Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills was a case heard in September–October 2007 in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, concerning the permissibility of the government providing Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth to English state schools as a teaching aid.
The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, a father of two sons who attend a state school. Dimmock has twice stood as a local election candidate"News from the New Party" , 5 May 2007, New Party website for the New Party and received backing for the case from Viscount Monckton, the author of the New Party's manifesto."Please, sir – Gore's got warming wrong", Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, Sunday Times, 14 October 2007 Monckton, one of the UK's most prominent climate change deniers, launched an advertising campaign against Al Gore in March 2007 challenging Gore to a public debate on climate change."Monckton saves the day!", 6 May 2007, The Observer Monckton has received funding from a Washington-based conservative think tank of which he is chief policy adviser, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), to create a film, Apocalypse No, which will parody Gore, showing Monckton presenting a slide show making an attack on climate change science.
The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.
Background to the case In October 2006, the Government announced that the academic year 2006/07 would be a "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" to promote sustainable development and environmental consciousness. This followed an earlier public consultation on a Sustainable Schools Strategy. As part of the strategy, schools throughout the UK were to be given guidance and educational material on current environmental issues."Sustainable Schools Year of Action ". Teachernet, 3 October 2006
Ross Finnie, the Environment Minister of the Scottish Executive, announced on 16 January 2007 that An Inconvenient Truth would be shown to all secondary school pupils in Scotland, with the costs being underwritten by the energy company ScottishPower.Johnston, Ian. "Man who wants to turn every Scots child into an environment evangelist". The Scotsman, 17 January 2007. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) followed suit on 2 February with an announcement that a copy of the film would be sent to all 3,385 secondary schools in England.Boone, Jon. "Lessons plan may be undermined". Financial Times, 3 February 2007 A month later, the Welsh Assembly Government likewise announced that schools and colleges in Wales would receive a copy of the film. In all three countries, the distribution of the film was accompanied by guidance notes and resources on how climate change fits into the context of the National Curriculum"Schools to be given copies of Gore film". South Wales Echo, 13 March 2007 and the Sustainable Schools Year of Action programme."Climate change packs given warm welcome". Western Daily Press, 7 May 2007 The DVD was also accompanied in English schools by a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which included two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.
The move was opposed by a group of parents in the New Forest region of Hampshire, who argued that the film was "inaccurate and politically motivated" and threatened to take legal action against the Government.Lightfoot, Liz. "School row over Al Gore film". 19 April 2007 The parents' spokesman, Conservative councillor Derek Tipp,Doward, Jamie. "The man behind court attack on Gore film". The Observer, 14 October 2007 asserted that the circulation of the film by the Government amounted to political indoctrination and was in breach of the Education Act 2002.
The court case The film's distribution was also opposed by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a prominent British global warming denier. According to Monckton, he "identified three dozen scientific errors in it" and prompted an unnamed wealthy friend "to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense". Funding for litigation was provided by the friend, and when the government "didn't reply satisfactorily", Monckton and his colleagues served papers on the government. The case was brought in May 2007 in the name of Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver and governor at a school in Dover, Kent, who was also a member of the same small political party for which Monckton had written a manifesto. In papers lodged at the High Court in London, the plaintiffs argued that showing the film would violate section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996. The Act requires that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". Alternatively, the plaintiffs submitted, showing the film was unlawful because it did not provide "a balanced presentation of opposing views" as required by section 407. Dimmock petitioned the court to enjoin the Government from showing An Inconvenient Truth in English schools. Although he did not publicly explain his motivation, he was reported to feel "very strongly that this is an attempt to brainwash children with flawed science."Watts, Robert. "Father fights showing of Gore film in schools". The Sunday Telegraph, 6 May 2007Rozenberg, Joshua. "Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film". The Daily Telegraph, 21 September 2007 The behind-the-scenes role of Monckton and the other global warming deniers was disclosed much later, in an interview given by Monckton to the conservative American talk show host Glenn Beck in March 2008.
The initial written application to challenge the Government was refused in July 2007. On 27 September 2007, however, permission was granted at an oral hearing with a three-day judicial review before Justice Michael Burton following immediately thereafter.
Dimmock's counsel asserted that the film was "partisan, aimed at influencing rather than informing, and lacked balance", and that it contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.""Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda'." The Daily Telegraph, 28 September 2007 The court was told that Dimmock had been widely supported by "[l]ots of parents [who] have written to him supporting his application. They do not want our children brainwashed in this way by the New Labour Thought Police.""Labour 'is brainwashing pupils with Al Gore climate change film' says father in court". Evening Standard, 28 September 2007
In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views."Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown to schools". The Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2007 The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns.Prigg, Mark. "Inconvenient rewrite for Gore film". Evening Standard, 3 October 2007 On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."
The judgment Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that the film "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." The necessary amendments made to the related guidance notes make it clear what the mainstream view is, insofar as the film departs from it. The notes also explain that there are views of deniers who do not accept the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Given these amendments, the judge considered that the film was put in a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views was offered and where it could be shown to students in compliance with the law. Given a proper context, the requirement for a balanced presentation did not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view.
The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e., that were not representative of the mainstream. He also found that some of these statements arose in the context of supporting Al Gore's political thesis. The judge required that the guidance notes should address these statements.
The nine inaccuracies The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream. However, Al Gore's spokesman has disputed this characterisation of the nine statements, which were as follows:
Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Gore's view: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastating. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. 2006 Justice Burton's view: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."