Nu, hvor jeg i tidligere postings har bevæget mig ind på det juridiske område, haster jeg med at bevæge mig tilbage til emner, som jeg med større sikkerhed ikke har forstand på.
Fra gårsdagens Daily Mail er her en interessant historie om det engelske skolevæsen, hvor man sendte en klimapakke bestående bl.a. af Al Gores film, An inconvinient truth, til de kære modtagelige små poder.
Filmen, der i hvert fald sin titel må siges at bære en grov forvanskning af den politiske virkelighed, er blevet kritiseret for at blande forhold, der er videnskabeligt velbegrundede, sammen med forhold, der ikke er det. Det er desværre de sidste, der fik størst opmærksomhed. How convenient.
Uddelingen af sådanne “undervisningspakker” sker vist også i Danmark, og kender man skolesystemet, kan man nok godt gætte de dominerende synspunkter bag. Men i landet, hvis befolkning never never never shall be slaves, er der også en far, som anlagde sag imod pakken, da han opfatter Gores film som propaganda.
Efter at have hørt en række vidneudsagn, er sagen optaget til dom, men iflg. avisens referat har dommeren tilkendegivet, at filmen er at betragte som et partindlæg og bør ledsages af en advarsel herom.
Her er nogle uddrag fra artiklen, men læs selv (både Gores bog og ham her).
David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: ‘The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.’
But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.
Gad vide, om vores miljøminister hører til dem, der som Miliband mener, at debatten er uigenkaldeligt forbi?
Havde jeg dog bare set dette indlæg inden min sidste kommentar, havde jeg bestemt udtalt mig mindre skråsikkert. Det er i sandhed et svært emne at udtale sig om og stor forsigtighed bør naturligvis respekteres.
Englænderne må altså takke en koldsindig dommer for at have forhindret Gores propagandafilm i at blive brugt til børns oplysning!!Dommen over Gores film er sønderlemmende:The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Governments 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 Governments 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 Governments 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 Claimants 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 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. http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html