wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Second science blog which comments on judge's decision:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/10/gore_take_the_prize_british_ju.php

"So when we eliminate the issues on which the judge was simply wrong, we are left with three issues in which either Gore's claims were not entirely supported by the science at the time, but subsequently have proven warranted, or Gore's claims were right at the time, but later proven unwarranted. More or less.

When you think about it, that's just about what you would expect from a science-based presentation about a rapidly evolving subject like climate change, delivered by a well-informed non-scientist. I'd have been surprised if everything Gore had said were still valid, and I'd be even more surpised if none of the science had changed since Laurie David and David Guggenheim filmed his presentations almost two years ago."

Brian, couple sites which have evaluated the British judge's decision; here's the first--

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.ph

"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."

Brian, unfortunately, the British judge was using out of date science to judge what Gore said in the film about rising sea levels--which was that IF the Greenland ice cap (or another significant glaciial area) melted into the sea, then there would be much higher sea level rise. The report the judge used was based on two year old readings and, alas, the effects of global warming have accelerated markedly in the Arctic region.

This has been widely reported, but apparently the political reporter/pundit arm of the MCM* has not kept up with all the new science, even when broadcast on the evening news! Remember those amazing shots of huge ice holes opening in the Greenland glaciers? With Niagras of water pouring down, which water then gets under the glacier and lets it essentially float faster out to sea? If this happens, Brian, goodbye parts of Manhatten. Sheesh, Brian.

The second point was whether or not global warming's **manmade** component has caused the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro had been proved definitively. I don't know of any evidence to the contrary, but the judge felt it required a warning, based on global warming skeptics' input.

The third point I saw discussed on the BBC report was about whether or not polar bears have drowned while trying to reach ice for hunting. I cannot address this issue.

But I'm willing to look for more evidence before I pontificate.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media

Ahhh..Al Gore. Now that's a leader.

(that comment is a response to anybody who suggests that b/c Gore has been speaking out effectively on the issue of global warming for the last 1.5 years, and has now been celebrated for doing so, that he is therefore qualified to serve as a US political leader.)

...and if Gore had shown any leadership on the "environment" during his 8 year span as America's 2nd most powerful politician,

I know what he would have won from me in 2000: my vote.

8 yrs too late on the environ. issue; fearful that the democracy would collapse if he challenged Bush in the 2000 election -- nahhh....

I vote for Gore to keep on keepin' on with creating awareness about Mother Earth by working with Hollywood. Guy is powerful as a heavyweight conversation starter (about essential though curiously boring issue of self preservation). And THAT is a wonderful legacy.