Questionable funding uncovered in the Al Gore UK High Court Case
Update: This latest attack on Al Gore is at the hands of the "Scientific Alliance" - a group well-known to DeSmogBlog.
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.
Here’s a partial transcript:
Host: Some people might wonder why you felt so strongly about this, that yu were prepared to take it all the way to the high courts, whether you have an agenda or sorts. Do you?
Dimmock: Well I have two young children and in my mind its wrong that we push politics into the classroom.
Host: Can I ask you one more question Mr. Dimmock. It’s not cheap taking a case to the high court.
Dimmock: No it’s not.
Host: Were you helped financially to do this?
Dimmock: The government have been ordered to pay my costs, I got 60,000 pounds up for payment.
Host: Ya, but you didn’t know that that was going to be the order until today did you?
Dimmock: No I didn’t.
Host: Who took the risk?
Dimmock: [long, long pause] uuummmmmm….. I’ve had pledges of support [another weird pause].
Host: May I ask you from whom?
Dimmock: You can ask from whom, but I’m sorry I can’t tell you. I haven’t got the names of the people that have pledged me support, it’s still a website.
Here's the entire BBC radio spot, Dimmock starts squirming at about the 5 minute mark.
And most importantly, here's the email address for Dimmock's "New Party." I would urge everyone to send an email demanding to know who paid for this effort.
Here's what I sent:
Attn: Stewart Dimmock,
It was brought to my attention in a recent BBC Radio 4 interview that you have refused to divulge the funding sources for you court action to ban The Inconvenient Truth in UK schools.
As there has been a long history of attacks against the science of climate change sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, I am wondering if this is such a case. As someone with an obvious interest in participating in the public conversation on climate change, it would be imperative that you divulge any funding that you have received from the fossil fuel industry. This would absolve you of any criticism that your held views may constitute a conflict of interest.
I look forward to hearing back from you,
Kevin@desmogblog.com
Actually, it isn't hard to figure out that the New Party footed this guy's tab. Its on their website. But they seem to have been around for awhile as a U.K. Fringe Party, and not just whomped up as an ant-GW front group.
They've been up front about that affiliation from the get-go. Wouldn't have made him stutter like that.
BTW, Big city, could you pop me a quick email at desmogblog[at]gmail.com? Gotta talk to you.
Andy Rowell has more to say on this at:
http://tinyurl.com/2725yw
Ian Forrester
Well, thats a great expose on the so-called "mistakes" in Inconvenient Truth. They seemed to carry so much weight since it was from a judge, and about the movie being used as school materials, but now you have proven the complainer to be a big farce.
Thanks for the good work Kev
Maybe the Peace Prize, and tbe Ban Moon /U.N. involvement in global warming's role in violent conflicts will shut the deniers up a bit. There is so much to gain from addressing emissions, from peace to prosperity.
Climate Criminal posted this link under the lead story, to a point-by-point critique of the judgment. It's excellent!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
Somebody has read one of my posts and liked it! Sigh!
. . . credit where it's due, eh?
"Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.
Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.
The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.
The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change".
The full article can be found at;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html
Ian Forrester
I emailed the NewParty about Stuart Dimmock funding and this is the reply I received:
Please See:
www.straightteaching.com
The New Party has nothing to do with this case except for offering moral support to one of our members.
Regards
Martyn Greene
Unless you are suggesting that the judgement was bought, Kevin, what does it matter who helped with the legal bills? At the end of the day a judge had to sift the evidence and make a ruling. Unless there was judicial malfeasance, the issue of who helped Dimmock with his legal bills is irrelevant.
Boy you guys are really burned that this Dimmock guy cast a shadow over your hero Al Gore's moment in the sun. Get used to it. When you stubbornly defend a cause built on junk science, there are many more such days ahead.
do check out what the judgment actually SAYS. Not exactly a damning indictment.
Hi Kevin,
I have reason to believe that one of the UK's aristocrats, Viscount Monckton, a key supporter of the UK's 'New Party', may have been behind some of this funding issue.
He put up funds for The Great Global Warming Swindle film; which as you know tries to refute Al Gore.
I believe also that he has close ties to the Washington DC Denial Brat pack.
Best wishes
asm
If attacking the message doesn't work, attack the messenger. Worked for Goebbles. Works for Gore.
Examine the facts critically and evaluate the judge's decision - unless you believe that he has been bought also.
Read the judgement carefully, I mean? Check out the analysis of the decision at "Update on the nine alleged errors in An Inconvenient Truth" http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
For every person that wishes only for the good in this world, many more want to harm it. If this Dimmock guy had been legally subject to interrogatories, he'd be trembling on his knees. It's apparent that he's sabotaging a very well-intentioned individual for dubious reasons.