To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.Former Vice President Al Gore is the cofounder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, and the founder and chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit devoted to solving the climate crisis. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation.
Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down. The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: I) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.Ģ2. About the film in general, he said this:ġ7. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues. The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film. The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium. Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” ( The Guardian)Īl Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT).
“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.