1.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.
2.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.
3.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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.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.
9.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.
小no哭著喊著控訴我們不來，隻好過來潑點兒水：我一看見高爾說話就心理緊張，總覺得他下句話就要卡殼說不下去。但是我對他堅持宣揚保護環境是非常欣賞的。隻好湊或忍著聽他說話了。
我聽布什講話也有同樣感覺。
global warming 有太多的話要說，那天有至少半天時間的話在來和小no大大的白話一番。今天就算了。
祝早日突破百萬。
noso 發表評論於
回複GIS的評論:
我認為: 科學裏隻有絕對的真理，沒有絕對的權威。
當科學界同政治攪到一起，科學便失去了尊嚴。
中國的情況何不如此？老毛搞大躍進，李鵬搞三峽，不都是有一批科學家在後麵搖旗呐喊？
noso 發表評論於
回複無根的浮萍的評論:
沒想到在文學城還能有您這樣清醒的人，幸會。: )
無根的浮萍 發表評論於
回複GIS的評論:
有件事你是說對了, 我確實不懂氣候學. 但我告訴你, 我是曾經以第一作者在 SCIENCE 上發過文章的. 我相信你在具體的計算上比我懂得多. 但是, 在比這些具體事物更高的層麵上, 我最低不是沒有資格的.那位GORE先生是什麽個SCIENCE 的背景啊? 怎麽他說的就成了金科玉律啦? 你們這些搞氣候的, 居然要一個隻知道去發明INTERNET的騙子來宣布: THE DEBATE IS OVER, 太講不過去了吧. 還口口聲聲是資深, 也太沒麵子了吧.
在科學上, 有一條經久耐用的原則: RIGHT AT THE TIME 的發表最好不要相信.
我從來沒有反對進行氣候研究. 但是, 這位GORE的介入, 隻能是對科學界的玷汙. 估計你還太年輕, 不知道宣布"THE DEBATE IS OVER" 就是要強迫世界上所有持不同意見的人, 包括SCIENTIST, 閉嘴, 從此斷絕經費來源. 這不是經費之爭, 那是什麽?
GORE隻是一個不成功的肮髒的POLITICIAN (政客)而已. 此公政治上失意, 轉而進入商場. 這個WARMING 問題真是讓他大賺了一把. 還把一些自以為肩負拯救地球重任的人們整得團團轉.
是啊, GORE不去領獎, 飛機也照樣飛. 反正我們不燒汽油, 別人也回燒的. 何必節約能源, 減少排放呢? 反正別人也會把能源消耗掉的, ANYWAY. 八缸的車 GORE 還是照樣要做的.
這也就是為什麽GORE 不會關掉他的強汙染的生意的原因了. 反正別人也會做的.
在LIBERRAL中, 本人隻佩服 NADER 一人. 此公真好汗. 他反對氣體排放, 因而從來不開車, 隻做火車, 即使是在去總統競選辨認的路上.
peerhaja 發表評論於
"I met quite a few general people ..." What the F**K are you trying to say?
peerhaja 發表評論於
回複GIS的評論:
"I met quite a few general people in USA they have very strong opposition on science for human induced global warming." What the F**K were you trying to say? General people? people who used to be generals?
Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.
Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.
Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.
Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)
On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.
The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)
And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.
If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.
The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.
noso 發表評論於
Gore gets a cold shoulder ZT
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
我不是科學家，我隻是反映一下英國法官判決的事實，給讀者一個了解真相的平台。您要願意相信媒體所說的一切，請問，as far as I know, 這麽大的事為什麽美國ABC，NBC，CBS，CNN，FOX都沒有報道？
noso 發表評論於
回複老楊的評論:
能不能給個鏈接？ 謝謝。
noso 發表評論於
回複牛百葉的評論:
中文媒體是這樣翻譯的，我不認為很準確。
noso 發表評論於
回複viewer的評論:
謝謝你提供的資料。
noso 發表評論於
回複無根的浮萍的評論:
謝謝您的評論！說的太好了！！終於有明白人說明白話了！！！
noso 發表評論於
回複ottoo的評論:
What you said is so misleading unless you have difficulties to understand English although you are using it.
Read it again. Now I just want to laugh at what you said, instead of smiling at.
"
In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
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.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."
回複noso的評論:
I am a senior scientist working on climate change for more than 15 years. I was born in China and now in USA. I was one of member of IPCC since 1996.
I met quite a few general people in USA they have very strong opposition on science for human induced global warming. I guess news medias, including internet, blogs like this one, played a very important roel in misleading people. To show fairness, news media always likes to present two sides of story, even only 5% scientists who are driven by various reasons, don't believe global warming caused by human activities. This kind of press readers that global warming issue is still uncertain and in debating. Some people, maybe or may not including author of this one, they just want to post articles with oppsite opinion with widely-accepted one to attract eyeball and incraese "click rates", don't care the scietific basis or truth at all. Your misleading poster now is hang on front page of wenxuecity for a while, just because of this reason. No many people will read it if you title your article to praise Gore and say he deserves the prize.
ottoo 發表評論於
Did a litter research on the internet, and according to what I read, the 5th accused "misleading" by Gore is not misleading at all. The source of Gore's polar bear story claim that 4 polar bears drowned due to storm. But in fact, it's not the storm that drowned the bear. It's still because they can't find a piece of ice. The storm only make it more difficult for them to find ice. This accusation is very unfair for Gore, because his argument is very valid.
I'm also interested in the source of the Chinese part of the post, because it's very inaccurate. Here I cite the rule of the judge from wiki entry for "An inconvenient truth":
'...London High Court judge Michael Burton ruled that the film could continue to be shown; that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." and that the film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC,[60] and did not amount to political indoctrination...'
Apparently, unlike what the Chinese part of the post wants people to beleive, the judge didn't think the movie is "political indoctrination", and believed that it's mostly scientifically sound. And it will be continue to be shown. In other words, the parent's accusation was largely dismissed.
汗淋 發表評論於
My home town is in the middle part of China. I still remember the big snow we used to have in the winter when I was a little boy. The fact is, my hometown normally do not snow in winter time anymore.
My wife is from Jilin province. Her home town used to be covered by thick snows for more than 3 months a year. Now there is not such kind of thick snow season at her hometown anymore.
地球確實是越來越熱了!
noso 發表評論於
回複ottoo的評論:
Fine with me and welcome. : ) haven't you noticed the smiling signes I used : )
ottoo 發表評論於
回複noso的評論:
I know perfectly where those words are from, and I also think it's perfectly ok for me to comment on those words here on your blog, since you choose to post the story here.
ottoo 發表評論於
回複noso的評論:
"I suggest you send it to UK government. : ) I am here to tell the story as it is.
: ) I am not part of the story. "
come on, your blog got listed on Wenxuecity, and I think it's ok to leave a few comments on the story you told.
noso 發表評論於
回複ottoo的評論:
Those words are from the judge, not me. : ) Hope you understand now.
ottoo 發表評論於
"... However, there are as many scientists who say no to global warming as those who say yes. ..."
This is not true.
Global warming caused by human activity is a concensus amoung climate scientists. This view is accepted by majority of them. Thus, there are much fewer climate scientists who say no than those who say yes.
ottoo 發表評論於
By the way, the following criticism isn't correct
1。本片是政治作品，隻是一麵之詞。
What is the meaning of this? The movie features a politacion doesn't mean it all political. The movie presented a lot of facts and results of scientific research. And the view of the movie is very well accepted by majority of main stream climate scientists. The movie is out of good will, as Gore has been an environmentalist ever since the beginning of his political career. Bush attacked him for this during the election, as is shown in the movie.
noso 發表評論於
回複ottoo的評論:
I suggest you send it to UK government. : ) I am here to tell the story as it is.
: ) I am not part of the story.
ottoo 發表評論於
cited from wiki entry for "An inconvenient Truth"
...
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly
...
My comment:
The courthouse isn't a scientific institution. The rule of the judge doesn't mean the movie isn't scientifically sound. If you really want to evaluate the veracity of the movie, hear what the scientific community has to say.
The movie could be inaccurate in certain details, I havn't check the 9 mistakes in the artical you cited. But I want to point out that even many peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals have mistakes, typoes and so on. Having a few mistake doesn't mean that the movie is worthless or is overall misleading.
noso 發表評論於
Physicist argues against global warming theory ZT
Changes in global temperature and sea levels reflect natural fluctuations that have occurred throughout history and are not caused by pollution, according to an environmental professor who spoke at a UNM forum Thursday.
Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, is an atmospheric physicist who has worked on satellite weather studies for several government agencies. He said that while sea levels are rising, the temperature is not and recent concern that human activity will lead to climate change is unfounded. His presentation, ??oeGlobal Warming: Fact or Fiction,??? was part of an annual series of talks sponsored by Sigma Xi, an interdisciplinary science honor society.
??oeScientists ignore data,??? he said, as he presented temperature study results that showed natural fluctuations over several centuries. ??oeIf you have a hypothesis that you strongly believe in, you tend to ignore data that contradicts it.
According to Singer's data, which came from various entities, including the U.N.-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, temperatures did warm from about 1850 until 1940, but have dropped ever since despite the spike in industry after World War II.
Based on studies of ocean sediments, the temperature has been gradually cooling for about 3,000 years.
During the last 20 years, a period in which many have suggested evidence of warming from the greenhouse effect, various methods of measurement have provided conflicting data, Singer said. Sensors that measure surface and ocean temperature have recorded temperature increases, while satellite and balloon weather equipment have showed no warming.
With increasing greenhouse gasses, you would expect the atmosphere to get warmer,he said.
Singer said urban encroachment on weather-measuring instruments, which are often located near airports, has resulted in some of the disagreement.
Where people live, it is getting warmer, he said.
Ocean temperatures are measured by ships, often at inlets for engine cooling water, which measure at inconsistent depths, he said.
One American Meteorological Society study of California showed an increase of temperatures in the urban areas, but none in the rural areas, he said.
We all know the center of a city is always warmer than the suburbs,he said.
Singer showed several examples of data retrieved by what he called proxy measurements measuring something related to temperature and deducing that temperature. Scientists have used tree rings, ice cores, coral, cave stalactites and other geological formations to get proxy measurements of temperatures from 100,000 years ago, he said.
Proxy data shows a warm period at about 1,000 A.D., which Singer said corresponded historically with a fertile era, followed by a little ice age until the mid-19th century, which was characterized by increased starvation and disease.
The last ice age was about 20,000 years ago and temperatures have remained relatively the same since then.
Proxy data have not found any data showing any warming trend after 1940,Singer said. Before that, yes.
Recorded sea level changes have shown a linear increase of about seven inches per century, Singer said. But since a steep rise between four and 5,000 years ago, corresponding to the warm period, the ocean has risen at about the same rate, irrespective of whether or not the climate has warmed or cooled, he said.
Melting glaciers and expansion from warming plays a small role in the rising sea level, he said, but the real culprit is the slowly melting western ice sheet of Antarctica, a phenomenon that has taken place for thousands of years.
This is on a millennial scale is not affected by the climate now,??? he said. The sea level will keep rising at the same rate no matter what we do.
As for what can be done about global warming, he said, the answer is: very little.
He said though he didn??(TM)t believe the temperature was changing, even if it did, scientists were in disagreement over whether or not that would be a bad thing.
He compared a 1999 study by the U.N. panel that found a 200 percent increase in carbon dioxide would lower the gross domestic product of countries due to agricultural problems caused by climate change to one by Yale professor Robert Mendelsohn that found the opposite. Some predict carbon dioxide will double within 50 years, he said.
??oe(The Yale study) assumes farmers are smart; that they will adapt before the climate change,??? he said.
In support of President Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto Treaty, which would limit carbon dioxide emissions, he said the problem lies in developing countries, not the United States and Europe.
He said countries such as India, China and Mexico would dominate increased trends in carbon dioxide production.
??oeThe Kyoto Treaty is completely ineffective ??” it only involves a small decrease in emission from a small fraction of the world??(TM)s developed countries,??? he said. ??oeBy 2050 it would result in a 1/20 degree temperature lowering ??” that??(TM)s absolutely negligible. We would need 10 or 20 Kyotos to make an impact.
I believe the human effect is there, but it's being washed out by natural processes.
noso 發表評論於
Controversy concerning the science ZT
Existence of a scientific consensus
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change
There are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science. Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground .
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."
Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work, but his attempted refutation is disputed. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected." Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,
“ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. ”
Similarly, Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."
Surveys of the scientific community have found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding.
In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion, to scientific support for the eugenics movement, and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston and miasma.
Petitions
To support his claim of a lack of consensus, the website of prominent skeptic Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing."
The petitions are:
The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," signed by 47 scientists, claims "such policy initiatives [those concerning the Earth Summit scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree."
The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners.This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific environmental issue, but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions".
Singer's "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997). Critics point out that most of the signatories lack credentials in the specific field of climate research or even physical science in general. Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.
The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz and contains 17,800 signatures. Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 17,100 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."
In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.
noso 發表評論於
回複helele的評論:
Nothing wrong with that~
noso 發表評論於
回複GIS的評論:
Do I know? Do I have data? Of cuz I do. Do you? Are you a scientist? Is global waming your field of research? Are you an expert on this?
I know I am not, I am here to tell other side of the story as it is. The judge in England has ruled that film is misleading to kids at school. This will not happen in American, or will it?
GIS 發表評論於
Do you Know Gore received Prize with IPCC? Do you know what is IPCC? IPCC consists 90% principle scientis working in climate and atmospheric sciences in the world. Do you have any data to support "However, there are as many scientists who say no to global warming as those who say yes"?
helele 發表評論於
回複JazzFan2的評論:
Very glad that Al Gore won the Nobel Prize!
noso 發表評論於
回複bluecurrent的評論:
very true. Thanks. : )
noso 發表評論於
回複JazzFan2的評論:
What I have posted here is another side of the story, so people can have their own judgement on the issue of global warming.
However, there are as many scientists who say no to global warming as those who say yes.
So, you'd like to wait till the day the Earth has been destroyed to admitt global warming? OK, you can wait! But "Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize today. He deserves it!"
JazzFan2 發表評論於
""Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize today. He deserves it!""
lantianyu 發表評論於
I’m very pleased to see Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize today. He deserves it! As a former vice-president of the US, his supporters urge him to run for the presidency in 2008; however, he is not likely to run. May be he still feels pain from the loss in the election of 2000, or He still thinks the republicans stolen the election. We all know that the Bush administration has been doing a very poor job both in domestic and foreign affairs, and we’ve been longing for a visionary leader to restore our leadership in the world, to make America strong once again. It is clear that Al Gore is the one when we look around the candidates of democrats and republicans. He has been fighting for global warming for decades, which we didn’t even pay attention to; he voted “yes” on first Gulf War and “no” on the second one that shows his sound judgment on important issues; more importantly, he has shown his visionary political leadership as a strength, and he is also still young and energetic. I’m happy to see Al Gore win his Oscar and Nobel prizes but I don’t agree that his self-indulgence in such awards will cause him to ignore responsibility for the United States. Americans have made the same mistakes to choose the wrong guy for office. Will they be smart this time? I hope so. God bless America.
1.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.
2.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.
3.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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8.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.
9.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.
