There is a judge in the UK, a Mr. Justice Burton, whose head may be reeling at the moment - and all over a couple of inverted commas.

The UK government recently distributed copies of The Inconvenient Truth to every secondary school in the United Kingdom - with the intention of it being shown to the nation's students as an aid to understanding climate change. But, as fate would have it, a Mr. Stewart Dimmock, school governor (and "father of two" as various media agencies were quick to highlight) took exception to this intent - he objected to his children being "indoctrinated with this political spin" - with the result that Mr. Justice Burton had to preside over a high court hearing to determine if the UK government wasn't infringing on its own laws in these plans.

The case Mr. Dimmock brought against the showing of The Inconvenient Truth, it should be noted, was entirely political, not scientific. In essence - the law states, understandably, that if political views are presented to students, the opposing view must be also:

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. The provisions read as follows:

"406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid … the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views." - England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

Working for the claimant, Mr. Paul Downes "established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies" (ibid).

The outcome of the case was broadcast via the BBC's Ten O’Clock news on October 10, and published here on the 11th. I didn't get to see the BBC broadcast myself, but Spinwatch describes it thus:

It’s the story many hacks and sceptics have been waiting for: To shoot down Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. Last night, the BBC’s flagship news programme, the Ten O’Clock news, led with the story that a British High Court Judge had ruled that Gore’s film had made “alarmist” and “exaggerated” claims.

As the trailers finished the BBC’s Anchorman Huw Edwards said: “A controversial film on climate change being shown in British schools is heavily criticized by a high court judge for making alarmist and exaggerated claims”. - Spinwatch

Spinwatch has, as they do, picked up on the typical media inclination to sensationalise and stretch facts. The BBC announcer, Huw Edwards, described the film as 'controversial' and as being 'heavily criticised by a high court judge'. In contrast to this broadcast, hear the words of Justice Burton about The Inconvenient Truth (AIT):

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change"); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases"); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects." - England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions (emphasis added)

The result of the case was that the film could indeed be shown, so long as nine scientific 'errors' were balanced with an opposing view (note, nothing political here). The word errors is presumably in inverted commas because the judgment is ruling over scientific predictions that are impossible for scientists, let alone a judicial judge, to exactly quantify. Although Justice Burton was careful to place the word in inverted commas, the mainstream media has not been so forthright.

He put the word "errors" in inverted commas because the points were debatable rather than wrong. But the professors say the judge should have known the error word would be repeated in the media without its inverted commas. - BBC

The important thing to note is that the court accepted that climate change is real and happening. The nine 'errors' are all minor issues that in no way challenge the central message of the documentary - i.e. that global warming exists, is a man-made phenomenon, and that we all (individuals, politicians and industry alike) need to do something about it.

Interestingly, and this wasn't presented to either Justice Burton, or the BBC readership, the Mr. Stewart Dimmock that brought this case to trial is a member of a right-wing political group that has shown to be clearly anti-environmental:

What the BBC did not mention was Dimmock’s own political connections. Dimmock is a member of the political group, the New Party. The founder and chair of the New Party is Robert Durward, whose political party is so right-wing it has been labeled “fascist” by the Scottish Tories.

More importantly, there is a cross-fertilisation between the New Party and Durward’s other pet project - he is the founder of the anti-environmental Scientific Alliance. Both the New Party and Scientific Alliance work closely with the PR company Foresight Communications.

The Alliance is one of the leading sceptic organizations in the UK, that campaigns against climate change, against Al Gore’s film and promotes the heavily criticized alternative film “Great Global Warming Swindle”. - Spinwatch

The Guardian goes on to shed even more light on this:

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

... The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies....

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. - Guardian

As a result of the ruling, high-profile UK scientists have come out in defense of the documentary:

They say in general Gore's film presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy. And they warn that the judge himself expressed unwarranted confidence on several issues subject to considerable scientific uncertainty. - BBC

In essence, the ruling, far from discrediting The Inconvenient Truth, has made a legal confirmation that the heart of the film is scientifically sound. The furor over a bid to screen the documentary to students in the UK has, yet again, uncovered an industry financed right wing agenda to obscure present scientific consensus.