Earlier this week, TransAlta — the massive, ...
And then came the powerful defenses of Gore, the skewerings of the Gore deranged, and just general voicing of reason. Alas, the Gore defenders, while being broadly accurate about Gore's “broadly accurate” film, also seem to have missed some key matters that bear addressing.
So let's add some needed perspective here.A DeSmogBlog exclusive weekly column by best-selling author and science writer, Chris Mooney.
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.
First, our warmest congratulations to Al Gore. The Nobel Prize is one of the world's great honors and, in our view, one that is extremely well-deserved.
But I'm conscious that the standing ovation Gore is enjoying today is not exactly unanimous. The climate change conversation has become polarized - and belligerent - over the last decade. And Al Gore - a politician who dared to address a controversial public issue outside the conventional political process - has become a lightning rod for some hyper-political criticism. How can we get people from all points on the political spectrum to celebrate Gore's Nobel Prize without feeling that they are sacrificing their own cherished political interests?
Here's a roundup of all that's Al Gore tonight as we wait (with fingers crossed) for the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.
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.
Many of the recent attempts to discredit the science of human-induced climate change have come in the form of challenging Vice-President Al Gore to a public debate. This, of course, is a big red herring when you consider that it is not “Al Gore's science,” but instead the conclusion drawn through years of research by thousands of experts.
However, by tagging the scientific evidence that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) is causing global warming as “Al Gore's science,” right-wing think tanks and fossil fuel friendly front groups have effectively politicized an issue of science (at least in the United States).
It didn’t take the denialist shock troops long to pounce on recent disclosures about the cattle industry’s role in global warming. An all-too-familiar diatribe, penned in Colorado, appeared as a guest editorial today in a Vancouver newspaper. The author, like others of his ilk, has discarded scientific research to pitch his own delusion.