別に科学的知識も乏しいので命を懸けて反地球温暖化を主張しようとは思わないが、疑いなく地球温暖化を信じているやつは北朝鮮の人民と大差がないということだ。偶然だがゴアの「不都合な真実」の事実を検証するイギリスでの裁判の結果が出た。裁判は全般的な気温の上昇が人為的活動に基づくとしているが個別の現象には相当に非科学的だと断じている。以下はAFPBBとソースとなっているTimes（英文：ダルフールの方があるのであるので訳す暇がないが、ゴア映画の９つの否定の例が記述されている）の記事である。アフリカ関連の現象はことごとく否定されている。海抜が７ｍ上がるには１０００年以上必要だとされている。
ダルフール紛争が地球温暖化の影響だと国連事務総長が言ってしまったが、近隣のチャドのチャド湖の乾燥化は地球温暖化と関係がないとされた。仮にゴアがダルフール紛争を「不都合な真実」に入れていたら、いったい何が起こったか計り知れない。
前にも書いたかもしれないが東アフリカの乾燥化はインド洋の海水温に相関するものだと言うことが科学的調査で明らかになっており、仮に地球温暖化があったとしても直接東アフリカの乾燥に影響を及ぼしているわけではない。またサハラ以南の西アフリカは近年緑化が進行していると報告されている。こういう都合のいい真実は報道しないと言うのが不都合な真実の方法論なのである。
およそ科学がどんなものかを知っている人ならば、地球温暖化がどれだけ、複雑な裏づけを必要とする仮説モデルかということは、議論する前にわかる。地球温暖化を口にしてしまうのは私立文系の証明である。ぼくもそうだが、残念ながら社会科学方法論で、「科学」がどれだけ不統一な概念かは勉強している。
むしろ大きく見られるのは、地域的な変動で、科学的調査がよく行われている場合、そういう変動が、多様な原因で起こっていると結論される場合が多いのである。
この多様な要因で物事が起こっていることに耐えられない福音が「地球温暖化」である。
そういうわけで、温室効果ガスの売買なんて、たとえば古代貝殻が貨幣として用いられたのと同じ程度の意味しかない。それは政治権力の信用によって価値が与えられるだけである。
すくなくとも「地球温暖化」と言うことはいわゆる地球温暖化について何ら関心がないことの証拠と思っていただきたい。最低でも「気候変動」と言うように心がけたいものである。まあ常温核融合のようなもかもしれないのである。
=================================================
映画『不都合な真実』上映には指導要領が必要、英裁判所が判断
AFPBB 2007年10月11日
http://www.afpbb.com/article/environment-science-it/environment/2296042/2229515
【10月11日 AFP】英高等法院の判事は10日、アル・ゴア（Al Gore）前米副大統領の気候変動に関する著書『不都合な真実（An Inconvenient Truth）』をもとに制作された同名のドキュメンタリー映画について、教育への政治介入を防ぐため、学校では政府による指導要領と共に使用されなければならないとの判断を下した。
原告のStewart Dimmockさんは2歳の子どもを持つ父親で、前月、この映画について「科学的に重大な誤りがあり、政治的プロパガンダおよび感情的見解が含まれている」と主張、訴えを起こした。
Dimmockさんは、地球温暖化対策の必要性を示すため、イングランドおよびウェールズの中学校約3500校にこの映画のDVDを配布するとの政府の方針を阻止したいとしていた。
英高等法院のMichael Burton判事は、オスカー（Oscar）賞も受賞した映画版『不都合な真実』について、政府の指導要領と共に使用されなければならず、指導要領なしで使用された場合、政治的見解の不均衡の助長を禁止する教育法に抵触するとの判断を示した。
原告のDimmockさんは、非主流派政治団体「New Party」のメンバー。同組織は経済的自由主義、政治改革、および国際主義を掲げ、実業家や中小企業で働く人が支持者の中心となっている。
同組織は気候変動が重要課題であることは認めるものの、その原因が人間にあるとの論拠は絶対でないと主張し、新技術の開発、新しい原子力発電所の建設、および開発途上国でのクリーン・テクノロジー支援における「前向きな動機」の提供を提唱している。(c)AFP
=================================================
Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment
Times October 11, 2007
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.
“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.
The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.
The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.
The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.
Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.
Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.
The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.
The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.
The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.
Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
― A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters
The speech, the film, the book
― An Inconvenient Truth is the third-highest grossing documentary ever in the United States, making more than $23 million (£12 million)
― It has so far earned $49 million at the box office worldwide It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and won an Oscar this year for Best Documentary, Features
― The film is based on a lavishly-illustrated public lecture that Mr Gore has given more than 1,000 times in the US and elsewhere It was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who has also directed episodes of the hit television shows Deadwood, The Shield and 24
― The companion book written by Gore has been on The New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006
― Mr Gore has been nominated jointly with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming campaign, including making the documentary
― President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: Doubt it"
― The documentary has featured on The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama and even in an Ozzy Osborne song, The Almighty Dollar
* Have your say
As Jeremy Clarkson said "Al Gore is so hopeless that he was beaten to the White House by George W Bush!"
Don, paris, france
It may be a fallacy as to whether man-made emissions are the main cause of global warming. However, what does matter is that we have treated the environment as an open sewer for the past 200yrs. Industry is indifferent to mankinds custodial responsibilities regarding the environment. Compulsion is the only language it understands. So morally at least, Gore is right.
chris munro, Liverpool,
The irony behind this is: there is no value (read politics) free science. The problem with the film is not its political bias, it is that it pretends that there is science without such a bias.
If however political bias makes the film illegal for use in schools, I wonder how else we plan to teach our children that every science is political - hospitals infections, animal research, cancer treatment: you name it, it is all full of politics. Clean science is a myth, as is clean politics or clean education. It may be inconvenient for a depoliticised, big-brotherised society such as the UK, but politics is everywhere. Too bad that our children are not legally allowed to learn all this.
Fred Caprivi, Manchester,
|
