The Register [U.K.]
Monday 21st July 2008
Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence
So says Ofcom
By Andrew Orlowski
British regulator Ofcom has rejected complaints that the popular polemical film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, misled viewers. The regulator said it was paramount that the public received alternative points of view – even if these were not endorsed by institutions or the major political parties….
The hour long programme, directed and narrated by Martin Durkin, was screened in March 2007, and has subsequently become a hit on DVD. Environmental activists blame the film, and the broadcaster Channel 4, for undermining public confidence in the theory that human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for increasing temperatures in the late 20th century….(Full Story)
Comments by F4L: Apparently, in the UK, as elsewhere, it is not as important for the public to know the truth as it is that the public’s beliefs in the assertions of man-made global warming, under-pinned by years of all-out propaganda, not be shaken.
As to alternative points of view that Ofcom wishes the public to know about, Ofcom should have mentioned that its decision was most likely and very importantly influenced by an earlier October 2007 decision by the High Court in London that pertained expressively to the lack of veracity in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, showing it to violate the UK’s racketeering laws — which “The Great Global Warming Swindle” did not.
35 Inconvenient Truths
The errors in Al Gores movie
By Lord Monckton, UK [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, science advisor to Margret Thatcher when she was in office]
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine errors in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine errors, he would have made a finding that the Governments distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children .
Ms. Kreider says the IPCCs 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 .(Full Story)
Notice that the finding by the High Court in London implies that Al Gore does deliberately mislead the public, even to the extent of unlawfully indoctrinating children, whereas the Ofcom adjudication merely states that the film The Great Global Warming Swindle “treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead audiences…”.
In the eyes of an objective observer that is a substantial and very important difference in legal opinions with respect to the two films under discussion. Truth trumps fiction, even if Ofcom is mealy-mouthed about it, and Al Gore stands exposed as a propagandistic opportunist. The chance that An Inconvenient Truth is a collection of deliberate lies is at least 34 billion to one.
Then there is this item in the (Canadian) National Post:
Do as Al says, not as Al does
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Editorial Page: Monday, July 21, 2008
How about this one, global warming? What global warming?
June 12, 2008
None of the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) tell anything about reality, against which all of them must be validated. Yet, the GCMs are the primary source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.
Reality check: UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature variations since 1979 as measured by NOAA and NASA satellites.