Yesterday the Heartland Institute released an email "media advisory" on the decision by Britain's high court that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is essentially worthless from an objective, scientific point of view.

(Chicago, Illinois – October 11, 2007) British High Court Justice Michael Burton has ruled Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, represents "partisan political views." He determined schools will have to warn pupils before they show the controversial film.

The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock--a truck driver, member of a local school council, and parent of children aged 11 and 14. The defendants are British ministers responsible for the government education system, who had ordered nationwide distribution of Gore's film. Dimmock said the film is inappropriate for showing to school-age children because it is politically biased, scientifically inaccurate, and contains "sentimental mush."

After outlining nearly a dozen serious factual errors in the film, Burton determined it could continue to be shown in schools, but only if accompanied by a teaching package that includes limiting and cautionary "guidance notes" and other films, including a counter-film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," produced by Britain's Channel 4.

"The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science," noted James M. Taylor, The Heartland Institute's senior fellow for environment issues and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. "Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science."

"The British court decision should guide teachers in the U.S. to similarly treat Gore's movie as the inaccurate and misleading propaganda tool that it is," Taylor concluded.

The full text of Burton's decision is available online at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22161.

Hat tip: David Hart of Liberty Fund.