Al Gore's lies - judge unveils

The Blog Action Day has gone by. The lights are off and the dust is settled. But I can't help insisting on Al Gore's (unexisting) merits to speak for the environment. In my last post I complained about the risks of a 'Public Relations' person speaking about scientific facts but breaking the solid barriers of facts, evidences and measures that involve a scientific's serious work. Now, the documentary 'An inconvenient truth' lacks of the scienctific rigourness, but as long as only Hollywood cares, it's fine. This kind of tricks, half truths told to make a story more interesting (an so more 'sellable') are often used in the movies. And again, that's fine because we all know that a movie is enterteinment, and cannot replace a good history class.

But 'An inconvenient truth' has gone one step further. A series of programs are being impulsed in many european countries (Such as France, the U.K., Spain...)for the film to be shown in schools. So kids are going to learn environmental 'truths' from a distorted film. It stomachs me. It's politics in classrooms. With kids.

I wanted to make this analysis this some time ago, but fortunately some Kent (U.K.) school governor took the case to court, so it's not going to be my opinion, but Mr Justice Burton's, High Court judge UK, extracted form what could be probed on his court room. The judge failed to ban the film in schools, but presented a sentence in wich points out 9 LIES in the film and exorts them to be pointed in class. I would have prefered that the film was not shown at all, but let's leave aside any opinions on judges sentences (which I deeply respect) and focus on the 9 points. I provided two links to the news in important UK media, so I won't extend on the details and

1.- When Al Gore's film says that sea-level would rise of up to 20 feet in the near future, science says 'millennia' (that's THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Think about that twice).
2.- This one is pretty silly from my point of view (please don't take this as a simpathy to Mr.Gore): low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated (says the film), but there's no evidence of evacuations so far (says the judge). Fine, I suppose it is evidence of the alarmist tone forced into the movie, so it's worth pointing it in the sentece.
3.- "The documentary speaks of global warming shutting down the Ocean Conveyor", but the court says that's 'unlikely'. This is more important than it sounds. The shutting down of such circulation could only be caused by a monumental climate change, which is the idea Gore's film is trying to push down our throats.
4.- "Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed 'an exact fit'. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, 'the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts'." This one is great for my point: There's a lot of danger in letting scientific data (as plotted in those graphs) to be manipulated or deliverately ill-analized by some hair-regenerator-medicine-seller.
5.- The dissapearance of snow in the Kilimanjaro is attributed to global warming, but scientific consensus rejects the human intervention as the main cause for this.
6.- The drying of lake Chad is also attributed to this, whereas Justice Burton points that it is more likely to be due to population increase among other factors.
7.- This one is my favorite, since it shows the political manipulation of a catastrophe: Al Gore blames hurricane Katrina's devastation in New Orleans to global warming with no evidence whatsoever sustaining it. Don't forget that the film was originally targeted for the USA public, so they would be touched by the tragedy (specially since the premium of the documentary was so close in time with the tragedy. So close I even ask myself if Katrina could have been de 'inspiration' of it).
8.- For this one I'm textually quoting the Telegraph article again: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description". Nothing else to say. It was a plain an full invention. A great LIE.
9.- The last one has to do with coral reefs, whose bleaching is attributed to global warming, and the judge points that "separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution" was difficult. The legal and scientific evidence in this particular one eludes me (I think it is complex legal details on the precision of a particular phrase rather than a whole manipulation as others), but since it is part of the sentence, let it be part of this blog.

All that said, I will expose my position again:
1.- I believe we have an environmental problem. I think humans have not considered it during the industrial era and we owe the planet one. I think global warming is a comsequence of it, a scientific evidence that something's going on that requires us to act.
2.- I think it is a GREAT mistake to use it in an alarmist way, lacking precission and playing in the 'wild side' of the truth. The environment truth is inconvenient, is not being listened and must be published, learned and taught. Mr. Gore's truth is simply an alarmist LIE. And my fear is that when people realizes, they are going to forget about it in the big box of 'politics borken promises' and 'politics forgotten issues' - and that'll be the end. So let the scientifics tell us what's going on, what they know and what they don't, what they're sure about and what they aren't. And, please, please, please. Let's TEACH our children. We need them aware of the problem, since for sure they'll inherit it. But the must know about it, not be panicked about it by some almost-president with a lot of free time and economic resources. If Gore wants to make a good movie, I suggest he inverts in making a new sequel of "The Godfather", one of the best movies ever. He might even find a role to play himself in such film.

'The inconvenient truth' by 'the inconvenient leader'

For those who haven't heard about it, next monday (October 15th) is the 'Blog Action Day', and the chosen subject for this year's is THE ENVIRONMENT. As many (if not most of you) are aware of, this could be called the year of the environment issue, and the recently awarded Nobel peace prize to Al Gore is the last of the facts pointing this out. He has been the leader of this newly re-empowered environmental debate, and started this monothematic year with his film "An inconvenient truth" and the Oscar it was awarded. This debate is gaining speed and power like a hurricane travelling in the pacific, and Al was smart enough to position himself leading the debate rather than being swalowed into it (as every politician in campaign in the next month will be).

Fact: The word's climate is changing. Cientists all over the world will give you reliable data on this (it is not my intention to fill this bloog with numbers, so I will not produce any data on it, but rather show you an starting point to read about it. And there's no better place to start such an investigation as the Wikipedia). And human intervention has been probably the most important factor for this change, so human intervention (and that means EVERY individual) must help to stop it.

Fact: Al Gore is a succesful bussiness man and a successful politician. And a man whose opinions about environment and his support of the environmentalist lobbies in the U.S. (mutual support, I must point) is not recent. And he has helped to raise the issue.

Then why do I call him the 'inconvenient leader'? First of all I want to make public my own position about this: We can (and we must) do more for the environment. Politicians and leaders of the world should consider it a first-priority and do their part (lead). But Al Gore is a worldwide kwnow man. With his help the issue reached the Oscars and a popularity it couldn't have reached on its own. But once such thing happened, there is an unavoidable risk of making a public enterteinment ot of it. Once the issue reached the first page of newspapers, the public demanded more. And there are lots of journalists working everyday all around the world. And now we know how much electricity Al Gore's house consumes. And his bussiness. And how much more than the american average that represents. And people raises and debates if he should run for president of the U.S. (I find it particulary funny to use an India's news site to show this: this discussion is now REALLY gone world wide, but there's others - by the way, how many of you believe this was casual and Gore himself didn't want this to happen, that he was asked to be back to active politics? I still have my own mind to male). And .... oh jeezz! We forgot the facts!!! We almost forgot about the environment, for a while!!!!!

There's other side of this: We've let a politician LEAD the discussion. That's fine. But we've also let a politician teach us the facts. And that's not so fine. Because he is a great communicator (or his team of co-workers is, don't forget politicians get a lot of help to build their public face), but a not-so-great science man. And he distorted the facts so they look sexier. Also, he is a politician, so he has enemies. In his own party and in every other party. And so this turns into a public fight on 'whose speech is more beautifull'. And also it doesn't help to the issue, because in the world of 'proffessional politics' the truth behind what's said is less important than 'how true and impressive what I say looks'. And everybody knows that, so a lot of importance is taken away from it.

So I think it is fine for politicians to be part of the debate, since they are the public's voice. But it is inconvenient for the issue itself to have them 'creating' and 'moderating' the debate, specially in an issue like the environment which needs everybody behind and pushing, not half the people pushing against the other half. He is inconvenient for the debate. He is inconvenient for the issue. He might even hurt both the debate and the issue. The bad news is that there's no way back. So all we can (and must) do is try to keep the issue on his trails. Don't rush to Mr. Gore's defense. Just rush to the earth's defense. Rush to keep the debate alive, but the REAL debate. Forget that the circus came to town. Because when the circus leaves, and the lights go out and the microphones are lent to some other folk that looks nice on screen, it is us who will remain. And there will still be a lot of work to do.

------------------------------------------------------------

Please alow me to introduce a side note. I don't want to conclude my intervention without saying this: I do not agree with the chosen subject for this year's Blog Action Day. I think environment is an important issue but there are more important ones. Environment protection is a First World concern, most of the rest of the world is more concerned by survival, feeding everybody or cutting their strangling economic ties with the first world so they can build a prosper economy and start concerning by the future of the world instead of the future of themselves or their children. But sorry, I forgot: Blogs are written in the self-called 'First World'. And read in the 'Frist World'. So let's get involved. And let's not think if what we choose to care about is what the world needs us (urges us) to care about. Solidarity should start by finding what others need of us.