A High Court judge ruled Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was 'alarmist' and 'exaggerated'

Kent school governor Stewart Dimmock brought the legal action, claiming the film was unfit for schools

Reader views (24)

 Add your view

Here's a sample of the latest views published.

As for error 4, I have done research and when the judge spoke of a "connection" he was reffering to the 2003 ice cores which show that, historically, changes in carbon levels changed about 800 years after temperature changes. Gore was using the 1985 ice cores, whose data points were about 1,000 years apart, which led to the "exact fit."

- Jozomby, .

1) Antarctic/Greenland melting = 213 feet, millenia IS near future, no error 2) documentation, judge? until judge provides, no error3) Judge .. slow down, but not stop? no error. 4) judge says there is a connection, so no error 5) judge says there is a recession of snows .. no error. 6) would the judge care to speculate WHY Lake Chad dried up. He has speculated it has nothing to do with rapid temperature increases world wide. No error. 7) Judge disagrees with the scientists. I think I will rely on the guys doing the science. no error. 8) Polar Bears or no Polar bears, ice is rapidly disappearing ... no error. 9) This alone is priceless. Judge: " It isn't due to man induced GW because it is actually due to man induced overfishing and man induced pollution "

This judge isn't bright enough to sit a bench.,

- Misterwhite, Virginia, USA

I don't think either Al Gore or Judge Burton are particularly qualified to make conclusions regarding global warming. How does Judge Burton know how many polar bears died, and how they died? Sounds like a lot of speculation going both ways.

- Matt Rogers, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Right on! If Gore, and all the others really wants to end carbon pollution and clean up the air, he need only shut their own mouth and practice what they preach. Politicians are the worst polluters of them all, especially around election time. What's worse is that they don't really understand or even care about half of what they're talking about. They only want votes and to do or say anything they can to get them. Too bad the air in Washington D.C. can't be be filtered before it leaves Congress. That would cut 95% of CO2 emissions by itself!

- Clark, Little Rock, AR, USA

Okay maybe not 20 feet, but how many feet in the rise of the ocean level will it take to affect our world as we know it. Come on people, look at the data and be honest. If the oceans rise only one foot in the next fifty years, how much land would be under water that is not now. How many people will be displaced. How much money will the oil companies pay to help out. Get a life everyone, it is happening, you can't hide your head in the sand...unless of course it is a new beach after the current beach houses are under water.

- Paul Skapik, Cincinnati, OH

I have only two words to say to the judge:

Good call.

- Andrew Matheny, Dallas,TX, USA

Meteoroligists cannot predict the weather in Chicago with any degree of reasonable accuracy out 2 to 3 days, but a politician backed by socialist scientists can predict with absolute certainty what will happen to the global climate and envionroment twenty plus years into the future. Makes sense to me!

- Tom, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Finally, some common sense about the extraordinarily broad assumptions and claims Al Gore has made! And some of it seems to be pure fiction, twisted to look like it supports his agenda.

- Terrie S., Conway, AR, USA

What do the sceptics think Al Gore's agenda is?

Their agenda is less individual liberty and more centralized control. This is also an attack on Capitalism.

It's easy to understand why Gore says, "the debate is over," for convenience sake. That way there's no tough questions to answer. If Al is so sure of his science he should welcome debate, not try to minimize it.

- Clammy, Mason City, IL; USA

While global warming is occurring, it is also occurring on Mars (Polar caps are shown to be shrinking). The common factor is both of our planets is our sun. It will continue to be the predominate force in what happens to our climate. Al Gore is and has been a person, who is continually looking for a cause to put him in the forefront of public attention.

- Bob Rutledge, Burleson, Texas, USA

Aren't the vast majority of credible scientists supporting the vast majority of what Gore is saying? I think so.

Does it get overblown sometimes, are certain aspects and issues debatable? Yes.

Is global warming often spoken of as if it is ALL directly related to human causes when it clearly is not? Yes.

- Jim C., Atlantic City, NJ, USA

The ice caps are melting, where will all the billions and billions of gallons of water go says Philip Celander, they'll go exactly where they were before. The biggest error us humans have made is building towns and cities on low lying land. The evidence that water has risen and fallen is all around us, Harlech Castle for example now lies probably 3/4 of a mile in land when once it was surrounded by the ocean. This is nature nothing more nothing less. Good call by the judge, we shouldn't be allowing our children to be brainwashed in this manner.

- Daniel, Barmouth, Wales

Nobody is denying that the climate is changing - it always has and it always will. Equally nobody is denying that we should be more careful in terms of pollution (acid rain, etc.) and using vital and potentially limited resources (fossil fuels) - but to blame climate change on pollution is wrong and this is where the greens overstate their case.

Let's be kind to the planet in terms of reducing landfill and emitting genuinely noxious gases (Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and forget about carbon dioxide as it is relatively harmless in the scheme of things.

We need to prepare for climate change and this is something that technology can assist with. Failing that, we need to get the human population below 1billion in order to allow the planet to regenerate itself.

- Graham, Reading, England

Thank you Alan (London)! My views exactly. There is much doubt here but the cost of being wrong is far too high to take the chance of doing nothing. We must err on the side of caution. What do the sceptics think Al Gore's agenda is? Is there some secret conspiracy among the greens to profit from windmill manufacturers? His concern is the planet we live on - if it takes a bit of exaggeration for people to act then so be it, but we simply cannot carry on as we are.

- Richard, London

Well done Pat from Sussex. Wholeheartedly agree.
The planet's been cooling and warming for millions of years without us being around. Ice Age anyone?
However I do believe we are a wasteful species and recycling and limiting energy use can only be a good thing.

- Matt, Richmond

So - supposing global - I wish it hadn't been labelled "warming" because this is misleading, but that's irrelevant. Suppose global warming isn't our fault, that it's due to divine intervention; aliens; very long-term cycles; too many violent computer games, does that mean we should ignore it and just happily carry on polluting, wasting, filling landfill sites and generally messing up our planet?

I cannot see the logic here. The anti-global warming stance emulates the 'devil may care' or greed attitudes of all the traders who were willing to deal in sub-prime loans. What do they care about how they screw economies or force people out their homes? It wasn't their fault, was it? They were just doing what they were paid for.

So - whether Al Gore is right or wrong about the causes of the various catastrophes he describes in his film, and whether they are all accurate, there is still something to be very worried about.

I agree with Philip. We've got one planet, one atmosphere.

But then, I suppose, we've also only got one life so if we survive that, what do we care about our children? Let them try and sort it out later.

- Alan, London

There is no such person as an "expert" on global warming or the ice age no one has lived right through any of these two ages, all we have is some people who put into a computer on a man made programme the consequences of this or that.

The only "expert" in all of this is nature itself how do we prove the so called experts or Al Gore come to that wrong the answer is simple we can't neither can they prove they are right but by the time they tax us out of existance 100% of us will be dead mostly due to natural causes but in the mean time the coffers of the Chancellor will swell and the experts will have been long forgotten.

- Pat, Sussex

Global warming is already upon us. You can always nitpick about some of the comments in any documentary. The point of Gore's documentary is to get people to start thinking and questioning the effects of global warming on them, their kids and their grandkids. This judge's silly decision will now have educators looking over their shoulders about what's in the documentary -- or even if they should show it.

Most British High Court judges live in chauffeur-driven bubbles, without any reality.

- Phil Jones, London, UK

Yes, global temperatures may be rising and the judge seems to have acknowledged this.
But the question that is so hotly debated is whether this temperature rise is solely a man made phenomenon.
The Gore movie is a classic example of 'spinning' the symptoms to create a reason, which, as the judge states has at least 9 specific flaws.
So I think that the compulsory viewing of this movie by children, in state run schools, without a balanced scientific approach is not a valid educational benefit.
There is enough spin in politics and it needs to be kept out of the education system, if only to try and get a generation of children who think for themselves and are not merely slaves to spin and political (or environmental) influence.

- P, London

No one is disputing the fact that climate change is happening. The unproven point is that it is our fault. This is often misunderstood by the greens. Anyone who dismisses climate change is foolish, but then so is someone who places blame without the adequate science to back up their claims.

- Ro, London

What real benefit has been achieved here?
- Austen, London

The real benefit is that people have been shown that most of the information presented as fact is easily shown to be untrue.
It would appear that people like Austen would prefer to be lied to rather than hear the facts and make their own mind up.

- Dave, London

Am I the only person to think judgement is insane? To say this film is alarmist is quite right, it is supposed to be. We are polluting the only atmosphere we have to the point of no return. The ice caps 'are' melting at an alarming rate, the sea level 'will' rise considerably and millions of people 'will' be displaced from their homes. Where exactly does this judge think billions and billions of gallons of water will go when the ice melts?

Not everyone has to agree that global warming is real and not everyone has to believe that we are heading for disaster... but what if we're wrong?

This is the only planet we have and if we screw it up we're dead.

Mr Burton and Mr Dimmock might want to consider this.

- Philip Celander, Sjobo, Sweden

It's about time that a common sense decision was made on this. I wonder how much media attention this ruling will recieve, in comparison to the constant barrage of Climate change propaganda we are so regularly fed...

- Tom, London, England

This judgement is flawed - and the case should never have been allowed.

It is clear that climate change is happening. Only last week temperatures in the Arctic reached a record high of 22 celsius. Ever-increasing quantities of sea ice are melting away. The legendary north-west passage - whereby ships travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific via Canada and Alaska - is now ice-free.

Justice Burton may know a thing or two about the law, but he is neither an expert on environmental science, nor does he seem capable of looking at readily available evidence. There is no evidence to back his claim that sea level rises will take place 'only after, and over, millennia' - there is every indication to the contrary.

As for Stewart Dimmock, his actions seem motivated more by his membership of The New Party and a desire for censorship than any real concern for schoolchildren's welfare. Apart from getting his name in the press, leaving the taxpayer with a £200,000 bill and he himself having to stump up £100,000 costs, what real benefit has been achieved here?


- Austen, London

Add your comment