Brace yourselves for some environmentally-themed flame wars today, as the papers have dragged Al Gore into the spotlight once again over the scientific validity of his film, An Inconvenient Truth. The fuss follows the news that a school governor in Kent wants the film taken off the school curriculum, and claims made by a High Court judge that the film contains 'nine scientific errors'.
The judge, Mr Justice Barton, had been called upon to rule on the school governor, Stewart Dimmock's claim that the film should not be shown in schools as it "does not present both sides of the argument". His decision was to continue to show the oscar winning documentary to secondary school pupils, but to only do so alongside counter-arguments to those expressed by Gore. The judge was particularly concerned about nine claims made by the film that were "not supported by mainstream scientific consensus", and that teachers should stress that these sections are controversial.
The 'controversial' claims identified by the judge include Gore's reference to a study showing that, "for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". Gore also warned of climate change "shutting down the ocean conveyor" , the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe, while the IPCC has in fact stated that it is "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
What do you think about this watering down of Gore's overall argument on climate change? To me, this seems to imply that we are now afraid of teaching a clear and united message on any subject, however persuasive, to children. It reminds me of the creationist lobby in the US, and its assertion that teaching on natural selection should be 'balanced out' by religious doctrine, and I wonder how many other scientific claims will soon become 'controversial'.
"Clear and united" is great as long as it's all true but kids should also be informed that on some points the debate is still open.
The judge did not find that there were nine errors!
The judge identified nine issues raised by a plaintiff, who was trying to prevent the documentary from being shown in schools.
The plaintiff lost.
See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
In other news, Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace prize.
Is it a coincidence that a judge's findings are being misquoted at the same time it's been announced that Al Gore has won the prize?
Face it...science should be controversial. The scientific method provides a methodical, logical process to examine a situation or answer a question. Yet science and the scientific method is limited. Scientific laws are constantly being overthrown due to the fact that it is impossible to thest them completely. In addition, many are overthrown because the experiments that support them are flawed.For example, spontaneous generation (beginning as a hypothesis around 350 BCE) was accepted as a theory, and had 1900 years of experiments to support it and became accepted as a scientific law. It wasn't until 1859 that Louis Pasteur proved it wrong. The point is, the best science can say is that all known data supports a given statement. That is the nature of science.
I don't think the judgement waters down the argument, even though it has been misrepresented in some media. Mark sums it up quite well.