The crime is that many people continue to use his film as a basis for their opinion on the matter. MOre over it is a film that is being used in classrooms across the country. I think we should start a campaign to have his Oscar & Nobel prize rescinded for a reckless (and very profitable) disinformation campaign that has misinformed the youth of our any many countries.

He should be sued not praised in my opinion.

Bill, NY, USA

I believe that some of the global warming can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions, after all we are releasing fossilized CO2 (which is a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere that was not there before, but I highly doubt it is the primary reason for the warming. We only emit a very small fraction of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. The vast majority of the CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from the ocean and the trees. Also, despite all the CO2 emitting we've done, the most predominant greenhouse gas is not even CO2; its water vapor. Something else that should be known is that many of the planets within our solar system are also going through global warming and are experiencing the same things we are like melting polar ice caps. On top of all this, records of the temperatures in the past show that as temperature went up CO2 followed it and not the other way around. CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by 800 years. This suggests an increasing temperature of the sun.

Mitch, Orlando, FL USA

I found it funny that they kept showing Al Gore in his expensive car and taking trips on airplanes!!!

Caitlin, Rockford,

It's fact that 100k yrs. ago temperatures where almost 9 degrees hotter than now. I guess that the Flintstone mobile wasn't good on gas mileage. Also how do you think Greenland got it's name....well it wasn't a contradiction.

Joe, Tucson, Arizona

only nine inacurate observations how many correct observations does that leave I think the man has validity on his side and the more people who take a serious interest in this the better for us all

Devlin Maguire, Brodick, Arran Scotland

How does the topic of global warming have anything to do with the Nobel Peace Prize and what has Al Gore done lately to promote real peace in the world? What a farce!

Ed, Pataskala, OH

A long time ago, a genius sold the Eiffel Tower as scrap metal. Though I think he's a genius in his manner, the word to best describe Al Gore and his supporters is "disingenuous". Neither he, nor his friends, take his own advice. According to him, my Ohio home will soon enough be high quality, high ticket, ocean-front property, and I'm very upset that he has exposed this "fact". He eliminates himself from any debate by claiming that "the debate is over". And only lobbying and politicking awarded him an Oscar and now a Nobel. The Hawaiian island that has been spewing lava for the last 20 years throws more "greenhouse gasses" into the air than any man-made entity. I'm green and I recycle more than anyone outside of Colorado, but Gore has, without a single debate, generated over $100M in net discretionary income for himself with this movie, as he controls a enormous pot of investment in companies and technologies that -- what do you know -- claim to counter affect Global Warming.

Matt Stevens, Columbus, Ohio, USA

The funniest thing to me is that out of one side of their mouths environmentalists hold anything global warming to be true and fanatically defend it, dream about it, Prius about it...and then out of the other side of their mouth say that anyone who believes in organized religion is crazy. Pot...meet Kettle.

Matt, Nashville,

Al Gore and his "followers" are quacks with their own personal agendas at stake. As with all extremists only some of the facts are true and then greatly exaggerated. The real facts such as volcanic and siezmic activity as well as solar activity are always brushed aside. Real science explains that natural occurances have a much greater impact on climate than man ever could. Global warming is real but it is not man made. It is the natural cycle of warming and cooling that Earth experiences. Man didn't start it nor can he stop it. In the sixties and seventies, science was telling all of us that we were slipping into an ice age. But everyone seems to forget about that. It is the responsability of all of us to protect our enviroment and to do the right thing especially in the industrial world, but to say that man is destroying Earth and changing the climate is pure arrogance and folly.

Michael A Crocco, Pickerington, ohio

It should come as no surprise that Fox and the GOP department are going to attempt to "SWIFT BOAT" Al Gore and his award by nit picking! Just as they "devalued" the Purple Heart won by John Kerry by giving the award to anyone without merit, they will trash and down play the significance of the award. People in America need to wake up and realive that the rich, thanks to Bush are making their money and will continue to do so while the vast majority of Americans are a paycheck or two away from insolvency.

Jay Boyd, Columbus, USA, Ohio

Although I do not agree with Al Gore's view on every count, he has done a good service by bringing Global Warming and Climate Change to forefront.

However, Al Gore's statement that 'Global Warming is the biggest crisis we face in the future' is simply not true.

The end of oil and increasing world population will be a far bigger crisis that will make pale Climate Change into almost insignificance.

I urge folks to read my Blog:

On The Edge - Climate Change is NOT the real crisis!

http://rip-off.blogspot.com

Regards,

Paul Meyer
Hastings, UK

Paul Meyer, Hastings,

What on Earth is a Judge doing deciding what can and cannot be shown in schools? I thought only the Americans took the ridiculous view that this was a matter for courts of law.

Jonathon Moore, Melbourne, Australia

As a Scientist and teacher I have studied climate change and global warming for 17 years.
I can say that Mr Gore is correct in the main facts of his film. Indeed I conclude that the situation is far worse than his film indicates. Our children would do well for our planet if they understood this.

Maybe the same legal rigor should be applied to the teaching of creationism in our schools !

Antonia Bradley BSc Hons

Antonia Bradley, Exeter, Devon

I'm afraid Mr Gore has been - conveniently for him - lying his head off (if that's the correct English phrase ?) to make money. Probably for the energy consumed in his home, which would power a whole village of ordinary, not-energy-guzzling people. What a hypocrite !

K.Vevercak, Hannover, Germany

If we cannot accurately predict the weather by all of the "fancy " computer models how can we believe that we can predict with any accuracy the myth of man made global warming. CO2 is not the culprit in the warming methane is far a far worse greenhouse gas and there are many sources for methane production from nature.
This issue is driven by a select few individuals who are using the slim "facts" to garner for themselves power and wealth. gore is just one example of this. There are many others who also are creating income from these fear mongers such as the media and government funded studies.
It will be crime if gore receives a Nobel prize it cheapens it's value.

Jeff Barnes, Williamsport, PA

Conservatives are trying hard not to let the science speak for itself but that is their nature. Conservatives by definition do not like change and resist it to the last. Their stance on Evolution is a prime example. They grasp at antedotal bits of evidence and from that try to tear down a mountain of evidence. Remember the ozone holes - science was right while the conservatives were wrong and global changes fixed the problem.

FYI the next argument you will hear form the Cons is that it is too late to do anything so why try or that maybe climate change is a good thing. Anything but admint they were wrong.

T McCarty, Newburyport,

I find it impressive that not one of the none points above give us an alternate view describing what definitely happened instead of the view stated in the An Inconvenient Truth – only that evidence is inconclusive in each of nine cases. Compare these nine to the many, many points which are considered true by scientific agreement, and I think you would find the nine to be a very small percentage. At some point the nit pickers ought to try looking at the big picture. If we wait around for every detail to be absolutely confirmed, it may be too late for our actions to make any difference. That is the POINT of the film.

E Wilder, Sausalito, CA

There is nothing happening that has not happened before and humans have nothing to do with it. Every generation seems to have their panic situation,also nothing new. In a few years this will have worn out and something new will come along to terrify the gullible. Mother nature rules, and sometimes she has a sick sense of humor. Just relax,enjoy the day and smoke 'em if you got'em. Nothing you do will change anything.

peterj, Dawson Creek , Canada B.C.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with a warmer planet. Most people know that the earth periodically warms and cools based on eccentricities of the earth's orbit, sun spot activity, and a myriad of other natural feedbacks. That we know this is based on the same scientific observations that show clear correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and the amount of human emission since the time of the industrial revolution. So really you can't dismiss one and not the other. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that it's happening. These make up the brightest minds worldwide. But, why do we care?
Well, when you add the repositioning of the earth's fresh water resources, excessive drought, disease spread, massive amounts of infrastructure damage, significant damage to the oceans fisheries, enormous refugee problems, and a myriad of other potential feedbacks, then we owe to ourselves to mitigate in some manner. Alarmist? Not even close.

Daniel Muth, Bozeman, Montana

I have a simple question for anyone with the stones to try and answer.
The alarmists are constantly railing at us we must do something in our lifetime to fix this problem.
The question is what is the proper temperature for the planet?
There exist studies to show that a warmer planet is more peaceful.
The planet has been much warmer than now many times in the past. Man did not cause those but said info is ignored. as well as the artificial nature of the the time frame of the alarmist data set.

Michael Cunningham, Milwaukee, WI USA

Al Gore was brave enough to stand forth and present this case 'An Inconvenient Truth' had it been someone else and had that been a learned and established Climate Expert there would not have been such a debate or the vehemence against him might not have been so strong. Like many things in life that which is Inconvenient to do becomes a metaphor for not doing anything. If we do not do something within our life time to address some of the issues raised in this film then it may be too late to do anything at all. Man has always been tinkering with the ecosystem look at the results around the Aral Sea to see what we have done in less than 50 years. If the consequences of our actions today are not felt for at least 100 years then we should take note of the following
"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." Quoted from The Great Law of The Iroquois Confederacy. Al Gore has alerted us to the issues and we live by our actions.

Pieter, High Wycombe, Bucks/UK

I went to watch Al Gore's film with my then11 year old, I was distinctly impressed and at 40+ I am certainly not an impressionable child! My son on the other hand, was distinctly unimpressed. He ridiculed my new-found environmental conciousness, now is that cynicism or what?
I think a balanced view of human impact on global warming leading to environmental catastrophes should be shown to young children, so that they can grow up with an awareness that will shape their habits and attitudes.
S. Ayub London

saliha ayub, Isleworth Middx, UK

Jim Staunton and a few others - nevermind Judge Burton's qualifications what are Al Gore's scientific qualifications? And how about the qualifications in this field of all the politicians (e.g., Miliband) who make statements about 'global warming, the causes of'? It amazes me how politicians make statements about this and other fields, e.g., on programmes such as Any Questions or Question Time without having qualifications. When was the last time you heard a politician say 'I don't know the answer to that question.'? Yeah, never!

Ian Burgess, Bristol,

Same thing happened in the 80's with a film called "If you love this planet" that basically scared every kid to thinking that a nuclear war was going to start any day now.

Tony, Vancouver ,

There could be no greater proof that the idea that human behaviour has any affect on the climate as opposed to the sun, for example, than the political consensus around it (notwithstanding the Texan oil industry financed plutocratic exception). I quote succesful independent (ie not state or mass media sponsored) weather forecaster Piers Corbyn: "Climate Change exists and always has done but there is no observational evidence that global warming - or the new buzz phrase 'Climate Change' - is caused by Carbon Dioxide produced by man or by nature."

Sean Lydon, London,

To Max from Belfast:
The Great Global Warming swindle has been seriously challenged by climate change scientists and reporters. It was created by people formerly involved in 'Living Marxism' a highly political 'think-tank' and press organisation that is pro-technology and anti climate-change-science (seeing it as a curb on progress) they receive significant funding from large corporations to lobby government on these issues... about as far from unbiased as it gets...

Craig Betney, Edinburgh, Midlothian

The IPCC report is a concensus amongst many scientist and is cautionary. There are EXTREMES and the documentary brings those out saying what COULD happen if we do not change our ways. Global Warming is real according to the IPCC report. Make changes now for the good of the CHILDREN. Please.

Vivian Fulk, King, NC, USA

Al Gore Rocks. I like his ideas. Wonder if he has been to Chicago and eaten at Wildfire-That's my favorite restaurant!

will kuhl, london, England

I find much of these comments rather alarming, even the USA government has finally realised that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be gripped.
If Al Gore's film even with these minor errors raises awareness amongst the youngsters of today then that is no bad thing.

We are facing a global dilemma, if you want to play the ostrich with head in sand, then please do so on a beach so as the sea rises, you be some of the first to go. In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with doing something about it, supported by the WMO, MetOff and EU and US Governments.

B Robinson, Plymouth, UK

I am so glad these "truth" mistakes were pointed out. There are many elements such as El Nino and La Nina that effect weather patterns over the years. While I understand global warming is an issue we should try and start tackling, fanatics like Al Gore should pipe down and stop causing panic and worry.

Chris, Tampa, USA

Eight faulty (mainly because hasty) examples of consequences of global warming and one semantic quibble of the meaning of "exact fit"--although Gore did acknowlege that the fit betwen the data was not perfect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But what are we left with? This: greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically; anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet more than natural sources; AGGs are rising at an alarming rate; the ice cap melted more this year than scientists expected to see before 2015 or 2030.; there are many feedback loops which may lead to consequences similar to Katrina, the retreat of lake Chad, and the vanishing Snows of Mount Kilamanjero, as well as even worse ecological, economica and socio-political catastrophes. Something must be done. Only humanity can do something. That something MAY entail immense sacrifices, but unchecked climate change will be vastly worse.

Brant Boucher, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

How many climate scientists have "had their say" here? Let me see, none?

The impression of a "controversy" is because the claims of a few unqualified nuts are given equal weight to the views of the majority of scientific opinion.

There is no controversy. I dislike Gore intensely, but his claims are broadly correct. Apart from the one about the polar bears.

Steve Graham, Craigavon, Northern Ireland

Al Gore was an inept politician who is now trying to make it as a scientist/producer. Even if everything that he said was true and he had a plethora of scientific evidence to back it up he still is guilty of alarmism and exaggeration. The environment and earth are cyclical and constantly adapting. Nothing occurs rapidly in nature so we should not overreact to scientific evidence that is found. Ultimately, the greatest effect of man on nature, be it in good will or not, is our presence here.

Cynthia, San Antonio, usa / tx

First of all, it's the sunspots. Lastly, it's the sunspots.
Anyone can do a search of the web and find lots of articles by real scientists who studied sunpot activity and conclude that that is what warms the earth more than anything else. Sunspots operate in cycles like most else in nature, and we happen to be in a high activity period now. Sunspot activity has been graphed and it coincides with global warming over long periods of time. Sunspots, of course, are what we like to call them, but they are massive nuclear explosions sending lots of extra gamma rays out in all directions, some of which we feel.
As Clinton said, it's the sunspots, stupid.... I think it was Abraham Clinton.

His Terrible Swift Sword, Pembroke Pines, FL

<blockquote>"Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.</blockquote>

This is a trifle disengenuous. True as far as it goes, but hardly far enough. In fact temperature leads the CO2 by around 800 years. In other words, 97% of the current CO2 increase is really due to the Medieval Warm Period.

<blockquote>"but you ask ANY scientist worth his or her salt and they will tell you the same thing: anthropogenic global warming is a real threat and one that we cannot fully hope to understand until the effects are too extreme to deal with."</blockquote> Any "Climate Scientist" you mean? Indeed, since their salt is dependent on alarmism. Ask ANY (more rarified) Paleo-Climatologist, and you will find that during parts of the Holocene when the Earth was warmer than today, we had fewer deserts and civilizations bloomed. It will be a good thing, if we trust paleo-evidence over models, to warm even more.

Carlos, Cornwall, NewYork

Typical of the 'head in the sand' generation I'm glad to see that everyone is jumping on the banwagon to slate Al Gore and ignore the very essence of the issue. YOU SHORT-SIGHTED FOOLS! OK he has over stated some of his arguements but you ask ANY scientist worth his or her salt and they will tell you the same thing: anthropogenic global warming is a real threat and one that we cannot fully hope to understand until the effects are too extreme to deal with. Considering the lethargy shown by the older generations in the developed nations is it any wonder that the youth are the target for these arguments? They are the future of this planet and I only hope that they look after it a great deal better than we have.

JL, Cheltenham

JL, Cheltenham,

Matt Newman said "...that cutting down a large percentage of the trees in the world..."

Sorry Matt, all the evidence suggests that there are more trees around now than there was 50 years ago and that trend is continuing. I know it is certainly true here in Canada where I live. For a more balanced view on enviromental issues I suggest reading Lomborg's "Skeptical Enviromentalist"

Richard Guenther, Regina, Canada

Yes there are some errors in the way AlGore has conveyed the message to the public. However, the whole subject matter is quite complicated even for scientists leave alone for the masses. It is important that someone has to convey the issue to the public. However, the younger generation in my opinion is far more in tune with climate change rather than the older generation espcially the baby boomer ones who just dont seem to want to accept the fact that it is this generation who used resources as if it is unlimited and still do so even today. In Australia they still think that the whole drought is something that happens but will go away. When we humans take out the lung capacity of mother earth by constantly cutting down forests how can earth be breadthing properly. It is just like blocking human lungs. We have all the money for wars but we dont have enough to alliviate poverty which will stop deforestation. Think about it.

S V Nagappa, Sydney,

Max from belfast, The Great Global Warming Swindle has been comprehensively torn apart by the scientific community. A little research into the background of the scientists featured in it shows that most of them are recipients of large amounts of oil money and one of them actually had a similar role denying the now accepted effects of passive smoking.

Jamie Frew, St. Andrews,

The other 98 facts were OK though!!

Colin, Bournemouth, Uk Poole

I think that argument three has been portrayed in a particularly ingenuous way. The word "potentially" has been omitted from the quote "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" in order to make the refuting case that the IPCC said it was "highly unlikely".

"Potentially shutting down" and "highly unlikely" are not mutually exclusive, as implied in the argument. There's only an incongruence when you play Smart Alec with the apostrophes.

Many of the judge's arguments seem to hinge on the absence of scientific evidence or studies or consensus.
How many scientific studies are there that prove when and where Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon? We don't even know where the Rubicon flowed at that time.

Chatmunk, Bern, Switzerland,

As was widely reported in the U.S. a few months ago, Al Gore's palatial house uses as much energy as 20 average U.S. homes. That's quite a carbon footprint. It's hard to take him seriously when he doesn't take his own advice.

Ross, Wyoming, USA

The Judge's judges seem judgmental in it's most shallow context. If Gore stretched, the Judge joined in.

John D. Hattaway, DeSoto, USA/Ks

I generally agree with the judge. However I think Gore's points generally stand. His problem is presenting specific examples, few things are expressly attributable to anything. Any specific example is going to be complicated by multiple factors. The general points that climate change will affect water systems, increase storm strength, damage habitats, melt snow/glaciers, raise sea levels, is associated with CO2 - are all correct.

It's hardly a surprise though, Gore's film wasn't designed for the class room. There is artistic licence, it's a show. Despite the lacking scientific rigor required for the classroom, the general messages in almost every case are sound in my opinion and I support it being shown in schools – as part of climate change education – and I support specific guidance notes being given to teachers.

Chris Vernon, Bristol, UK

To Max from Belfast, regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle:
...

Since then, two of the scientists who took part in the film, have made public complaints about the way the film was made. They claim that the way the film was edited gave a misleading impression of critical data and their own viewpoints. There has been a storm of complaint from at least 37 other scientists.
....
In August 2007, Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory published a study which may have put the final nail in the coffin for the anti-CO2 brigade. He has shown than since 1985, solar activity has run in the opposite direction to global warming and therefore cannot explain rises in average global.

Must suck to have your theories disprovd by the people that gave them to you...

Paul, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Regardless of the films rights and wrongs, I insist the reason the earth is in such difficulty is nothing to do with the weather or co2! They are just the warning indicators that it may be co2, or it may be cyclic. The real truth of the matter, the whole top and bottom of the issue is, the worlds population is too big! This must be the cause of these and all future problems. Sooner or later polititions must start talking about population sizes.

RayB, Newcastle, UK

Since when is a high court judge an expert on climate science?

I have several friends who have PhDs in atmospheric science and who are able to discuss this topic in depth.

Does Mr Justice Burton have any relevant qualifications in this field?

Jim Staunton, Cambridge,

Here is the good news - we can all carry on being exploitative fools because Gore has exaggerated a few points about global warming to get a message across. Wow how stupid can people be. Lets carry on our selfish exploitation of the worlds resources simply because we cannot indisputably prove that a few polar bears died as a consequence of melting ice caps? The global warming deniers remind me of the tobacco companies in the past who denied the links between cigarette smoking and cancer. Millions of deaths later when the links were eventually proved it was by then far to late for all the people who had believed the tobacco companies, their propaganda, their lawyers, their marketing strategists and their bought politicians. There is no proven link between smoking and cancer - there is no proven link between human activity and global warming? This time let us err on the side of caution. Or maybe some people don't mind leaving a denuded dunghill of a planet to their children.

Paul , edinburgh,

What has this got to do with the law? What are the judges scientific credentials? It is really reassuring to know that global warning is not as big a problem as we might think it is because a judge has said it is ok. I don't think so.
Let the children see An Inconvenient Truth. I fancy they are more capable of drawing rational conclusions on climate change than some of the correspondents to this column.

Peter F, Falmouth, Cornwall

Overall Gore's film supported by most scientists hits the mark truly, a few "errors" intentional or not aside. It is funny how the potential debunkers have much more questionable, transparent and non-convoluted motivations and agendas than anything that can be attributed to the vice president. I work for a large oil company and even we have seen the light.

Rob Stevens, Chicago, USA

Max from Belfast says schools should also show their pupils Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle and let the children decide for themselves.
I disagree.
Gore's film is a useful educational resource because it was made to elucidate a highly complex subject (the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change) to a mass audience. The judges' notes would be useful in helping pupils make up their own minds about the film,.
The Channel 4 film, on the other hand, would not.
Its main purpose was not to enlighten (the purpose of education), but to FOSTER DOUBT ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. One of its contributors, Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on physical oceanography, subsequently said he had been ‘completely misrepresented’ by the programme, ‘totally misled’ on its content and regarded the film as ‘terrible propaganda’.
Furthermore the C4 film-maker, unlike Gore, does not feel it important to identify himself or admit that he has an agenda.

Huw Peach, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

I can't understand the last comment. If he's a politician, who is he a representative of? What is the profit motive for Al Gore in producing this film? And as for the first comment, when I was a child I was scared because of Mutually Assured Destruction. At that time, the government was advocating hiding under tables! Al Gore's picture seems much more credible - and it seems to me that being alarmist is probably the right course of action, in terms of enabling the world and humankind to change tack. Because Gore is talking about the big gamble; can we afford to risk not reducing the amount of humanly pumped CO2 in the atmosphere. Imagine he was right all along! Being afraid of the future, if the future is something to be afraid of, is facing up to a challenge, not scaremongering.

Tim Gingell, London, UK

Yes, perhaps he has maybe pushed things a little too far in some places. But in all reality, what does it matter? It was made to encourge us to become mre aware of global warming, and begin living in ways that have less impact on the Earth. The outcome of this film influencing people is actually positive for us all.

Ryan, London,

These "errors" are in the most part just "not proven". Apart from two and three I think most of the evidence pointed to Mr Gore being right.

For instance Error 1: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

Read what George Monbiot has to say on this. 20 feet may be a underestimate.

But then I suppose most people will support anything that means they don't have to change their lifestyle.

Alex Askew, Woking, Surrey

In reply to Max:

I am sorry to say, it appears that the the documentary that you are referring to ('The great Global Warming Swindle') may have been a lot less than accurate, if not plainly misleading. So much so that the TV channel that commissioned it seems to have disowned it:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The documentary argues that it is sensible to look at solar activity as a possible cause of global warning... I was ready to believe that myself. Unfortunately, the data for the last 20 years does not support this hypothesis! What was the motivation of the authors of this 'documentary' when they restricted themselves to data on solar activity that predated the mid-eighties? What was the point of misinforming the public in such gross manner? I am not impressed.

Dimitri, Edinburgh

Dimitri, edinburgh,

I find it breath-taking that people still insist on rubbishing anyone who dares to question the relationship between mankind and our environment.
You only have to fly over europe and the americas to witness the impact that humanity is having.
To imagine that cutting down a large percentage of the trees in the world, or pumping large quanities of gases into the air, has no impact at all is frankly incredible.
Yes - of course yes - we do not have a precise understand of this impact - and yes - some people may be overstating it or understating it - but the fact it is happing should be a fairly straightforward exercise in common sense.
Whether or not dramatic things will happen in our life-time to the environment - it should be obvious that the only truely viable long term approach MUST be to live in BALANCE with our environment.

Matt Newman, West Linton, UK

Wake up people! The judge said "not all claims" are supported, and only due to a lack of evidence. A lot of scientists do belive these things but it's difficult to prove anything 100% (ever sat in a court room?)
More Importantly stated that there is "general scientific agreement" between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the earths temperature!!!!

Chris Tarn, durham, UK

If the Government wants to show Gore's film it should also show 'The great global warming swindle' a much more accurate documentary produced in the UK. Then the children can decide for themselves.

Max, Belfast,

Unfortunately our politicians have been only too eager to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Of course, if global warming is deemed to be due to natural causes there would be no 'green tax' opportunity.

Angela D, Reading, UK

I hope you realise that Heresy has been used against the New Religion. St Al Gore may fly in on his G5 (carbon-free) and start smitting. Maybe there is a glimpse of hope in this case for us all. It sounds like the Judge has read ' Cool It ' by Bjorn Lomberg. The final phase in this farce is that St Al is up for the Nobel ' Peace ' prize.!! So he gets an Oscar for a documentary that was a fantasy, and now a ' Peace ' prize.?

Beam me up Scotty, the tin foil hat gang are here.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Too much of the film is faith based for it to be a proper document for showing in schools.
My grandchildren are frightened of the future because of scaremongering such as the Gore film; information distributed in schools should be rational, balanced and based on fact not faith.

Joe Coulson, WITNEY,

Al Gore, you have been judged :-)

Charles Smyth, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Funny how all Gore's errors head in the same direction, some coincidence.

This film is not fit for purpose and most definitely should not be presented to impressionable school children who have yet to work out the equation, politician + camera = lies.

John Thomson , Ayr, Scotland

Gore and his global warming phallacy, is nothing more than a media perpetuated myth, that ex-vice presedents and spin indoctrinated mp's have jumped upon the bandwagon, in the hope that they can gain some form of credibility with the narrow minded couch potatoes that believe the drivel that is force fed down our throats. Just watch the news and on a slow day they troop out the old global warm dross.
The only thing that heats us is the sun......nothing else. Yes recycling and saving energy are a fantastic way for us to educating our children, but to have them watch such an absolute pile of tosh and have it played as an educated estimation of what will happen to our planet would be a crime.
I only hope that the guidelines the Judge gave are given to the children as well to allow them to use their brains and see this nonsense for what it is.

Steve Bowart, Newcastle,

That is good news! Sensible, not alarmist. Hope Al Gore doesn't get a Nobel prize, that would be condoning the latter.

elizabeth schumann, Paris, France

Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially if it is created by an distributer across the pond. Hopefully, the Judge's ruling will provide enough disincentive for this to be shown to impressionable minds - climate change is a must, but propaganda, or unsubstantiated views, are not necessary.

Folabi L, London ,