Brainwashing, Science, & Al Gore

From Holman W. Jenkins' Wall Street Journal article, Wed, 12/5/07, The Science of Gore's Nobel: ... "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it [emp added]; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so."...

Eleven Inconvenient Lies

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ By Noel Sheppard October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree? For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools. According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano): In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies? The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations. Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they? —Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Mark Hill in WSJ

Congrats, Mark, for fighting the good fight! And getting mentioned in the Wall Street Journal.

Some parents object to what they see as proselytizing by their kids' schools. Mark D. Hill, who until recently was chairman of the Republican party in Marin County, says some mothers called him upset when their children came home from Bacich Elementary School in Kentfield, Calif., with fliers stuffed in their backpacks advertising a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth." The parents thought the public school shouldn't promote the screening, which was paid for by a local parent, because they considered it a political statement.

Sally Peck, the principal of Bacich, disagrees. "We have a responsibility to educate our children," she says.

Mr. Hill says the mothers worried their children would be criticized if they spoke out, so they kept their names secret. "It's very scary for mothers," he says. "They kind of go with the programs because they don't want to be viewed as trouble-makers."

Wall Street Journal, Sat, 9/29/07.