2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

Well the courts have begun using foreign and international courts as precedence. This may be time to use it.

You gotta love this. Looks like the  states attorney wasn't able to prove a consensus.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov

QUOTE

The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and
preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

QUOTE

High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide
concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±
400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Looks like you already had this covered.

This article you all are commenting on is a lie and you didn't even realize that.

I know Exxon/Mobil is paying for this site, but come on.  Don't you all know the facts yet?

Why would the media report on a lie.  One partisan person filed suit.

The judge did NOT make those claims, the guy who brought the suit did.

The Judge already ruled and ruled that is was partisan, not the 

facts weren't correct.

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown to schools

Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 02/10/2007

Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth promotes "partisan political views", a High Court judge has ruled.

Normally that would almost certainly make it unlawful for the Oscar-winning film to be shown to schools.

But Mr Justice Burton indicated that it can be shown if teachers follow new guidance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/02/eagore102.xml   

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University)

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no
proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse
gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years
show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source
of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water
vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future
warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these
models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any
case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models
cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century
(1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we
call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while
models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle
atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the
exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes
of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which
correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The
current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming
and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts
for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled
Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to
1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe,
with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts
have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using
spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have
tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim
that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of
tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick”
temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly
discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly
natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the
inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of
the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will
do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if
CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes
would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including
China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no
one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts
overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on
short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has
been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many
economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces
a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why
do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the
chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of
past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of
The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote
our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore
the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human
rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And
are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that
can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid,
such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the
elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited
resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real
problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly
responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells
us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light
bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with
a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

BS,

This isn't the first time you've posted a lengthy attempt to discredit an article or author many days after it was originally posted and quite subsequent to the piece being anywhere near the website's front page. If your goal is to get the final word, you're accomplishing such. If you actually want to evoke discussion, this is a poor strategy at best.

Furthermore, given that this story is now a week old, it seems similarly valueless for me to waste much time responding, as likely no one will see it -- maybe not even you.

That said, to answer your question simply, I would LOVE for a U.S. judge to offer this opinion, for it would REQUIRE that ANY showing of this film in American public schools had to include a disclaimer about its political nature, and its errors. This would be a HUGE improvement versus what is currently transpiring in our nation.  ns

...did I not out your arse a couple of weeks ago on one of Noel's threads?

When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.