An Inconvienent Truth - "broadly accurate"

I was thinking about saving this till Monday, but now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, I think I'll put it out today.

Over at Deltoid Tim looks at what the judge actually said in that An Inconvienent Truth case in the UK (I know: imagine that!):

A UK High Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. Justice Burton agreed that

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie.

...

So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

Now let's look at the nine points and see if Burton classified them correctly.

His conclusion?

Overall, there are a couple of points where I wish Gore would have talked about timescales and probabilities (sea level rise and thermohaline circulation), and a couple of examples that could have been better chosen (Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad). Burton was mistaken on the other points where he felt that Gore went past the consensus. I don't think that there is any harm in the Guidance Notes on Burton's nine points, but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was "broadly accurate" and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science.

For a detailed examination, head over to Deltoid.