Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film

The Guardian ^ | July 19, 2008 | Owen Gibson,

[Puzzleman]

-- snip --

Complaints about privacy and fairness from the government's former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts, the Guardian has learned.

But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers...

[Puzzleman]

The subtitle of the article is, "Watchdog finds documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers." Sounds like a victory for our side.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[popdonnelly]

“Complaints about privacy and fairness”

In other words, they couldn’t refute the content of the documentary. They view that as unfair.

Why does the World listen to these people?

[Wil H]

LOL!

“An Inconvenient Truth” got banned from the curriculum of schools by the High Court in the UK because of the outright lies it contained.

The sole outcome of this attempt to censure “The Great Global Warming Swindle” comes down to a mis-attributed quote.

The facts are NOT refuted.

[Always Right]

unfair but accurate.

[The Great RJ]

However, Al Gore's propaganda film which is full of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods is the paragon of truth. I would love to see The Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on US television.

[Liberty Valance]

Criminalize dissent.

Prosecute conservatism.

Stifle capitalism.

Obscure the consequences.

The only way communism can survive.

[Matchett-PI]

"“An Inconvenient Truth” got banned from the curriculum of schools by the High Court in the UK because of the outright lies it contained."

The lies and misrepresentations regarding the science were mentioned, but they were a side issue and only a few of them were focused on. Here is the main reason the court case was brought (and won):

The court case that was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal in the UK.

The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.

The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON

Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant

-vs-

Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant

[Judge] Burton:

Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...

I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:

(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."

... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."

In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:

"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."

After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:

"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."

The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:

"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."

...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...

Partisan ... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

This is clearly a useful analysis.

"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.

[...]

The Film

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."

The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]

The Guidance

"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....

...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."

"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:

"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:

"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points

* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)

* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;

* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...

* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."

[Matchett-PI]

“’Watchdog finds [Channel 4] documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers.’ Sounds like a victory for our side.” ~ Puzzleman

Exactly. And notice that one of the scientists who filed the original complaint (Carl Wunsch) is from MIT - an important point in this mix, in light of what one of his MIT collegues (Kerry Emanuel) had to say, which I am copying and pasting below this excerpted preface:

“..Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on __a separate complaint about accuracy__, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers. ..

..The IPCC, King and other scientists including __Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology__, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. ...

..After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was “masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic” and was “as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two”.

He claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.

The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, __but that his views were accurately represented within it__. ..” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange

Now here is Kerry Emanuel of MIT (who made these remarks months and months ago):

“.. “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.

“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”

“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”

“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

*

Hummmm... it looks to me as if Emanuel’s collegue, Carl Wunsch, may have been one of those “scientists on the left” who was involved in deliberately “exaggerating the science.”

And from what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton is one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in deliberately misleading people. He even admits it:

The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

He then proceeds to do just that:

” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.”

~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html

*
James Hansen of NASA is another:

Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ=
for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room.

Why was it so warm?

As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.” June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=

*

More first-hand admissions:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

*
[Therefore] “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

*
“The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

*
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.

Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples I’ve read about, from such reckless behavior:

Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html

Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Salvation]

The Democrats' Uninvited Guest

The Democrats' uninvited guest Posted Aug. 19, 2008 11:53 AM || by Phil Lawler || category Commentary

 

When the leaders of the Democratic Party gather in Denver for their nominating convention, they'll hear from a number of prominent religious leaders. They'll hear from several prominent Catholics, too. But they won't hear from the Archbishop of Denver, points out Julia Duin of theWashington Times.

Archbishop Charles Chaput would be a very, very interesting convention speaker. He's intelligent, witty, modest, and thoughtful. He has taken a special interest in the relationship between religion and politics, as demonstrated by his new book, Render Unto Caesar.

But if you were a Democratic leader… if you were a supporter of Senator Obama… would you want to hand Archbishop Chaput the microphone? Nope. His message would not be congenial to the "pro-choice" crowd.

Ray Flynn, former Boston mayor and later US ambassador to the Vatican, tells the Washington Times that the failure to include Archbishop Chaput is "a serious oversight" on the part of Democratic Party leaders. Serious, yes. Oversight, no. 

[Matchett-PI]

“...And in a state that is overwhelmingly Christian, including over half a million Catholics, you’d think Biden would stay away from comments like, “If I’m the nominee, Republicans will be sorry. The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious, I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.”

Biden, like many Catholic politicians, tries to separate his religion from his job. And as any Christian knows, this is not an option; if the two are in conflict, you have to renounce one or the other. ...

What he does find possible however, is to deny other basic precepts of the Code of Canon Law of his religion, such as unalterable opposition to abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage; the last of which he calls “inevitable.” ..

Joe Biden Does Kentucky by Lisa Fabrizio
November 09, 2005 09:54 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9690.html

[plain talk]

The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious, I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.”

I think a reasonable person can have doubts he is a Christian by such a rough man-centered statement.

[Matchett-PI]

He apparently doesn’t understand that “religious” doesn’t = “Christian”.

Saturday, June 21, 2008
And the Weird Light Shines in the Dorks, but the Dorks Don’t Comprehend it

Excerpt:

“..Only humans can fail to become what they are. Only human beings can actually become monsters, for a vile human being is far lower than a noble animal. No animal but the human being can be unfit for life and unworthy of the cosmos that belched him from the void.

The purpose of religion is to become human. Biology will only take you so far, which is not very far at all. A merely biological human being would also be a monster, a misfit, something grotesque. In our bones we know this.

In Genesis, the first thing Adam and Eve realize upon attaining self-consciousness is their nakedness, of which they are ashamed.

They know instantaneously — one of those things we cannot not know — that they are not like the other animals and that there is something shameful in behaving like one. Man has dignity and nobility, or he is not man, merely a hairless ape or an MSNBC anchor. ...

For leftism, in all its forms, is a revolt. Specifically, it is a revolt against our divine-human nature alluded to above. With the cosmic inversion of 1960’s came the pervasive message that one could be an authentic human only by being subhuman, by rejecting all of society’s “hypocritical” mores and values. In fact, the word “hypocrisy” was redefined as a way to eliminate the realm of metaphysically real values by attacking those who are unable to live up to them (as if anyone but a saint could!). ...

This is why the left cannot help aligning itself with movements — no matter how vile or evil — that further this goal of overturning Western values. It is why Michael Moore calls terrorists “freedom fighters,” why Cynthia Sheehan calls President Bush a terrorist, why Kos says “screw ‘em” to American “mercenaries” who are beheaded by Iraqi terrorists, why they sympathize with the Palestinians but demonize Israel, why they love Castro, Che, Sandinistas, Hugo Chavez, and now Obama. ...” ~ Robert Godwin (Gagdad Bob) bttt

More: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-weird-light-shines-in-dorks-but.html

*

“A man who fails to transcend and master himself actually becomes lower than the beasts.” ~Robert Godwin

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide
More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child ­ however way you want to describe it.”
By Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2066175/posts?page=242#242

[Matchett-PI]

“Earth-First” eco-terrorists in action:

Hippies Wail for Dead Trees (You will NOT believe this!)
http://www.break.com/index/hippies-wail-for-dead-trees.html

Earth-Firsters say: “GOP VP Pick Sarah Palin is a Global Warming Denier” September 4, 2008
http://earthfirst.com/gop-vp-pick-sarah-palin-is-a-global-warming-denier/

[) They should re-phrase that to make it a more accurate statement: “GOP VP Pick Sarah Palin is a Man-made Global Warming Agnostic - she needs valid proof / evidence.” The leading “scientists” and “theologians” in this eco-extremist “Climate Change” movement who have admitted to being “liars for science” and “liars for Jesus” can’t provide it; they have NO credibility with anyone other than the uninformed. See post #9 above. (]

The New UK Environment Minister Sammy Wilson agrees with Sarah Palin and has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a “hysterical psuedo-religion”.

“...The tactic used by the “green gang” is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact,” he said. ...” More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

[Matchett-PI]

With Palin, we now have _the admitted_ ‘liars for science’ and ‘liars for Jesus’ (see posts #8 & #9 above) on the run.

Read how afraid the atheist, P Z Myers is in a recent post on one of his two web sites (Panda’s Thumb & Pharyngula). The reply to him is hilarious!

This is how we will lose - PZ Myers
Posted on: September 4, 2008 8:25 AM, by PZ Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/this_is_how_we_will_lose.php

Palin scares me, but what worries me more is that we will screw up again and hand the executive office over to another gang of losers, and we can’t afford that anymore. Now look at the open thread http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/palin_open_thread.php I set up last night, and you’ll see why I’m concerned. What did people do? They got distracted by irrelevancies, such as the opportunity to exercise a little macho sexism, and then that turned into a nasty, full-blown knife fight with everyone snarling at each other. This is exactly what the Republicans want, writ small on this little tiny island of the blogosphere.

That’s not how we’re going to beat back the troglodytes.

Palin is a stalking horse for failed social and economic and military policies. We don’t want to get drawn away from the important message of defeating those bad policies by the temptation of cheap shots at her appearance and sex, especially because those cheap shots make her look like a sympathetic victim and help advance the Republican agenda.

So please, think. Casual sexism plays into the hands of the bad guys on both sides. What frightens me most is that Palin got up and lied and said nothing of substance, and people are so distracted by the fact that she has breasts that the lies were allowed to slide by. This is how the Democrats can self-destruct, once again.

*

Quote Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/this_is_how_we_will_lose.php

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn’t beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George “Shrub” Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That’s pretty pathetic. This round you’ve got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I’ve been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she’s up for election to the top spot there won’t be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She’s going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It’s all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were f*cked yet again. Write that down.