« Heigel's 27 Dresses trailer online | Filmstalker | Serenity 2 possible? »


An Inconvenient Truth wins in court case

AnInconvenientTruth.jpgAfter the UK Government decided to give free copies of An Inconvenient Truth to schools around the country and use it as part of the education syllabus there have been a number of negative comments against it, and one man actually took the decision to the courts.

However the attempt to have the decision overturned was lost, and the film will be shown to children after all, as long as there is a balanced view given at the same time. Something that should be true of anything taught in schools in my opinion, religion included.

The court case was started by a part time school board member Stewart Brown, who the media are also keen to point out is a lorry driver for a living. He had stated that the film was “politically partisan” and “sentimental”, to which I would ask, has he ever seen anything about politics these days, and is he so naive to think that there's a single decision or announcement in politics that isn't?

According to Variety, at the beginning of the trial, he stated that he wished...

“...my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.”

Well I think he'll find that the syllabus is full of many politically spun and one sided teaching, and in most cases for the right reasons, because of evidence, science and truth. Of course I'm not sure of the syllabus these days, but when I was at school that was definitely true.

I'm glad An Inconvenient Truth (Filmstalker review) is getting seen in schools, because the message I took away from the film was simple. Although there was a huge global problem, it was the individual who could make changes very easily, and changed that would result in a saving of money at the individual level, as well as a reduction in the production of gas output in our world today. What the hell's wrong with that?

Well done the UK courts, you made a good decision there, they happen so infrequently.



here in australia, the government is committed to educating people about energy saving bulbs and plans to virtually eliminate them. as a free market loving capitalist American i do have problems with the government controlling economics in most cases, but this one is a no brainer. if a nation ( or world ) can save money and be more efficient through education and as long as it's not to change how people live their lives and make their decisions i'm all for it.

the problem with Gore's movie, god bless him, as passionate as he is, on several points, he has actually been proven wrong by independant scientists. I'm a christian. but if we somehow proved god wasn't real, i wouldn't want creationism even mentioned in school.

i don't think there's any real danger in showing his movie as long as, like they stated they would, there's a counterpoint made. it's all in good intent.

You see I have issue with the "he's been proven wrong" statement that is heard so many times with regard to the film, because nothing is that black and white, and there are those that claim they are right, and those that claim they are wrong.

I think the debate is still open, although I personally believe, effects or not, it's still a complete no-brainer to go greener in every possible way.

about climate change in general, there are indeed many diverse points of view. but Gore made direct statements about the state of the arctic ice flow patterns repeatedly in the movie and referred to it as pure undisputed FACT. yet, there were conflicting reports, even at the time the movie was made, as to the true nature of these patterns. No one is really sure what's going on with global ice, let alone what's causing it. People believe gas emmissions are causing them, and they very well could be. and I'm not saying Gore's passion is misplaced. I'm saying that if he wanted it to be allowed in the classroom, he really should have stated that there were conflicting reports to suggest otherwise so that the viewer would know that what he was saying may just not be the case.

when someone's wrong, it needs to be pointed out. No one should be sheltered from the truth. My point isn't that gore shouldn't have made the movie, or even that he didn't have full rights to offer them to schools. Because, let's face it. that's a pretty generous and selfless thing to do to further a view you believe in. Gore deserves praise for the sentiment alone.

But you know the power of movies, Richard. You know movies can change minds about anything. You could make a doco that says that anything was true, and soon enough, you'd have people believing you. The problem is, in making this movie and making that ommission about the validity and truthfulness of his statement, he's opening himself up to be pointed out for it.

i won't comment here on this particular story again, let you have the final say on it, and move on. it doesn't matter to me if we disagree about this, but my closing argument is to the power of filmed documentaries and the level standard that really should be applied to them to at least let people know if there's any conjecture at all before hand. I think if we really are destroying the enviroment, we need to fix it. I just disagree with Mr. Gore that we have evidence to suggest otherwise, so I don't agree with alot of the moves world leaders are making about it.

delicate issue....long comment : )

Mogulus, there's no need to worry about long comments, I read them if no one else does!

So without sounding as though I'm bringing your knowledge into disripute - which I am definitely not trying to do - this is one of the issues about this topic that makes it very hard to discuss. Individuals say "that is not true because the opposite has been said to be true", and in the end it's just an individual saying that without any backup what so ever.

It's easier to believe someone with facts to back up their argument and sources that can be investigated, and that's what makes this topic as perhaps contentious as religious debates, a lot of it is about individual belief and point of view.

I've chosen to believe the side of those who say that greenhouse gases are contributing to the changes in weather patterns, although I do also believe that there is a cyclic pattern I think the evidence has convinced me that it has been magnified by our intervention.

Yes I do like to get the last word, but I also love debate! Except when I'm loosing...! Oh, and also as long as people don't fall out about it, unless there's really a need to.

I just want to make clear that Al Gore never made the film for schools and he didn't appear to have anything to do with this decision, it was made by the UK Government and really it's their fault if they are presenting an unbiased view in schools.

I think it would be fair to say that many documentaries only show their point of view, or skew the opposite for their ends, after all it's a finite time, a shared individuals viewpoint (the film-makers), and there's a point to make.

I don't believe you can say he didn't have a right to make the film in the first place.

Lets get it right the high court judge heavily criticized it and said it was alarmists overexadurated and if it were shown with out guidance it would breach education laws.
He said nine facts from the film were unproven and didn't reflect scientific mainstream . Like the melting ice sheets would cause catastrophe by melting in the near future when expert opinion suggests it will take 1000's of years. The judge said their is no evidence that temperature has risen with c02 levels as gore claims. Gore also states that c02 was the main driver of climate change which is totally unproven and inaccurate. If your wondering the main driver is believe it or noT ,water vapour.
Their were other points ,to many to go into. In the end the judge said it could only be shown if guidance notes were used along side to balance Mr gores one sided views.
In other words it wasnt true enough to stand up to the standards required to be shown in UK schools without GUIDANCE NOTES explaining its inacuracys.

God forbid, we've never heard of a UK judge make a mistake or base a judgement on incorrect, personally biased facts.

Remember, this is just a guy like you or me and believes what he believes and is making a judgement on it, so it becomes law. That's how it works.

Once again you saying these things is the same as me saying it is true because there are scientific studies which prove it, and one of the largest UN studies agrees.

Actually I've just gone a step further and mentioned a strong source for my facts, not just someone's beliefs. When I'm not heading straight to bed I can dig out the actual link to the scientific study.

"he said, she said" - I believe what I believe because I've read some notable scientific studies and facts. As you say "one sided views".

As for the standards in UK schools, our standards are slipping downhill. This will perhaps be the most balanced lesson there is!

Still, it blows me away the anger and negativity put into the anti-climate change debate. Why is that? I don't understand.

"Why is that? I don't understand"

Maybe because the climate change groups have turned it into a multi billion pound industry without any real proof that their theorys are actually correct.

You may say the anti climate change groups cant prove anything either and that would probably be true but their not costing the UK pulic billions in extra taxes every year.

"without any real proof that their theorys are actually correct" - well I do question that, there are many studies, including that from the UN, that show that climate change and global warming is really happening.

"their not costing the UK pulic billions in extra taxes every year" - why exactly are the groups costing UK taxpayers billions?

"Well I do question that, there are many studies, including that from the UN, that show that climate change and global warming is really happening"
Yes true, but there are also and just as many studies that say the complete opposite. Also the UN's IPCC are biased. The organization is funded and run by politicians and scientists who need the human influence on global warming to be true otherwise they would lose billions in funding and would leave many politicians without a vote winning cause and also leave many scientists, researcher and reporters unemployed.
For instance why is it the IPCC refuse to use Satellite temperature data which is scientifically the most accurate way of measuring local and regional long term and short term temperature changes? But insist on using the land based data station recording method. Could it be because the data doesn’t fit in with their models and in fact shows no significant rise in GLOBAL temperature?
Also have a little read what Chris Landsea former lead scientist for the IPCC thinks. He resigned due to the organization being biased and failing to use any studies which came in that which went contrary to the human influence on GW view. And he is not the first IPCC Employed scientist to show concern or resign. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.
If you can’t work out how it’s costing us taxpayers billions then what’s the point in me even trying to discuss this with you as global warming is far more complicated.
In the end its not straight forward for every study which they claim proves it, another one will come along and equally scientifically disprove it and whilst that goes on no ONE can really say what’s happening either way.

"If you can’t work out how it’s costing us taxpayers billions then what’s the point in me even trying to discuss this with you as global warming is far more complicated."

Great get out clause.

"Yes true, but there are also and just as many studies that say the complete opposite."

...and this is a big problem. One person or group say one thing, and if someone doesn't like it they can just make their own report with their own data.

It does come down to the "he said, she said", and worse because someone can just say "well I read this that said..."

It's also the best conspiracy theory setup there has been in ages. One person resigns from the UN organisation with a grudge and he becomes fuel galore for the anti-climate change voices.

I still don't see why it is so bad to admit that climate change is upon us and make changes. I've made big changes on the back of seeing Gore's film and they aren't costing taxpayers huge amounts of money or inconveniencing myself or others.

I don't really care what side you or anyone takes as in the end as it wont make a difference as the climate change groups have got such a strong foothold that its become an unstoppable force. But as you have the Internet take the side of the sceptic just for two weeks and do some research into the opposing views. Take a look at some of the research done by some of the top world renowned scientists, you may be surprised what you find.

A good place to start for links etc



Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34