Is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" really full of errors? (12 October 2007)

Some initial thoughts

Consider the following story: Imagine that you are travelling very fast on a train. You can hear a growing noise coming from the engine. It happens that there is also a train mechanic in the train. The mechanic stands up and tells the driver that according to the noise, he is 90% certain that the breaks are going to stop working in the near future. The driver however continues driving fast because he is determined to get to the next station as fast as possible. There is also a medical doctor in the train, who starts getting frightened. The doctor tells everybody about the consequences that a train crash at this speed would have on its occupants (he says that the travellers on the train are possibly going to have their head chopped off from their bodies, be seriously injured or may remain disabled). However, a third person on the train, in a hurry to get to the next station, does not believe what the mechanic and the doctor say (even though he is neither a doctor nor a mechanic). He asks a judge (also travelling on the same train) if the judge can tell the mechanic and the doctor to stop telling people about the danger. The judge hears both parties, and rules that the doctor and the mechanic are basically right, and can continue telling people in the train about the dangers they are facing. However, he rules that they should not frighten people about having their heads chopped off because there is insufficient evidence that this is likely to happen; it may happen, but it cannot be proven. In the meantime, the train not only does not slow down, but continues speeding (with you, the judge, the mechanic, and all the rest of the passengers, all on board, discussing the issue).

The characters in this story are of course purely fictional. Any likeness with the recent high court ruling or to any person alive or dead is purely a coincidence.

So, a UK judge has ruled that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is "one-sided and contains nine errors" what does this mean?

The way this story was reported by the Media was incomplete and aimed at creating a controversy. One of the unfortunate consequences of this controversy is that it will once more confuse people. The general public is likely to believe that Climate Change is still a controversial issue amongst scientists (it is not), or that Climate Change is not really dangerous and not likely to affect us in the next few years. Fortunately, the fact that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace on 12 October 2007 might counterbalance in people's mind this unnecessary controversy.

Some resources and comments about the ruling:

We strongly recommand the following three documents (more detailed than the basic explanations below):

1. Convenient Untruths (article from RealClimate); an excellent summary of and response to the ruling.

2. Prof John Shepherd (Chair of the Climate Leadership Programme), and Prof Chris Rapley (the science advisor to Al Gore on the Climate Project Training Programme) have pulled together a response on the University of Cambridge Website that helps clarify the judges decision (here).

3. See also the blog "An 'error' is not the same thing as an error" (this makes some valid points).

(more resources are given towards the end of this briefing):

Operation Noah's comments:

A close study of the full judgment shows very clearly that the film "An Inconvenient Truth" was found by the judge to be "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". The judge also added that he accepted the propositions of the defendant (the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families) that: "The Film advances 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:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

Moreover:

(a) the movie was released in 2006, i.e. before the latest IPCC report (in 2007); since then, science has evolved;

(b) the 9 alleged 'errors' mentioned in the ruling need closer attention. The word 'error' is used between inverted comas in the ruling and in many cases these appear to be more difference in interpretation than errors. Most of the time, in the movie, Al Gore does not make any statement but give the viewers to understand that something is likely to happen.

(c) Most, if not all of the ruling on these 9 alleged 'errors', do not actually say that Al Gore is wrong is his claims, but that the points he is making are either still debated or have not (yet) been proved. So the judge is merely saying that for 9 points made by Al Gore in his movie there is not yet a scientific consensus or that the level of danger has not been entirely proven. The ruling has been based on the latest science available, and more specifically on the last Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (Fourth Assessment Report, 2007) (the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace with Al Gore on 12 October 2007). The lawyer for the claimant recognised that the IPCC represented the present scientific consensus. However, the science of Climate Change is evolving rapidly and that the predictions look bleaker and bleaker and many scientists believe that the IPCC is too conservative or too cautious in its conclusions. We give a few examples below:

Rise in Sea levels:

Al Gore's claim in the "Inconvenient Truth" that sea levels could rise by 20ft "in the immediate future" was dismissed by the judge, Mr Justice Burton, as "distinctly alarmist" and that "it is not in line with the scientific consensus". Such a rise would take place, according to him "only after, and over, millennia". This is true that IPCC's latest projection for sea level rise this century is 18 to 59 centimetres. However, as one of the leading Climate Scientist emphasized in a recent article, the IPCC "explicitly notes that it was unable to include possible dynamical responses of the ice sheets in its calculations" (James Hansen). And this is what the summary IPCC report exactly says:

"Very large sea-level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines and ecosystems, and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas. Relocating populations, economic activity, and infrastructure would be costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1- 4°C (relative to 1990-2000), causing a contribution to sea level rise of 4-6 m or more. The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively."

(source: IPCC 4th Assessment report, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" http://www.ipccinfo.com/hurricanes.php)

There has been several recent articles also showing that the melting might be much faster than predicted by the IPCC. For example, see an article published a few days ago by the BBC entitled "Ice melt raises passage tension (BBC, Monday 8 October 2007)". This is what the article said: "Record summer melting of sea-ice has made the [North-West] passage fully navigable [for the first time] [see another article in New Scientist "North-West Passage clears of ice for the first time"]... The Canadian Ice Service was among the organisations monitoring the retreat and its director, Doug Bancroft, told the BBC that he was "stunned" that this extent of melting had not been expected for decades. "It just seemed as if it wasn't going to stop. Normally, towards the end of August, the beginning of September, the melting slows down and stops and we get ready for the coming fall and the refreezing during the winter. But it just kept on going and the concern was, 'Well when is it going to stop this year?' - and ultimately when it did stop, it shattered all previous records." (source: BBC)

There are several other articles on the subject of sea level rises which show that sea levels might rise more quickly than the IPCC predicts (and the IPCC itself emphasizes that it is not sure how fast this will happen either);

"Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps" (The Guardian, February 19, 2007):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/19/frontpagenews.climatechange

James Hansen: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html

Other points mentioned in the ruling:

The question of sea level rise debated above was just given as an example, but similar comments could be made about all of the 9 alleged 'errors'. You may find the following articles of interest:

On top of the article by Mark Lynas in the Guardian (12 October 2007), there is a little bit of background information about the "Hidden Agenda Behind Al Gore Attack".

We will be posting more information and resources here in the next few days, so watch this space.

Resources on the science of Climate Change:

An excellent starting resource is "Climate Change, a guide for the perplexed", produced by New Scientist, and available from:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Also "Climate Change controversies, a simple guide", by the Royal Society:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

Links to stories about the award of the Nobel Prize for Peace to Al Gore (prize shared with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - 12 October 2007):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/climatechange.internationalnews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/gorecitation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3053488.ece

Initial stories about the high court ruling published in the press:

See an earlier story last week on the subject, interestingly entitled: " Climate film allowed in schools"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7025119.stm

and another one from the Guardian:

"Climate change film to stay in the classroom"

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html

A more recent article about the ruling by the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

You can also listen to the World's Tonight Programme (10 o'clock news) on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday night. The Al Gore documentary was the first item discussed at the beginning of the programme and then several people (including Myles Allen, a leading Oxford Scientist) are interviewed and discuss the judge's ruling:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/noscript.shtml?/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/worldtonight_wed

You may skip the beginning of the news and go directly to the interviews (between minutes 00:07:25 and 00:16:00 of the programme).

There is also a short BBC video on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

article in the Times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

For more information, you may look at:

The Inconvenient Truth website:

http://www.climatecrisis.net

you may read the full judgment here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html