Gore won Emmy, Oscar, Nobel Prize, only to be defeated by the Supreme Court.

Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
By James Macintyre VIA-independent

It's the box-office sensation credited with confronting the world with the honest reality of climate change. But yesterday, a High Court judge in London made some distinctly inconvenient criticisms of An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning documentary on global warming made by Al Gore.

Mr Justice Burton was pondering whether the film should be shown in classrooms after criticism from a politically active school governor in Kent, who had accused the Government of "brainwashing" children.

Yesterday, the judge found that the "broadly accurate" film can indeed be screened – as long as it is accompanied by material from the climate change-denial fraternity. But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.

But the "errors" highlighted by Mr Justice Burton were detailed. He described the assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by ice melting in West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future", as "distinctly alarmist". This would happen only "after, and over, millennia", the apparently expert judge said.

Meanwhile, it was countered that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa could not be directly attributed to global warming. The judge also said of the idea that polar bears were drowning while "swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice": "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers. But green opponents have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. Earlier this year, Channel 4 broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was widely panned by critics. Eigil Friis-Christensen, the director of the Danish National Space Centre whose work was used in the program, was asked by The Independent whether the message was accurate. He replied: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them... it is obvious it's not accurate."

"Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 program would be guilty of serious professional misconduct."