webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

inc truth UK Ct Dimmock v

see Milloy

SEE MONCKTON

SEE LEGAL SUPPRESSION

---

[### Climate change film to stay in the classroom | Schools

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com › education › oct › schools](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/oct/10/schools.uk)

Oct 10, 2007 — A parent has failed in his legal action to prevent Al Gore's climate change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, being shown in schools in England.Read more

Missing: MONCKTON ‎| Show results with: MONCKTON

DESMOG R LITTLEMORE

There has been a flurry of coverage in the last few days of a High Court decision in the U.K that, the deniers would have us believe, condemns Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, as “exaggerated” and “alarmist.

Read fairly, however, the judgment endorses the film for its general accuracy, exonerates school officials for their decision to show it in U.K. classrooms and approves of its continued distribution with a slightly amended “Guidance Note.”

Justice Michael Burton acknowledges in the early stages of his decision that Al Gore is “a talented politician and communicator,” who uses science ” to make a political statement and to support a political programme.” But of the film, Justice Burton says, “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”

Justice Burton says, “I have no doubt that Dr. PETER MET OFFICE NOT PHIL THE SHILL Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

THO PHIL IN SCI ALLIANCE

Then he quotes Martin Chamberlain, the lawyer for the defendant (The Secretary of State for Education and Skills), who says, “The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community.” Justice Burton then adds that “For the purposes of this hearing, Mr. (Paul) Downes (lawyer for the plaintiff) was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.”

So, everyone agrees that the science is solid and that Al Gore, while quotable and agenda-driven (he wants us to do something about climate change) sticks pretty close to the facts.

Still, regardless that his lawyer conceded the science, Stewart Dimmock, the U.K. bus driver who somehow rustled up 60,000 quid to take this issue to court, did so in hopes that Justice Burton would have the film pulled from the school system. Dimmock argued either that An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) should be censored or, in the judge’s words, “that, if the political issues, as per the content of AIT, are to be brought to the attention of pupils, then there must be an equivalent and equal presentation of counter-balancing views.” Presumably, Dimmock would champion the broadcast of something like the wholly discredited Great Global Warming Swindle.

Justice Burton disagreed, in the most whithering way:

“There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory – if it were a political one – that the moon is not made out of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word “balanced” in s407 (in the relevant U.K. legislation) means nothing more than fair and dispassionate.”

It might be a stretch to suggest that Justice Burton was grouping climate change deniers with people who believe the moon is made of green cheese – but not a big stretch.

As for the dreaded “errors” exposed by this case, Justice Burton notes: “Mr. Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard.”

Again, it’s hard to suggest a perfect analysis of what the good judge meant when he said, “waxed lyrical,” but it doesn’t appear to imply that the plaintiff’s barrister contained himself to a strict analysis of the facts.

Justice Burton,on the other hand, visits those facts with care, beginning in his Paragraph 23. At his most critical, he says Gore was “distinctly alarmist” in predicting the collapse of the Greenland glacier: “the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus,” Justice Burton concludes. Other “errors,” such as Gore’s contention that Hurricane Katrina was whipped up by climate change, elicit this kind of a response: “It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.”

It turns out that Al Gore, in the interest of making an interesting and compelling movie, spoke more boldly on nine occasions than would the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accordingly, and to ensure that Mr. Dimmock’s children do not wind up as confused as he plainly is, the judge has recommended a revision to the Guidance Note that U.K. teachers had already received with the film. Much of that note is also reproduced in the judgment, and it includes sections such as this:

”*Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. However, pupils should be aware that even small rises in sea level are predicted to have very serious effects. The IPCC says that “many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s” (i.e. within pupils’ own lifetimes).”

In other words, we think Uncle Al overstated himself, but we still recommend that you all think twice before buying waterfront.

No matter how you read this judgment, it is a convincing victory for Gore and his movie. Justice Burton finds that Gore exaggerated for effect – and to good effect, but that, given appropriate teacher guidance (and contrary to the wishes of Dimmock, et al), the film is appropriate for student viewing.

The newspaper editors who are trying to present this as somehow not the case, are deluding themselves and misleading their readers.

NATL POST CDA 404 NO WAYBACK

---

REF

Questionable funding uncovered in the Al Gore UK High Court Case

ByKevin Grandia

onOct 11, 2007

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 Truthbeing 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

---

GGL 4 26

People also search for

An** Inconvenient Truth **predictions

An** Inconvenient Truth **15 years later

An** Inconvenient Truth **20 years later Summary

An** Inconvenient Truth **fact check

An** Inconvenient Truth **analysis

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

The** truth **about climate change

An** Inconvenient Truth **debunked

4 26

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills - Wikipedia

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills was a case heard in September–October 2007 in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, concerning the permissibility of the government providing Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth to English state schools as a teaching aid.

The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, a father of two sons who attend a state school. Dimmock has twice stood as a local election candidate[1] for the New Party and received backing for the case from Viscount Monckton, the author of the New Party's manifesto.[2] Monckton, one of the UK's most prominent climate change deniers, launched an advertising campaign against Al Gore in March 2007 challenging Gore to a public debate on climate change.[3] Monckton has received funding from a Washington-based conservative think tank of which he is chief policy adviser, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), to create a film, Apocalypse No, which will parody Gore, showing Monckton presenting a slide show making an attack on climate change science.[2]

The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court 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. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.

Background to the case

In October 2006, the Government announced that the academic year 2006/07 would be a "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" to promote sustainable development and environmental consciousness. This followed an earlier public consultation on a Sustainable Schools Strategy. As part of the strategy, schools throughout the UK were to be given guidance and educational material on current environmental issues.[4]

:{:{Ross Finnie, the Environment Minister of the Scottish Executive, announced on 16 January 2007 that An Inconvenient Truth would be shown to all secondary school pupils in Scotland, with the costs being underwritten by the energy company ScottishPower.[5] The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) followed suit on 2 February with an announcement that a copy of the film would be sent to all 3,385 secondary schools in England.[6]}:

A month later, the Welsh Assembly Government likewise announced that schools and colleges in Wales would receive a copy of the film. In all three countries, the distribution of the film was accompanied by guidance notes and resources on how climate change fits into the context of the National Curriculum[7] and the Sustainable Schools Year of Action programme.[8] The DVD was also accompanied in English schools by a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which included two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.[citation ^needed]}:

The move was opposed by a group of parents in the New Forest region of Hampshire, who argued that the film was "inaccurate and politically motivated" and threatened to take legal action against the Government.[9] The parents' spokesman, Conservative councillor Derek Tipp,[10] asserted that the circulation of the film by the Government amounted to political indoctrination and was in breach of the Education Act 2002.[9]

The court case

:{:{The film's distribution was also opposed by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a prominent British global warming denier. According to Monckton, he "identified three dozen scientific errors in it" and prompted an unnamed wealthy friend "to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense".[11] Funding for litigation was provided by the friend, and when the government "didn't reply satisfactorily", Monckton and his colleagues served papers on the government.[11]}:

The case was brought in May 2007 in the name of Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver and governor at a school in Dover, Kent, who was also a member of the same small political party for which Monckton had written a manifesto.[2] In papers lodged at the High Court in London, the plaintiffs argued that showing the film would violate section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996. The Act requires that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school".

Alternatively, the plaintiffs submitted, showing the film was unlawful because it did not provide "a balanced presentation of opposing views" as required by section 407. Dimmock petitioned the court to enjoin the Government from showing An Inconvenient Truth in English schools. Although he did not publicly explain his motivation, he was reported to feel "very strongly that this is an attempt to brainwash children with flawed science."[12][13] The behind-the-scenes role of Monckton and the other global warming deniers was disclosed much later, in an interview given by Monckton to the conservative American talk show host Glenn Beck in March 2008.[11]}:

The initial written application to challenge the Government was refused in July 2007.[13] On 27 September 2007, however, permission was granted at an oral hearing with a three-day judicial review before Justice Michael Burton following immediately thereafter.

Dimmock's counsel asserted that the film was "partisan, aimed at influencing rather than informing, and lacked balance", and that it contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."[14] The court was told that Dimmock had been widely supported by "[l]ots of parents [who] have written to him supporting his application. They do not want our children brainwashed in this way by the New Labour Thought Police."[15]

:{:{In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views.[16]}:

The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns.[17] On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."[citation ^needed]}:

The judgment

:{:{Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." The necessary amendments made to the related guidance notes make it clear what the mainstream view is, insofar as the film departs from it.}:

The notes also explain that there are views of deniers who do not accept the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Given these amendments, the judge considered that the film was put in a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views was offered and where it could be shown to students in compliance with the law. Given a proper context, the requirement for a balanced presentation did not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view.}:

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e, that were not representative of the mainstream. He also found that some of these statements arose in the context of supporting Al Gore's political thesis. The judge required that the guidance notes should address these statements.[18]

The nine inaccuracies

The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream. However, Al Gore's spokesman has disputed this characterisation of the nine statements, which were as follows:

  1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland.
  1. Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming.
  1. The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe.
  1. There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years.

~2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. ... The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside."[19]

~2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."[18]

~2. However, this does not disprove the proposition that CO

~2 warms the atmosphere and that rising emissions of CO

~2 are the principal cause of global warming today.[20]

  1. The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming.
  1. The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming.
  1. Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming.
  1. Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice.
  1. Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors.

Responses to the judgment

The Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan, declared the outcome a victory for the government, stating: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film."

Mr Justice Burton declared the case a victory for the claimant stating "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act".[28]

A spokesman for Al Gore stated 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."[29]

The verdict was criticised by the National Union of Teachers, which stated that it was "inappropriate for a judge to dictate how films or other creative work was taught in schools."[30]

Viscount Monckton criticised the judge, who he claimed had been "a Labour [Party] candidate before", and asserted that the Government had "decided that for the sake of retaining what little scientific credibility the office still has, they better admit this were errors and once they admitted them, the judge, even though he wanted to, couldn't find that Gore's film was accurate."[11]

In July 2009, Gore was interviewed by Heather Ewart of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In the interview, Gore was questioned about Justice Burton's ruling that there were "nine errors" in the film. Gore commented that "the ruling was in my favour."[31]

Costs and funding

Dimmock's legal costs were said to be around £200,000.[32] He was awarded only two-thirds of his costs and is reported to have received a bill of more than £60,000 for the remainder.[2]

:{:{The question of the lawsuit's funding was raised in September 2007, even before the case had concluded, by a report in The Daily Telegraph which wondered "Where will the money come from?". According to Stewart Dimmock's solicitor, it was "a private matter for him". However, the Telegraph noted that Dimmock was a member of the New Party, a small right-wing party with a record of climate change denial. The party declares that "political opportunism and alarmism have combined in seizing [the IPCC's] conclusions to push forward an agenda of taxation and controls that may ultimately be ineffective in tackling climate change, but will certainly be damaging to our economy and society".[13]}:

The New Party was reported to be backing Dimmock.[33] It issued a press release on 1 October 2007 in which it publicised the case and declared, somewhat prematurely, that "it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the film will ever be shown as intended."[34]

In March 2008, the New Party's manifesto-writer Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley acknowledged he had prompted an unnamed wealthy friend to fund the case and that he had himself been heavily involved in the litigation. The Observer reported at the time that Dimmock's backers were "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies." The chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, has been described as "a long-time critic of environmentalists" who established a climate change denial group called the Scientific Alliance. The alliance publicised Dimmock's case on its website and was also involved in advising Channel 4 on the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle,[10] which Viscount Monckton is distributing to schools as a riposte to An Inconvenient Truth.[2]}:

See also

References

===

NEW UK COURT GGL 4 26

[### Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Dimmock_v_Secretary...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills)

The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation ...Read more

[### An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore

ABC News

https://abcnews.com › TenWays › story](https://abcnews.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1)

Oct 12, 2007 — An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore. Win some, lose some? U.K. court cites errors in "An Inconvenient Truth." ByMARCUS BARAM. February 12 ...Read more

[### British High Court Ruling on An Inconvenient Truth

Friends of Science

https://friendsofscience.org › assets › documents › British...](https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/British_High_Court_Ruling_on_An_Inconvenient_Truth.html)

The decision by the British Government to distribute Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart ...Read more

[### Stuart Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and ...

Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW)

https://elaw.org › resource › uk-stuart-dimmock-v-secret...](https://elaw.org/resource/uk-stuart-dimmock-v-secretary-state-education-and-skills-2007-ewhc-2288-admin-inconvenient-t)

The powerful Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” will form part of a pack on climate change sent to every secondary school in England.Read more

[### Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com › oct › climatechange](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange)

Oct 11, 2007 — Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were ...Read more

[### Media ignore British judge's conclusion that An ...

Media Matters

https://www.mediamatters.org › new-york-times › media...](https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/media-ignore-british-judges-conclusion-inconvenient-truth-substantially-founded-upon)

Media ignore British judge's conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” ... United Kingdom High Court ...Read more

[### U.K. judge: Gore's climate film has 9 problems

NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com › wbna21259069](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21259069)

Oct 11, 2007 — While "An Inconvenient Truth" will still be shown in English schools, the judge said teachers will have to be careful not to endorse Gore's ...Read more

---

---