To say that mankind has had no effect on the natural environment is ludicrous. To a layman that has hiked in mountains and flown in airplanes, in the 1950s and in 2007, the visibility of air pollution in the form of haze is obvious, and vastly more profound today than it was 50 years ago.

Without quoting figures, the following are givens:

1) Earth has been substantially denuded of trees and vegetation in the last 200 years.

2) A huge amount of fossil fuel has been extracted from the bowels of the earth, burned, and the residue released into the atmosphere, including into the air that we breathe.

All of this is being studied by scientists. Much is fact, some is theory. BS is BS. To anyone that is looking for FACTS, please read the definition of science, available in your old-fashioned dictionary, Dictionary.com or m-w.com.

Jim Hutzler, Alexandria, VA USA

polluting technologies are too cheap. We must tax or import duty EVERY UNIT of pollution (the only fair way).
This money belongs equally to every human being or threatened ecosystem on the planet. Governments can spend it to plant trees, bring safer water, desalinate (even already-poisoned farmland), and preserve the lands of wandering or self-sufficient peoples. (We value these cultures now; we'll value them even more in the future.) If they set aside territory, they can then use the money to reduce their national debt.

Judy Wright, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Climate Change, who benefits? How much money does Al Gore make from so called carbon trading? Al Gore wants a bigger slice of pie and he actively works to prevent poorer people from getting any. There used to be a word for this sort of activity!

David W Meredith, Ashford Kent, England GB

Environmentalism is the new religion. If you don't believe that the end of the world is nigh because of man's greed then you are pronounced 'ignorant' - ie you need 'educating' until you believe in the dogma. I like my planet and I try to do things that take care of it - I don't drive, I eat organic when I can, I say 'no' to extra bags or packaging when shopping. What I don't need is to be 'educated' by Archbishop Gore, a man who has redefined himself overnight. Is this the same guy whose oil company set up business in the forests of Colombia and proceeded to displace communites? Many were killed in the battle for the land. Environmentalists often use climate change as an opportunity for telling other people what they 'shouldn't do, and I think it is part of the current puritanical trend springing up from God knows where that tells people they shouldn't smoke, drink alcohol, eat junk food, drive 4 x 4s - this is evil! By renouncing 'evil' you can be one of the green and righteous.

Bridget , London, United Kingdom

Anyone read the novel, State of Fear? Interesting...

rvk, Tampa, FL

The degree of stupidity shown in this talkback is amazing. Nasa thought the Antartic ice sheet was getting thicker, but then they discovered it was getting thinner. The lower weight of ice allowed Antartica to float higher in the magma apparently.
This is consistent with the large number of recently appeared moulins on it. It is melting and very fast.
A similar story is told by the moulins on greenland's ice sheet.
The artic losing 25% of it's area in ONE YEAR.
Vast (truly huge) forest fires (caused by drought) across siberia and the midwest, also in S.Europe, and Australia.
This isn't a slow moving millenia trend.

The rate of change is more like that of the permian extinction than anything since. That is what we are going to do to ourselves.
Clearly the human race is too stupid or individually selfish to be able to do anything about this (see above talkback for some classic examples), so I don't see any way the human race can survive., we're toast already.

J Davies, Aberystwyth, UK

It is interesting to follow the changes that occured in the IPCC reports over time. The current science focuses on the last 50 years. There is little discussion of the uncertainty surrounding the carbon cycle. Continual concentration on the miniscule amount humans contribute does not allow for an objective look at the data.

Peter, Logan, Utah,

The first tenent of global warming - that the earth has warmed one degree in the past hundred years - is accepted as fact. However, I would ask - Have the locations where measurements have been taken stayed the same over that period?

If so, what effect has the increase in buildings, concrete, asphalt, etc. (the urban island effect) had on those measurements?

If not, how can we be sure that the current locations are comparable to the old locations. Where Ilive, in the distance of fifteen miles, there is a temperature difference significant enough to have diffent groups of plant life.

I would argue that measurements over the period are so imprecise that reliability cannot be scientifically assured.

The other tenents - that mankind-created greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming, and that man can take effective efforts to change the climate - are even more dubious, even to a layman like me.

Rick Coburn, Olney, Maryland

How can this judgement be appealed?

Philip Allen, Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland

Great to see the UK high court put the brakes on Gore's runnaway hot air.We seem to have developped a habit of jumping on the green bandwagon,without looking at where its going or what its colateral damage entails.The first green bandwagon was the banning of DDT in 1972,,which has resulted in an estimated 30 million needless malaria deaths,but they were all in third world countries and they were black,and mostly women and young children,so they dont count.,and hey mosquitoes have got just as much a right to live as humans,anyway. [in the last 30 years of testing DDT has proven harmless to humans ,animals,and most insects.you can eat it] The second green bandwagon was the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all.except it has been recurring every antarctic winter since Gordon Dobson first measured it in 1956 and 1957,because,as he noted,there is precious little sun to act on the upper atmosphere and produce ozone in an antarctic winter.Now chicken little lives again!

ian hilliar, sanctuary point, australia

Its all just more American Insanity.
The Earth id getting hotter simply because the sun is getting hotter.
There are several Planets in the Solar System which are also getting hotter (e.g. Mars). So how can it possibly be a man made effect!

George, Washington, USA

This is a frustrating debate. The problem is that it is being run on two levels (a) the outcome-oriented and (b) the science. In his film, Al Gore has misrepresented the science. When the 'science' behind Al Gore is challenged the typical reaction is to say it is the outcome that's important. When scientists put forward views that don't support Al Gore, they are accused of supporting destruction of the planet.

A typical statement is that by Tracy, Madison, WI, US : "Those of you who choose to ignore global warming are not only narrow minded, but ignorant".

Tracy, skeptics aren't ignoring global warming, they are trying to get facts right. For example, if it is a fact that the planet has been warming without human assistance, then cutting emissions - which may well be worthwhile in it's own right - will not prevent ice melting and sea levels rising.

Keep the debate open and civil, so that we can take the right actions for the right reasons, for the best possible outcome.

Mike, Sydney, Australia

Man is responsible for less than 6% of all greenhouse gas emissions if you do not account for water vapor. If water vapor is included, man's contribution is less than .03%.

See "Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System" by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospher physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept, 10, 2001 Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal

As for al gore... Look at the profit motive and the companies that he currently is a board member.

David Buchholz, San Jose,

I disagree with the notion that because some minor predictions are deemed “unlikely” to occur, that it clouds the main message that AIT is trying to convey and/or the intentions of Al Gore. Although some predictions may not be realistic (according to scientific data), I think giving the worst-case scenario is better than padding it out with “well, this may or may not happen”. Those sorts of messages are -not- going to wake people up. Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution? Science, despite what some people may feel, cannot predict the future with certainty. Sitting back and believing that Al Gore’s predictions are unrealistic aren’t going to help you any if they do occur.

Rebecca, Hong Kong,

Yes we do have a problem with global warming, and pollution I agree with that.
What most people dont understand is that there is a way to use these issues to profit from for the benefit of the elite.
Heres how: Envoirnmentalists have been fighting through the years to make a change for the better in the world. Politicians have ignored them in many cases. The envirnmentalists got stronger to get legislation passed. The enviornmentalists are the key pawn in this game since it will be them that will enable further legislation to implement other laws that will make petrol prices higher with the "global warming tax" implemented to each barrel of crude oil. There will be burecratic agencies springing up to fine people if their emissions are too high in their cars, etc. Since the head of all global warming issues stems from the United Nations, these new laws, taxes, and burecratic agencies will be implemented in every country in the world, at the citizens expense to make the elite more rich

Tony, Gianyar, Indonesia

The problem now seems not to be human activity but political activity. Now you can see where problems arise, and guess what, they have a solution too, more taxes, and legislation, that benefits them at your expense. Point the finger at politics for the global warming problem.

Tony, Gianyar, Indonesia

Perhaps Mr. Gore will now take a little comfort, from having had to face the incisive scientific intellect of no less than Justice Burton and his "nine significant errors" to now be recognized by that modest little panel of judges in Stockholm.

Norman Dale, Prince George, Canada

I love how people attempt to trivialize the whole matter with: "it's a political film, not an environmental one." Or how "he's a judge not a scientist, so he shouldn't be voicing opinions on science." Or "the Nobel committee are idiots." Attacking the source destroys the message once it's out? And it's impossible to be intelligent enough to research an issue outside of the "field' that others attempt to pigeon-hole you into? I don't think so! Wake up!

I've worked for "Big Oil" for 12+ years worldwide. It's padded my bank accounts quite a bit, thank you. And do you know why? Is it because of governments and politics and Nobel committees and IPCC papers and former talk-show hosts and evil oil magnates and Kyoto treaties and fat-ass loudmouth conservative talk-show hosts? No! It's because YOU DRIVE CARS. You buy things. Conservatives and liberals both like electricity in their houses. "Demand drives supply" is basic economics.

And it provides a fine career for me.

Jon, American in Aberdeen, Scotland

Climate change is not new science. The importance of atmospheric gasses in regulating global temperatures has been known for nearly 200 years, and the likely effects of doubling CO2 levels for nearly 150. Quite rightly, Sir Michael Burton's ruling referred to a number of inaccuracies in the Gore film, some of them important. However, he also rightly commented that its principal claims were fully backed by recent scientific evidence and the authoritative conclusions of the IPCC.

Durkin's film for Channel 4 on the 'Global Warming Swindle' was itself a swindle, full of misleading information and unsound arguments. I warned Channel 4 that a prominent US academic was claiming misrepresentation of his own contribution to the film by dishonest selective editting; I suspect it will not be shown again. It is reasonable to give balancing information to schools and this would help students to separate key facts from minor issues, but Durkin's film is definitely not suitable material.

David Bright, Maidenhead,

I am shocked by the number of anti-environmental comments on this forum. It is a disgrace that so many people are against making the air, water and ground systems cleaner for everyone on this planet.

Whether or not you believe that global warming is a man made process is almost a moot point. Who on earth could possibly not want cleaner air? I mean seriously! It is common knowledge that incidence of childhood asthma is growing at an alarming rate. Why would this be happening if not for pollution? Has anyone ever seen the river or lake waters that lie next to an industrial complex?

I'm not sure I understand how this could be "alarmist" or left wing propaganda. Those of you who are against cleaning up the environment should be hiding in shame rather than proudly posting your views on Web forums. Disgraceful! What must be the conditions of your living environments? Would you spray toxic chemicals around your house?

Tracy, Madison, WI, US

Oh boy, some of the bloggers on here really leave me reeling. To take one point that keeps coming up: yes of course the climate has changed over time without human interference. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here! Life would never had progressed because of the poisonous CO2 and other gasses which made up the earth's early atmosphere. But over billions of years CO2 has been locked away in limestone, chalk, oil, and coal. We - humans - are now releasing these in to the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. That's what's causing the climate to change so rapidly ON TOP OF NATURAL PROCESSES. It ain't hard to understand - deal with it!

Ricky, Matlock, UK

The film was made by a politician and a movie maker, NOT by scientists. If the "science" reported is fully supported by evidence, then why is exact evidence not sited? If Al Gore was half as smart and wonderful as he thinks he is, he would be the smartest, most wonderful person in the world, which he is not. Bush is an idiot, but Gore really only thinks he is smarter.

A. Adams, Gulfport, MS

Mr Justice Burton clearly used the IPPC 2007 to form his discision, so conjecturing that he lacks scientific credentials is an uncompelling arguement.
The IPPC is the credible reference that counters the extremist views represented in Gore's documentary. To deny this, points to lazy irrational minds common within the politcal push for global action.
As a former CO2 induced warming believer, I recognise that my opinions had been based upon the views of special interests group's interpretation of the of climate science and not the true consensus of known scientific facts.
One of the source of this propaganda was Al Gore's book and movie, so I understand the UK courts ruling.
I do feel The Inconvient Truth has a place in schools though.
However, wouldn't be regarding the climate.
It should be used a lesson in how indoctrination and propaganda is used to sway an individual opinion.

Shawn Lee, Orlando, Florida, USA

Totally unnecessary legal action has imposed costs on all taxpayers who have to pay a share of the costs whether they believe Gore's points or not.
What other lessons does Mr Dimmock want to be presented with a counterbalancing view - Business Studies or RE perhaps ?
What harm would viewing the documentary do in informing children of their responsibilities for THEIR futures, even if some of the points are presentedwith more certainty than all the evidence strictly supports.

Diane Andrews, Oxford, UK

The judge is wrong on two items or his information is out of date.
The Kilinailu islands in the Solomon Islands are already facing evacuation and some islands can no longer grow food in their gardens because of sea level rise. These people have a zero carbon footprint and don't even have TV let alone internet.
If you do not believe the CNN documentary go look for yourself.
The Arctic sea ice is also melting much faster even than the forecasts made by scientists.
There may be a few exaggerations in Gore's film but anything which influences people to give up their greedy and wasteful life styles is only a good thing.
Denying that people are suffering and will suffer from our mad race of rising productivity goals is like saying the earth is flat

billcarr, turku, finland

I'm sorry, has this judge any scientific credentials? How is he capable of assessing the validity of these claims?
Not that I want to claim scientist are always right but this high court decree is most definitely not what science is for.
Scientist report findings, it is up to each individual to act.

Dr. Mark van der Giezen, Exeter, Devon

Just show children footage of the North West passage becoming navigable - that's the scariest thing I've seen. You don't need to know anything else, once you've seen that. You believe. We're warming up terrifyingly fast.

jane scott, London, UK

It takes a while for the world to catch up with the fact that Gore’s film is a load of biased and one-sided propaganda. The contents of his book, of the same title, and the film, have been examined and reported on in a recent US Congress Working Paper (Mario Lewis Jr., 2007). Listed are no fewer than 101 statements by Gore which are shown to be distortions, 27 are described as one-sided, 17 as misleading, 10 as exaggerated, 28 as speculative and 19 which are wrong.
This is the film which we are assured by the greenies makes its case “simply and clearly.” It was on the instigation of David Miliband (now UK Foreign Secretary!), that the attempt was made to brain-wash our youth by the government distributing to every UK school for viewing by the students.
Believe it or not, the Newcastle Diocesan Church of England Advisory group also recommended that it should be shown in churches throughout the North East!!
John F, Berwick upon Tweed

John Ferguson, Berwick-upon-Tweed, England

Read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton ... it's fiction based on science-fact.

Phil, Toronto, Canada

Those of you who choose to ignore global warming are not only narrow minded, but ignorant. Yes, the earth has gone through climate change--the difference here is it ISN'T a natural climate change; WE are causing it. We are causing the earth's climate to change at a much quicker pace--too quickly for anything to adapt (including us).

You all may not worry about it because you're in your 40s and it's not harming you in any way. According to several esteemed scientists, around 2030--that's when we'll truly notice the effects of the lack of ice in the Arctic (polar bears will have significantly decreased in number because of the dramatic decrease in their habitat; the overall temperatures will increase because the ice isn't there to block out the sun's heat; etc). It may not affect YOU, but it'll affect your grandchildren. Don't be selfish/apathetic. It's people like you who sit back and do nothing but mock, only to complain later because nothing was done about it.

Brenda, Annapolis, Maryland

Finally someone has to b*lls to call Al's documentary for what it is worth.
Garbage!
Thankfully not all the judiciary have a "Democratic bent."
Al, get a real job, and make that house of yours energy efficient!

Robert Postuma, Pincourt, Canada

These are expressed opinions. Justice Barton's judgement is an expressed opinion. That opinion just happens to be empowered to dictate policy.

I have read extensively the peripheral issues associated with global warming. Mr. Gore did not make anything up when he presented the "Inconvenient Truth". Of Justice Barton's 9 issues I only found one that I thought an exaggeration, the extent to which the seal level could rise this century. I read the report on the polar bears that were found to have drowned. The initial reports suggested their deaths were due to reductions in sea ice that extended the distances they had to swim beyond their ability.

When "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced/published the newest IPCC report had not yet been produced. Projections have changed since the film was released.

Several reports suggested that sea temps were high, causing many problems, including coral bleaching. All information existed in print prior to the film.

Al Gore understated the situation!

John Hayes, Lansing, Michigan

It's nice to see a sane, balanced assessment of Gore's book. That is hard to come by in America, due to the Politically Correct media.

Climate Change has been happening for tens of thousands of years; it is happening now; It will continue to happen no matter what we do.

It would be nice to start with that understanding, and then see where real facts take us.

Bill Sanford, Grand Rapids, Michigan / USA

There is no doubt that the climate is changing, it always has and always will. In Australia we are told that the Government must sign the Kyoto Protocol to save the Great Barrier. What nonsense! If mankind is causing climate change then a country like Australia which produces around 1% of the worlds total greenhouse gas emissions would have no impact on the worlds climate even if we reduced our emissions to zero. What we need some honesty in this debate not sensationalist theatrics like an Inconvenient Truth.

M. Portelli, Kyneton, Australia

Global warming is exactly like evolution. So many people think that global warming is controversial, when in fact there are many people who are paid to foster this view. However, global warming and climate change a key to earth science, just as evolution is to biology. Both are very key to understanding the science. Thus it is quite appropriate to present such a film in a school. Thank God there are people like Al Gore who are around to turn down the noise machine of Big Oil, who presently run the United States.

R. Russell, Huntington Beach, California

we know that this global warming issue is a farce by the radical/leftwing /of lie-beralism so as to make and or give the lunatic and or insane al gore legitimacy . these kinds of propogandas agendas and or deceits are the main stay of lie-beralisms and with the aiding of the drive by main stream media . there are so much that i could comment on to rebutt and or challenge this farce however i do not intend on giving any more accolade to this myth . more to come trevor new york city

trevor , bronx , new york u.s

Nobel prize, who would have guessed. Gore is in good company Jimmy Carter, one of the most indecisive presidents we have had, 20 percent interest rates, Iran hostages. Then there is Yasir Arafat, murderer, looter of his peoples wealth. Maybe next year they will pick Osama.

TZAZ, Gilbert, Arizona, USA

If your high school science teacher presented this information as fact and a parent (as happened here) objected and demonstrated 9 obviously gross mis-statements, his/her reputation among students and in the community would be disasterously compromized. WHy is Al Gore less responsible?
Whether it is chemistry or environmental management, we are obligated to achieve our educational goals honestly.
Otherwise "science becomes propaganda. Sounds like "1984."
Environmental zealots have a long history of misrepresenting data to develop an argument. I still have the textbooks.

George, USA,

Reading paragraph 5 of the article, that Gore "overstated the case" is the understatement of the year. Gore actually called the ice core studies graphs that showed a relationship between CO2 and Global Temperature "complicated", when, in fact, all ice core studies show that C02 FOLLOWS temperature change by 600 to 1000 years. This is the crux of the whole argument, and, it conclusively proves that there is no reason to believe that CO2 causes global warming. It never has in the past.

John Leicester, Shoreline, WA

People, people, people: we are talking about the driving force that is encouraging legislatures all around the world to adopt 'environmentally friendly' policies that have, collectively, a major financial impact on companies and families. When these policies are based even partly on information that may not be correct, or, at the very least, information that is based only on theories, well that gives me pause and frightens me about the decisions these elected officials are making. I do not want the leaders who I elect to make decisions based on half-truths, or most-truths. The same goes for Gore as did for Bush and the WMD fiasco that led the US into WWIII with the Middle East.

Jeff, Parkville,, Maryland, USA

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

This is an example of political misdirection, if not outright propaganda. The corporate funded, right-wing idealogues are threatened by any reasonable examination of the scientific evidence of global warming. Therefore, it is to their advantage to cast the issue as 'political' rather than scientific. If this film had been made by a non-politician, it may be more difficult to call it 'political'. The fact is that scientists are almost universally in agreement that global warming is real and increasing. The essential facts presented in Gore's film are one-hundred percent correct. The seeds of doubt come from corporate lobbyists, government shills, and politicians who have an axe to grind. We ALL lose if they are allowed to win.

Tim, Rock Hill, SC, USA

Rob- Quite true we do need a media without a slant. But of the $2bn of eco research funded last year how much went to the sceptics? How much went to newly formed research intstitues, government funded departments. Who do the media talk to on this issue? It's all slanted one way-largest budget/largest say.

GL, London, UK

Gore was broadly correct,said the judge,a huge huge detail which will be brushed aside by those who were once called climate change deniers ...( but have now shifted their arguments due to overwhelming evidence of climate change ).The fact that Gore is broadly correct is hugely significant ...and means that those self interested deniers who mock Al Gore are broadly incorrect. I hope that our slanted media,can on this occasion manage to report an event correctly...broadly speaking.

Rob, Plymouth, UK

Children! Whatever the cause, climate change is here. And actually, anyone who is impartial will be able to review the scientific evidences and comments for themselves and find that humans certainly have had a hand in this. BUT NO MATTER WHAT, we need to address this fact.
Randy highlighted the ice age, which had a very traumatic effect on human society.
ps. science is undertaken by humans, very few are not subject to their emotions and preconceived views. Knowledge that was the absolute truth one generation is often not the truth for the next. No matter, climate change is happening.

helen, Norwich,

The artice states - “The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.”

But then the report says: The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

Isn’t that exactly the point Gore was making? That it is us that are the problem rather than some natural climate alteration.

Matt Pomroy, Dubai,

Vice Pres makes an expert - he is nothing but a government pin head. Tax the people so he can have a paycheck!

Mac, Billings , MT

We have had enough of judicial reviews to be very wary of them.

Equally we have to be just as wary of politicians.

Let us hear in full Al Gore's response to the seven 'untruths'.

It will then be easier to make a judgment on this vital issue.

John Pedler, Dordogne, France

Joe in London - are you agreeing with the court judgement or disagreeing? What exactly was your degree? - climatology or something more periperal? The judgement was to show the film but balance its onesided views with facts - nothing controversial there. Yes all statistics can be manipulated - that is what the court judgement shows Mr. Gore has done here. Also you state "almost all of the credible scientific community" so there is room for debate here, what about the credible scientists who disagree?
How about making Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" requireed reading alongside this film?

James, Taunton, UK

I believe the BBC recently had a documentary I think that was called the Global Warming Scam that basically disproves the "man has caused global warming theory." If you're going to show Al Gore's movie of human arrogance, instructors should show the BBC documentary as a counterweight. As a science teacher that's what I'm going to do, once I review the BBC documentary.

Michael Williams, Clearwater, MN, U.S.A.

No evidence of Pacific Islands being evacuated / under danger. Maybe he hasn't heard of the islands of Tuvalu (famously also the ones that got the domain name .tv and sold it for $20m). The whole island is less than 6ft above sea level and many have been evacuated to Australia and NZ.

mark yates, bracknell.,

Whilst I am firmly on the side of the Global Warming Sceptics, I have no problem with Al Gore's film being shown in schools. BUT!...If this is to be shown then they should also screen a counter argument film such as the Great Global Warming Swindle which was shown on Channel 4 here in the UK earlier in the year. Let the kids make up their own minds then...or are all you eco warriors frightened of reasoned debate and are instead prepared to brainwash the next generation of thinkers for your own ends? That sounds a bit too Orwellian for my liking and that scares me more than global warming ever will.

Gareth Ross, Hitchin, Herts, UK

Perhaps a reader can help me? about 12000 years ago the last ice-age ended and the ice pack that covered most of northern europe receded to roughly its present extent. So what caused the global warming that made the ice sheet recede?
It could not have been overpopulation or industrial CO2 emissions so what wasit?

Iain, London,

Science is science and it doesn't mean a damn what a court has to say about it.

Allan Cole, Boca Raton, Florida - U.S

Hugh don't worry too much. Antarctica and Greenland make up over 90% of LAND mass ice on the planet. The former is getting colder and growing by an estimated 8%. There is no evidence, and this is supported by the IPCC, of significant melting of the Greenland glacier. Most reports are of SEA ice, the melting of which does not affect sea levels at all. You're safe enough. There is plenty of contrarian material out there and it's well worth a look.

GL, London, UK

I think the main issue here is not about climate change but whether it is right for our government to spend god knows how much money compelling schools to show alarmist innacurate propaganda to our children. Clearly the idea is to condition our future tax payers to become passive when paying into the golden goose of all taxes and to accept these taxes without question. How long before denying the existence of global warming becomes a criminal offence? I seem to think Adolf Hitler introduced similar teaching methods in the 1930s on a whole raft of issues and look where it got him. Beware false prophets.

Steve P, Leeds, England

Climate change, has been going on since the dawn of time on earth. And there seems to be a lot of people talking hot air,which
makes it warmer. We will be doomed in a few Billion years or so,
with one big climate change from the sun. And that is no fairy tale.

A Walton, Leicester, England

Climate change has been going on for tens of thousands of years... Is going on now... And will continue to go on, no matter what we think we can do to change it.

Thank goodness for someone like this judge. Just maybe, we can begin to consider how to cope with the inevitable, rather than to break ourselves (and enrich Al Gore) by trying to counter it.

Bill Sanford, Grand Rapids, MI / USA

Climate Change"" is just the spin way of labeling what could potentially be the worst distater faced by the industrial world (my opinion). Just like the phrase "collateral damage" used for the deaths of innocent civilians in war, it is an attempt to direct us away from the truth of the issue all together.

We should remain wary of information being put forward by all sides of the debate, but we should bare in mind that those with the most to lose from a global change in attitude towards CO2 pollution are those with the biggest PR budgets and best spin merchants.

One of the greatest things that a child can learn is to be descerning about the infromation that they consume, in that respect they should be able to watch the doco and others on the subject to start them down the path towards knowing that not every bit of information they digest should be taken at face value.

Dominic, Sydney, Australia

James Hansen at NASA is not so convinced that multi-metre sea level rise will take thousands of years. No one can say it is a certainty but to dismiss it as totally unlikely is wrong. The IPCC models for sea level rise have consistently erred on the LOW side and the increase outside their models is NONLINEAR. This is not good (think compound interest) and certainly no reason for complacency. The head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science may understand climate science slightly better than some obscure commentators in Denmark, or a UK judge. I'm moving to higher ground.

Philip Machanick, Brisbane, Australia

As Jeremy Clarkson said "Al Gore is so hopeless that he was beaten to the White House by George W Bush!"

Don, paris, france

It may be a fallacy as to whether man-made emissions are the main cause of global warming. However, what does matter is that we have treated the environment as an open sewer for the past 200yrs. Industry is indifferent to mankinds custodial responsibilities regarding the environment. Compulsion is the only language it understands. So morally at least, Gore is right.

chris munro, Liverpool,

The irony behind this is: there is no value (read politics) free science. The problem with the film is not its political bias, it is that it pretends that there is science without such a bias.
If however political bias makes the film illegal for use in schools, I wonder how else we plan to teach our children that every science is political - hospitals infections, animal research, cancer treatment: you name it, it is all full of politics. Clean science is a myth, as is clean politics or clean education. It may be inconvenient for a depoliticised, big-brotherised society such as the UK, but politics is everywhere. Too bad that our children are not legally allowed to learn all this.

Fred Caprivi, Manchester,

Ian from Lancaster said global warming is mostly attributable to water vapour. This, and other misleading arguments, are dealt with convincingly by the website of the ROYAL SOCIETY, whose past presidents include Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Christopher Wren and Samuel Pepys.

Gerald B from Arhus, Denmark, suggests we read Bjorn Lomborg's latest book. I suggest readers of this thread watch the DVD, Everything's Cool about the public-relations firms, working for big multinationals selling fossil-fuels, who distort the debate with false information. Failing that, Sharon Beder's excellent book, Global Spin, focuses on the same subject.

Huw Peach, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

the consensus is already changing this year.....this ruling is probably out of date and if there is an appeal they emerging facts will support the film more. The situation is changing that rapidly....

watch this space....

paul magnus, richond, bc

Climate change? It's the new religion. Religion has lost the ability to control the thinking population so they try climate change to regain their power. Just ignore them and let them get on with jetting around the world to preach to the gullible

Doug George, Antibes, France

anyone fromthe country will support al gore's remarkable efforts to bring the effects of global warming to the world. yes, could be said to be alarmist in places but often this is the only way to get a message through.

before adverse judgement is made in any quarter one should see a recording of his interview by charlie rose on public television future political ambition he has thrown to the side. in fact i understand he has stood down from active democratic involvement. self gain - none. the profits of his documentary are directly to his cause.

such as richard branson would not have donated and plegded mega millions from his own virgin atlantic to gore's cause. branson is a man who does not make irrational decisions.

the judgement, yes, perhaps sound in that it can be argued that children have to taught definite fact.

roll on gore - worry not that you are american at last someone with the influence is doing something about what we saw as countrymen 40 years ago.

edward walpole-brown 111, toms river, new jersey, u.s.a.

The judge simply wants to keep indoctrination away from schools. Two thumbs up to Mr Burton.

Leonardo, Campinas, Brazil

So we supposedly went through an ice age. How did we thaw out from that without industry pumping out greenhouse gasses? Everyone insists that man is responsible for "global warming." How do we account for climate change that melted the ice age? You can't blame man for that. A naturally occuring process is the only other explaination. Wild scientific fact for the day . . . Ice thaws when you leave it outside long enough. Is the environment being destroyed or is it returning to normal? What happened to all the 9 foot penquins, 4 foot dragonflys, and giant shark we have so many fossils of? Stop and think critically before you believe any "science."

Ryan, North West, Illinois

Perhaps you should all read Tim Flannery's book "The Weather Makers". Then report back to this forum !

Dave Reynell, Knysna, South Africa

did some of the people here not read this? yes, the court did say that Gore's movie exaggerates certain points (no real surpise there; this was after all a American production) but the very same court also found that the main thrust of the movie ie that we are undergoing climate change and it is man made, is perfectly sound

I am sure that there are plenty of popular of science documentaries out there about everything from evolution to the big bang that, for reason of better presentation, better entertainment value, simplicity of presentation or whatever, contain inaccuracies (in fact I know there are because I have seen them) but that can hardly be trotted out as proof for the creationist view

R. Ewasiuk, Edmonton, Canada

What a depressing judgement. Since when do judges have the expertise to decide on scientific matters, or to determine what can and can not be taught in schools? To be asked to give equal weight to the climate change denyers (and what a lot of these post on this site!) is nonsense. Do we have to give fascists a voice when discussing the Holocaust?

Ricky, Matlock, UK

Hugh Malafry asks if the judge is "professionally qualified to make these judgements". I'd ask him why he thinks Al Gore is professionally qualified to make those judgements. Gore is a failed politician and not much else. He also violates all of the rules he'd like the rest of us to follow. He's found a way to make a lot of money and isn't that what he really wants?

Hank, Mt. Clemens, MI/USA

Al Gore is simply a failed politician that has cast off in a different direction to seek his fortune.I wouldn't trust him to tie my shoes.I will seek many other opinions on global warming before I consider his.He personally uses up more energy in a year's time than a sizeable neighborhood.From his girth alone,he appears to eat more than my entire family.There used to be two ways to get rich,government and religion.Now global warming seems to be a third way.

ron, toronto,

Major embarassement for the British legal system.

A judge in powdered wig delivers a judgement that we need to wait till the seas rise to decide if CO2 emmissions were really behind the climate change.

emma, The Hague, Netherlands

Of all the reports I've read of this story, the Times seems to be the most balanced. However, reading the comments, there are some very disappointed ecomentalists out there!
To question the Judge's scientific knowledge is to miss the whole point of a high court! The judge was reading other scientific reports, inc. the IPCC report, and JUDGED that the Al Gore film was wrong. He also Judged that without the guidance notes, the film would be illegal to show in a British school - due to its political content. How many of your comments recognise this fact?

Personally, I think that Al Gore got away lightly. The Judge was using the IPCC report for guidance, which contains plenty of errors and mis directions. Had he been using a report from someone like the Danish Space Agency, Al would have been crucified!

Oli, Deeside, Wales

Like it or lump it the world is warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. This is really due to the fact that without science and our modern economy, the world can support 2 billion people and we are now at 6.5 billion and going North!
So we can expect oil wars ( Iraq, Iran) followed by starvation wars ( most of AFRICA and undeveloped nations.) For an interesting projection of UK prospects by 2012, see Euan Mearns article in " The oil Drum". Perhaps a judge can deny fine detail in this also without affecting the overall outcome.
I wonder whether scientists would have come to the judges conclusions? England out of Scientists?

william Alexander, delta, canada

First it was plant trees everywhere...now changed to: yes but only in the Tropics...use biofuel...now changed to: yes but don't deprive people of the same crops for food....use eco-friendly equipment...now changed to: yes but beware of the energy used to make them...watch Al Gore...now changed to: yes but with moderation. Our Planet-saving mission must have its watchdogs, but please, never let the "yes, but" approach dampen our enthusiasm, or that of our children.

Kevin , Bordeaux, France

Finally, it would seem an impartial arbiter of the evidence has undertaken a look at the situation. The judge comes from a Labor party background (equivalent to Democrats in the US) and yet had the courage to review the evidence objectively. It seems that a reasonable person took a reasonable look and separated substantiated scientific theories from political propaganda. The globe is warming but the sky is not falling.

Chuck, Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Hugh - I believe that the plaintifs challenged Gore assertions and the government, which wanted to show the film to school children had to defend the assertions in the court of law. The judge decided that they had not been able to defend on those 11 major points. I assume that both sides had adequate recourse to experts to help them make their points. This was probably the first time the films alarming assertions were challenged. Gore did not fare too well. Cheers.

SF_Mike, San Francisco, CA USA

remember just two words: ICE AGE!!!!!!!

Randy Kendrick, Phoenix, AZ, USA

What really depresses me about the recent crusade to save us all from "Climate Change" is that other, far more pressing and proven environmental issues are being overlooked.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's one of the fundamental building blocks of life and without it none of us would be here. Diesel particulates, for example, are. They have been proven to increase incidences of asthma for children and adults alike. Yet isn't it more environmental to drive a diesel?
Pollution occurs in many forms and has a tangible effect (see the number of “dead" rivers in the world) but is something we can do something about (see the Thames).
Our major failing as humans is to overstate our own importance in this world. The only cause of temperature change is the massive atomic ball of fury that, despite its relative insignificance in the universe is responsible for all life, even human life, on Earth. Not accepting that some things are beyond our control and that is mankind's greatest weakness.

Rick T, London,

He had me until he called Al Gore "charismatic".

Danno, Buffalo, NY

Just as warming a soda on the stove causes it to release CO2, the warmer sun heating the 8 planets causes the Earth's oceans to warm and release additional large quantities of water vapor and CO2, both environmental gases. Looking closely at the charts you will find the increase in CO2 follows the global warming caused by increased output from our Sun. This warming also causes the polar dry ice on Mars to reenter its atmosphere.

Russ, Carlsbad, CA, US

An American politician mis-stating the facts to further his/her point of view? Not that unusual to us colonists, we get it all the time from our President.

dale, sacramento, California

I find it amusing that Mr Justice Burton has no science background whatsoever, yet his views on the scientific evidence are taken to be authority on the matter.

Alex, Melbourne, Australia

I am a physicist, but I have to say that I am disgusted by the way many scientists have behaved. There are some well known scientists even stooping to name-calling and proposing the stripping of their peers credentials for merely believing one theory. Is this how the scientific method operates? Is this how science progresses? I think not. The science is NOT settled on the causes of Global Warming as some on one side would have you believe. Those who attempt to browbeat others into ignoring the results of their scientific findings should be ashamed of themselves. Earth's climate is a very complex mechanism. There has been scientific evidence backing up both viewpoints. Neither side has all the answers and neither can definitely say whether or not man is the primary cause of Global Warming. But it is completely anti-scientific for either side to start throttling the other, trying to shut down research and free debate.

Bret Hurt, Huntsville, Alabama, US

When I first saw the headline stating that Mr. Gore's film must be accompanied by "guidance notes" if it is to be shown to children, I was shocked and alarmed. What business would it be of a court to decide such a thing? Then I read that the court had acted because government wished to show the film in every secondary school. That changes things. There is no basis for decrying the court's intervention. What the merits of the film itself might be I cannot say, as i have not seen it, much less had a chance to read arguments concerning its accuracy. Presumably both government and the court have done, and found reason to differ.

Gerard Michael Burns, Asuncion, Paraguay

Hugh Malafry asks whether Judge Burton is professionally qualified to make these judgements. So what qualifications does Al Gore have? Hes just a failed politician who is making a fortune from his lectures and film, which is highly emotive and misleading and full of inaccuracies. It is profoundly damaging in the debate about climate change.

Steve, Exeter, UK

Humans can influence, to some degree, local climates. We cool our houses, change the chemical balances of the water and air around us. If we have any effect on natural global warming and cooling cycles, its negligible. CO2 doesn't occur in sufficient quantity to produce radiant forcing at a level that would have more than a fraction of a fraction of a degree difference, even if wind were not acting on and cooling it. As far as atmospheric radiant forcing goes, its the ozone layer or bust. Naturally occurring CFCs reduce it, and solar flares rebuild it. If you want to reduce global warming, convert the extra heat into electricity. If you just want another way to tax and control people, then keep insisting that carbon credits are a viable solution. ... GW will increase CO2 levels. The only practical way to counter that is to plant more trees. No amount of changes to smoke stacks will fix it.

Ed, Ellenton, FL

Another case of playing with words:
Isn't "human-induced climate change" what we understand as global warming??

Sounds much like the case of 'you have no evidence yet so you're wrong' sort of argument.
Which is what tobacco industry claimed back in the 50's: there's no evidence smoking causes lung cancer.

WordPlay, Toronto, Canada

Yeh! And to not let children see the film because of it's views is a political decision as well. What is the Judge affraid of? Is it that children will become more liberal and open-minded and hence disregard right-wing propaganda? Or is it because there is still a smidgen of the world's scarce resourses left to exploit? Hmmm, I wonder

Andrew Duncan, Godalming,

This global warming....I mean climate change has to be man made. I mean, the earth has NEVER had a climate change before. It's been able to keep a constant never-changing, perfect temperature until we started buring fossil fuels. If there was any evidence of anything else...like ice melting on mars or something like that....I'm sure Mr. Gore would have included that in his film.

Ruben, Florida, USA,

in my degree I cover a wide range of subjects, including the climate change before and during the last quaternary. I have learnt that there is always ways of altering statistics to benefit your point of view, which is what many anti-climate change "scientist" have done. Almost all of the credible scientific community agree that human induced climate change is a real and current danger, it is the small few that distort peoples views to try and make a name for themselves. I firmly believe that Al Gores documentary should be shown in classrooms across the world, as to inform children on the 'possible' effects of climate change, so that they can make the difference that this generation seems to be so hesitant on making.

Joe, London,

The judge should stick to ruling on legal matters rather than scientific ones. He fell for the falacy that the scientific community uniformly supports the contention that humans are the cause of global warming. They don't.

George Sheband, Vancouver, Canada

I believe that Bjorn Lomborg was reprimanded by his nation's [Denmark] national academy of sciences for misrepresenting facts in his arguments that global climate change wasn't happening, or wasn't our fault if it was. Hence I am very "skeptical" of anything he says.

Tina Rhea, Greenbelt Maryland, US

It seems to have made lots of money. But it is not "Truth".

Does this therefore contravene the Trade Descriptions Act?

Alan Pemberton, Brisbane Australia, Australia

I think this is an error in the article:

The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

I read elsewhere the full sentence, which reverses the meaning:
"it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."

_Felix, Nottingham,

Some of us have known all along that Gore's film is tendentious and warped.
He is off on an almost religious crusade.
Please everyone read Bjorn Lomborg's latest book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming".

Gerald B., Aarhus, Denmark

The judge also failed to point out that, scientifically speaking, almost 80% of greenhouse gases are attributable to water vapour off the oceans (which we have no control over), global temperature change trends do not coincide with the consistent rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution, and that walking to the shops expends more CO2 than driving (due to CO2 intensive farming methods used to replenish human ATP energy expended in exercise)... other than all that, yeah Al Gore is completely right and is getting absolutely no personal gain from any of this! What a great guy he is! Viva la Disillusion!

Ian, Lancaster, UK

What appears to be lacking in this article is reference to credible sources to justify Mr.. Burton's criticism. Do they exist or is it the oversight of the author that no reference is given. Is Mr. Burton professionally qualified to make these judgments? I'd be more than happy to feel this issue isn't an immediate concern, particularly the melting of the ice caps and the rising of the ocean. Everything I've read suggests this the melt is way ahead of what was anticipated. Having waterfront property, I'd be more than pleased to know that rising sea levels are more than a millennia off. Sigh of relief! But, credible sources please? .Without that his judgments are personal opinions; not much to bet the future on.

Hugh Malafry, Victoria, B.C., Canada