Lord Monckton,
You seem to be avoiding me, but my examination into your claims will continue - as will my attempt to engage you in a frank discussion on the matter of the voracity of your many claims regarding your promulgation of the notion that AGW is a hoax. Today, I ask about your often repeated implications that a UK Judge found AGW to be a hoax.
10/14/9 PowerPoint slides LM#29, LM#30
LM 24:40 (from your video)
“Here are the nine lies Al Gore found by a UK high court judge to have perpetrated. When we took this film to court and we said to the judge this mawkish, sci fi, comedy, horror movie should not be shown to innocent school children unless the “lahs” have been corrected. And the judge in that custard faced voice that they all have said: “quite right.””
Also, LM#39 contains the following spin: “... when (Gore’s) movie was subjected to scrutiny in the disciplined forum of a court of law... with the UK Government spending millions to try to defend his movie. Representative of the Meteorological Office describes the movie as “broadly accurate”... but the Judge was not taken in. He accepted that Gore’s movie does not fairly or accurately represent the current state of climate science.”
{Well, that’s not how Justice Burton expressed it.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I found it frustrating that you never offer any information, or links, to the actual court judgment, or even local news reports. After I finally found the courts decision, I understood why. {Link here}. To begin with, your emphasis on “High Court” is a bit misleading in that this was a simple civil matter handled in a regular court and not as implied in the higher reaches of UK’s judicial system. Also, where's your proof that millions was spent by the defense?
Yes, I will grant that the judge found that Al Gore made nine errors, although from the numbering of those errors it appears as though at least 18 alleged errors were submitted to the judge to rule on. In any event, none of those nine errors amount to anything remotely hinting at the undermining of the Global Warming consensus. In fact, it is noteworthy, and emblematic of your manipulation that you never, ever mention the 4 major truths within the movie that Justice Burton specifically spelled out in his ruling:
34. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
35. ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton: "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:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
35, 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.”
Further down on #35:"The (courts) position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community.
Here is the question that the trial actually hinged on:
20. I turn to deal with the outstanding issues of law relating to the construction of the two relevant statutory provisions. These are, in s406, the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: and the meaning and ambit of the duty of the local education authority etc to "forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". In s407 the dispute has been as to the meaning of the duty to "offer a balanced presentation of opposing views" when "political issues are brought to the attention of pupils".~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes (plaintiff) was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus. iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.
It is true, mistakes were made in this film and its presentation - but, to conflate this film, which attempted reporting on the science as Gore and his team saw it - with the actual science that is going on is an act of malicious deception. How do you, Lord Monckton defend such tactics? Below are the court's finding:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
46. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.
47. The 'Errors'
1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor."
4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.
5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc
7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.
8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.
9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.
68. As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack
In any event it is important that, in such guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should not appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving their imprimatur to it.
In closing Lord Monckton, how do you justify injecting this reasonable ruling in a local civil court trial with the force of world shaking revelation as you did in your 10/14/9 program?
Lord Monckton, on what factual basis do you use Justice Burton’s ruling as implying that AGW was proven to be a hoax? Where in the judge’s words do you find that message?
Respectfully,
Citizenschallenge
No comments:
Post a Comment