...David Adam reports on the court case brought by Stewart Dimmock, a member of the New Party, challenging the government plan to show Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT) in schools on the basis it is 'misleading'. Resolving scientific debates is really not best pursued in a court but that’s where we are on this one. Do note the judge has concluded the film AIT was "broadly accurate"...DC's briefing is attached as a comment to this post.
I fear we may have to deal with a wave of “Gore denial”. While generally global warming denial is increasingly for the flat-earthers there are still some who don’t want it to be true and conclude therefore that global warming is not happening, or it's not that bad or well … we can’t do much about it ... can we … and so on. So I’ve expanded on David Adam’s 8 (yes 8) bullet points. I’ve added a ninth point.
P.S. 10.05am: Al Gore is a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, along with the IPCC]
P.P.S. 12 noon: Catherine Brahic scrutinises Judge Burton's judgement in New Scientist's environment blog here.
[P.P.P.S. 15 Oct: see Paul Krugman on Gore Derangement Syndrome.]
[P.P.P.P.S (!) 16 Oct: the folks at RealClimate write: "the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't)."]