New analysis shows that the science underpinning the global treaty aiming to stop average temperatures rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels urgently needs more research,...
There has been a flurry of coverage in the last few days of a High Court decision in the U.K that, the deniers would have us believe, condemns Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, as “exaggerated” and “alarmist.
Read fairly, however, the judgment endorses the film for its general accuracy, exonerates school officials for their decision to show it in U.K. classrooms and approves of its continued distribution with a slightly amended “Guidance Note.”
The fading National Post chose sides today: in a snarling attack on the Nobel Committee decision to award a Peace Prize to Al Gore, The Post went on to condemn other Nobel recipients, dismissing the work of Mother Teresa, the goals of nuclear disarmament and the heroism of UN peacekeepers - among whom Canadian soldiers have always played a major role.
The Post also badly misrepresented the judgment from a U.K. judge who has endorsed the continued showing of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in U.K. schools.
What the Post has apparently failed to grasp is that, in any contest with Post business editor Terence Corcoran on one side and Mother Teresa and Al Gore on the other, Al Gore wins.
Busted? Looks like something fishy is going on with the funding behind the UK high court challenge against The Inconvenient Truth being viewed in schools.
The court case was brought forward by a “concerned parent” and “New Party” member Stewart Dimmock.
In a BBC Radio interview last night, Dimmock refused to divulge who fronted the 60,000 quid in court costs.