting others to agree with them.

Now the Peace Prize was given to him for drawing attention to the issue - not for producing a factual documentary. He could have painted himself green and flown around the world in a hot air balloon to raise awareness and still received the Peace Prize. What he did that was commendable was increase awareness. I, myself, have praised him for that. His documentary was well done and I enjoyed it quite a bit. But it was alarmist and contained many errors.

[there buster]

Quote:

.It is a reward for great advancement of thought, and research...

Such as: Antonio Caetano de Abreu Freire Egas Moniz, Medicine, 1949

for ""for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy [frontal lobotomy]in certain psychoses"

Rigoberto Menchu, Peace, 1992, whose book has now been declared by the NY Times to be a fabrication.

Renowned pacifist, Yasser Arafat, Peace, 1994

Jimmy Carter, Peace, 2002 for his work "to advance democracy and human rights," such as praising noted humanitarian Fidel Castro.

[Neil D]

Quote:

I am not the one claiming the Nobel Peace Prize is a liberal prize. Those that get their news from a variety of sources would realize that. I am simply repeating, or echoing, what is being said out there in the arena of ideas. Those that read my post in context will clearly be able to distinguish that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment.

Ok, so anything political that smacks of working for peace is a "liberal" agenda? Is that what you are saying??? 'Cause I havent found much out there in MAINSTREAM media suggesting that the Nobel Peace Prize is part of liberal political agenda... So, please, where are your sources [and I am expecting more than one MAINSTREAM source] that labels the Nobel Peace Prize as a liberal political Prize...

BTW, I am not saying that the Nobel Peace Price is NOT apolitical...Yes, there is politics involved, but , IMHO, its emphasis is on PEACE...and what steps are achieved to obtain that goal. Some awards are controversial, some are in appreaciation of past efforts...but they all have one theme in common....the striving for peace...

Quote:

My point is this. If Al Gore Jr. were to try and use his Noble Peace Prize as some kind of launch pad for a presidential campaign, those that already consider it to be a liberal prize would be all the more successful in getting others to agree with them.

This says more about you than it does about Al Gore and those who would support him ,,,....

[Dr. Shane]

I am not sure how the "mainstream media" is defined. If that is defined by ratings than FOXNews certainly is a big part of it. Newspapers like the Boston Globe and New York Times are certainly falling away from that "status". So I am not sure using the terminology "mainstream media" is helpful.

Increasingly more Americans are getting their news from ideological sources like Salon.com and Rush Limbaugh. So regardless what the so-called mainstream media is reporting, the ideological sources simply cannot be ignored. Rush Limbaugh has been considered so influential that many give him a large share of the credit for the Republicans winning control of Congress in 1994.

I get my news from a variety of sources. I surf Salon.com, media matters and some other left-wing sites. I surf between Christian radio, NPR and conservative talk radio when driving between projects during the day. Occasionally I watch the O'Reilly factor, the NewsHours with Jim Lerher and Meet the Press. I just try to get my news from various sources. I don't think most people are like that. I think (and I may be wrong) most people find sources that they agree with and then let those sources spoon feed them the news.

If Al Gore Jr. were to use his Noble Peace Prize as a launch pad for a presidential campaign, I believe the ideologically conservative news sources would characterize the Peace prize as a liberal prize. That is not to say I agree or disagree with them. I am simply saying that I think that is the direction they would go and since so many people use them as a source of news, Al Gore Jr's run would only serve to increase that sentiment about the Peace Prize.

[olger]

Quote:

Renowned pacifist, Yasser Arafat, Peace, 1994

I tried not to laugh loud at this, but failed miserably. :)

still chuckling,

oG