User:BMcCJ/AIT

English High Court case
As part of a nationwide "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" launched in late 2006, the UK Government, Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Assembly announced between January-March 2007 that copies of An Inconvenient Truth would be sent to all secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. The move was criticised by climate change sceptics and in May 2007 a Kentish school governor and parent challenged the UK Government's decision in the High Court of Justice. An injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools was sought on the basis that the Education Act 2002 forbade schools to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in school and are required to, when dealing with political issues, provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

The case was heard over three days in September and October 2007. On 10 October 2007, Justice Michael Burton ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. On the basis of expert testimony, the judge also highlighted nine specific assertions described as 'errors', and which he considered to be departures from the scientific consensus on global warming. Since the disputed points arose in the context of supporting Gore's political thesis, the judge required that the guidance notes should be revised to address the 'errors' so that teachers could explain them in class.

The decision was welcomed by the Government, which pledged to update the guidance as required by the judge. The plaintiff also declared victory but expressed dissatisfaction that the film will continue to be shown in schools. Gore has not publicly commented on the case, but a spokesman has said that, "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."

National Science Teachers Association
50,000 free copies of the film were offered to the National Science Teachers Association, which declined to take them. Laurie David, one of the film's producers, said in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the NSTA wrote her in an E-mail that the DVDs would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." Supporters of the NSTA include companies like ExxonMobil. In public, the NSTA argued that distributing this film to its members would have been contrary to a long-standing NSTA policy against distributing unsolicited materials to its members.

Federal Way School District, WA
After a father had complained that the movie only showed one point of view, the Federal Way School Board in Federal Way, Washington voted 3 to 0 requiring an approval by the principal and the superintendent for teachers to show the film to students. The teachers must include the presentation of an approved "opposing view". The moratorium was repealed after broad public condemnation at the subsequent meeting on January 23.

Yakima, Washington
Following Federal Way's lead, the Environmental Club of Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Washington was prevented from showing the film until it could be reviewed by the school board, teachers, principal, and parents. The school board called the film a "controversial issue". This stay was lifted a month later, following the approval by a review panel.

Academia
Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT and anthropogenic global warming skeptic, wrote in a June 26 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began. Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period.

Showing the film in schools has proven to be controversial. In December of 2006 the National Science Teachers Association, which is made up of over 53,000 educators, declined 50,000 free DVDs of the film. The school board in Federal Way schools voted to restrict the film, calling it "too controversial. Two weeks later, after broad public condemnation, the board lifted the ban.

Media
A March 13 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous". Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium." The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film; Gore responds that scientists may disagree with him on some details, "but we do agree on the fundamentals."

The Great Global Warming Swindle
The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK on March 8 2007, brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the consensus regarding human-caused global warming. Among other claims, the film states that Gore has misrepresented the data in An Inconvenient Truth, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature preceded an increase in carbon dioxide in the ice core samples and therefore does so today).

Most of the film's claims have been disputed by scientists and scientific bodies such as John T. Houghton, the British Antarctic Survey , Eigil Friis-Christensen and the Royal Society. Global warming skeptic Fred Singer wrote that the documentary is "devastating" to Gore's movie: "...The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."