WP editorial: Gore v. Bush: The Nobel Peace Prize committee hands a victory to Al Gore

[DeepModem Mom]

Gore v. Bush
The Nobel Peace Prize committee hands a victory to Al Gore.
Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A18

FOR FORMER vice president Al Gore, sharing the Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is vindication. He was green when green wasn't cool. For more than 20 years, Mr. Gore persisted in the face of intense skepticism and criticism with his warnings about the impact of global warming on the planet. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the Nobel committee wrote.

His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the effects of climate change, was a box-office hit and an Oscar winner. That achievement is impressive and important, notwithstanding factual misstatements and exaggerations such as the "nine significant errors" in the film cited by a British judge Wednesday. By also awarding the prize to the IPCC, the Nobel committee bolstered the more solid scientific assessments of the U.N.-sponsored organization, which served to strengthen Mr. Gore's message about the dangers of global warming while moderating some of his more questionable assertions.

The Nobel committee chairman said that awarding the prize to Mr. Gore and the IPCC was not meant to be "a kick in the leg to anyone." The White House said it didn't see it that way, either. But these denials are hard to take seriously from a group that has handed the peace prize to adversaries of President Bush in several recent years. Mr. Bush said, through a spokesperson, that he was "happy" for Mr. Gore. But there was no congratulatory phone call, and commentary around the world, particularly in Europe, took delight in a yet another perceived rebuff to the unpopular president.

When it comes to global warming, the ire is warranted. Mr. Bush's inaction on climate change is one of the major failings of his presidency. He squandered nearly seven years by questioning the science of global warming and undermining efforts to do anything substantive about it. His recent efforts to demonstrate leadership -- from finally recognizing global warming as real to hosting a climate summit with the major emitters of greenhouse gases -- are undermined by his insistence that nations pursue voluntary "aspirational goals" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is not the kind of leadership the world is looking for....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202104.html?nav=hcmodule

[greenman3610]

1. about those "errors"

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php


A UK High Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. Justice Burton agreed that

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie.

Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors. Let me name some of the journalists who got it wrong: Sally Peck in the Daily Telegraph, Nico Hines in the Times, Mike Nizza in the New York Times, James McIntyre in the Independent, PA in Melbourne's Herald Sun, David Adam in the Guardian, Daniel Cressey in Nature, the BBC, Mary Jordan in the Washington Post, Marcus Baram for ABC News, and (of course) Matthew Warren in the Australian.

Let's look at what Burton really wrote (my emphasis):

Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

If you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part -- Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists' attention. (And yes, that was Bob Carter mentioned there.)

So what is Burton assessing in his judgement? Well, s407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" so Burton states that the government should make it clear when "there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view". Burton calls these "errors or departures from the mainstream".

So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.


----


more at link. Broadly speaking, it is bizarre for
climate skeptics to exult because a judge has
expressed a preference for IPCC over AIT-
and recent developments in the Arctic indicate that
IPCC, as heroic as their efforts have been,
may have produced a very conservative
assessment.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thank you for this post, greenman! nt

[MissWaverly]

3. Nice to Know Wash Post basing errors smear on GOP disinfo

Does the washington post ever pass up an opportunity to distort the truth to make dems look bad, don't think so.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. So far, I'm heartened that I haven't seen this stuff echoed in a big way elsewhere. nt

[MissWaverly]

5. well, I think they are hiding, they saw the Schip smear blow

up in their faces with links back to good old Mitch's staff (Sen. Mitch McConnell, R/Kentucky) who is having the "Dump Mitch" blues right now. I wonder how the folks back home will take this. Esp. when the boy looks like a clone of the Home Alone kid, you could
not find a more huggable kid for America to take to its heart.