Gore replies about UK "Inconvenient Truth" ruling
Back story: A couple days before Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK judge ruled that "An Inconvenient Truth" can be shown in schools. The judged described the film as, "broadly accurate". However, the judge also decided students should get supplemental information, in particular on nine points where he felt the movie differed from scientific consensus (ie. the IPCC).
From the start, this court case has reminded me of the "intelligent design" lawsuits in the US. The whole point of the climate change denying camp is to create a false sense of debate, when (in fact) the science on global warming is painfully clear. They've done a pretty good job of this - delaying real action for years - but we can't afford to let them keep doing it.
If you want the scoop: Deltoid has a good commentary on the ruling. Andy Rowell has some interesting background on the guy behind it. And there's quite a productive hullabaloo over on the Washington Post's Factchecker blog.
Their first post was a quick one - mainly just laying out the facts of the ruling, but with a headline that made it look bad for Gore. A general outcry from readers followed, prompting a more thorough post, and now giving space for Gore's adviser to respond. Good to see this level of back and forth on a site like the Post's.
Wonder if they've heard about that other climate change movie about to hit UK schools...
Follow Greenpeace »
