I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

i take it occasionally isnt the operative word?? Would you class Afghanistan as a liberal intervention? What about discussions to bomb Iran? Hey hang on..is world domination a Liberal intervention?

>>Now, can you tell me why my view on the Iraq was is prepostorous?

Supporting a war that was and is responsible for killing and maiming and pychologically destroying the minds of thousands and thousands and thousands of people-in short, destroying a whole country and initiating a civil war, all based on a lie

“anyway, liberal interventionism. could you please define that for me?”

Liberal interventionism- the belief that it is occasionally necessary to intervene in another country, because the behaviour of the ruling elite towards its people is beyond the pale.

Now, can you tell me why my view on the Iraq was is prepostorous?

i do believe youre making a massive presumption there given i havent actually elaborated on why i believe your stance is preposterous.

anyway, liberal interventionism. could you please define that for me?

“So Gore exaggerated or made up a few things in his doc. Well, clearly the heavens have fallen down. And this is despite the fact that the judge accepted the doc was broadly correct. How does that sit with you?”

The Government was planning to send this to schools as a factual programme. It was not, as there were a number of errors/lies in it? On that basis, do you want children learning from materials that have been proven to contain lies? Why is that okay?

“I’ve not said anything against people funding what they support. But let’s have transparent links, right? After all its transparency that makes a great democracy. After that, people can judge who to believe basis on what sort of attitudes and ideas they like to promote.”

Surely the funding matters a lot less than the judgement.

Sid:

“Do you think you’ve personalised the problem a bit too much? I have the same problem. “

There might be some truth in that, as I do not like Gore (I like Clarkson though). However, I still believe that opposing an error-riddled documentary being presented as kosher in schools is the right thing to do.

“Heroes is ok, but Studio 60 on Sunset Boulevard is the best TV on at the moment. Channel 4 tonight, 11.45pm, 2 episodes in a row.”

Heroes is brilliant. I have not yet watched ‘Studio 60 on Sunset Boulevard’, but will endevour to do so, as it looks good. I wish they would bring ‘The Sweeney’ back.

“No Katy, it depends on your answer to Bell-End’s Paradox.”

Glad to see that you are as civil as ever.

Douglas:

“Frankly, Rumbold, the smoking gun points at the folk that brought this prosecution.”

It does not matter whether it was the seven druids of Glarbath who funded the court case, the judge still ruled the way he did. Why is it that when groups like Greenpeace (whose survival depends on money) bring such cases, nobody criticises them, but whenever somebody remotely right-wing funds a case there must be something sinister going on? Shame about the Georgia match by the way.

Katy:

“Leaving aside the question of whether or not Gore lied or made mistakes in his film, would someone mind explaining why there’s a problem with someone asking that the errors in his film be rectified before it’s shown to schoolchildren?”

Excellent point.

Sofi:

“Pity i missed this. however, i urge the editors to blog something on iraq just so i can really interrogate rumbold on his preposterous position on the war.”

Interrogate away. It is interesting to read that a belief in liberal interventionism is preposterous. I did not realise that you believe that rulers can do anything to their populations as long as it is within their own borders.

Makes a change from “Zionists”, I guess.

The illuminati of course.

nothing wrong with people funding to support their agenda of course… as long as we know how is behind that funding for the public domain.

So… do you feel the need to disclose who funds you to support your cause?

I’m the science-type so my problem is the bickering about the errors themselves. I have dedicated my life to only adhering to facts with a sound evidence base.

I think we’re agreed Gore wasn’t malicious in his erroneous assertions. He wanted his film to have greater impact and may have a) exaggerated b) failed to question nuggets written for him c) misunderstood the data.

So what were the errors? I have taken a look at each of the 9 errors, which let’s bear in mind was part of a film containing over 100 separate facts.

The sea level rise due to Greenland’s melting was exaggerated – it WILL rise, this was agreed by the judge, but not so soon.

Pacific atolls are being flooded. The judge opposed this as no evacuations have taken place. They have not. But increasing encroachment of Pacific atoll shorelines has been documented. It hasn’t caused any evacuations, yet.

The Gulf Stream will be shut down. This is thought to be unlikely BUT has been a belief held by much of the scientific community concerned with climate change. It’s like predicting a ‘flu pandemic or a tropical storm, certain outcomes are more probable than others.

Two graphs charting the rise of CO2 levels and temperature fit together exactly. They don’t. But a connection between the two was conceded by the judge. The significance was exaggerated.

Mt Kilimanjaro’s snowcap’s disappearance is due to human-made global warming. This is a silly assertion, there is no way a causal effect can be attributed. But I doubt anyone would disagree the cap’s retreated due to climate change. Likewise for Lake Chad’s drying up, Hurricane Katrina, Polar Bears drowning and coral bleaching/dying.

These last examples (the remaining 5 errors) are attempts to put an understandable face on global warming. Remember that much of the damage has not been done, it is merely predicted. Hence the film sought to explain the effects. It is a flawed science but I still think it’s the best way to illustrate to the masses what might happen.

Gore could’ve been more clear in saying some of these statements are theories. But otherwise, I don’t think you can fault the film too severely. Certainly not in comparison to Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko, which take far larger leaps of faith.

Stats and science need to be explained clearly. I cannot quite understand why the vitriol against Gore. I don’t care if he lives in a big house, I don’t care if he pulls puppy’s tails. When did the film become about him? I think it’s an admirable film and I don’t give a monkey’s either way about the man himself. Michael Winner’s a complete shit but I like Deathwish.

I’ve not said anything against people funding what they support. But let’s have transparent links, right? After all its transparency that makes a great democracy. After that, people can judge who to believe basis on what sort of attitudes and ideas they like to promote.

“Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools – if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle perhaps?

Just when they do their damndest to hide their involvement and then get caught out – well. Not cricket, is it? What have THEY got to hide?

For what it’s worth, I doubt that Gore deliberately lied in the sense of deliberately setting out to deceive people. I think he genuinely believes that a crisis is looming and he stretched the truth because he wanted people to feel that they have to do something now, not in a few thousand years time. But I’ve read what the errors were and Gore’s done too much research not to have known that he was stretching the truth. How culpable you think that is is a matter for you, really.

But I do wonder what the problem is with the fact that the guy was funded by an organisation. That happens all the time There’s nothing unusual about people pressing a political agenda by funding impecunious claimants in judicial review actions. You have to have “standing” to bring that kind of action, you see, as in have a tangible interest in the point being argued, which in this case would probably mean that you’d have to have a child at a school where the video was going to be shown. So if you were a millionaire with an anti-global-warming stance but you didn’t have a child at the school, you’d offer to fund someone who did. Here, the result was that the issue was properly litigated in a public forum and Gore was largely vindicated, but for these nine errors. And the way in which the action was funded was published on the party’s website, I understand; the fact that Sunny didn’t know that when he first published this article doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the public domain. I don’t understand what’s thought to be so sinister about this.

If you supported the Iraq war, you’ve already answered “YES!”