The Queen’s Bench Division Listing Office is an unlikely hero, yet some small laurel wreath should wing their way for their enormous skill in listing the case in which Dover school governor and New Party member Stewart Dimmock assailed The Department for Children, Schools and Families over the Al Gore Film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Unconscious, I am sure, even of the fact of Gore’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, the case was listed before Mr. Justice Burton on Wednesday for judgement. The proposition made by Mr. Dimmock was that the Department was in breach of Sections 406 (1) and 407 (1) which say:

Political indoctrination

406 (1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid—

(a) the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues

407 (1) 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.

The Learned Judge came to two important conclusions:

1. That showing the film, if distributed and shown on its own, would be in breach of both sections;

2. That nine specific matters in the film, which he detailed, were at best hioghly contentious and at worst, plain wrong:

1) Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”. “The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

2) The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

3) The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

4) Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

5) Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

6) The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

7) Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

8) Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. “That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

9) Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

This finding, which the Department appears effectively to have accepted by its preparation of a briefing note which must now accompany any showing of Gore’s film at a school which satisfies the requirements of the Act, came just two days before the Nobel Committee in Sweden awarded the Nobel peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Learned Judge found effectively that Mr. Dimmock’s case had been made out and that, but for the briefing note, the film’s showing would have breached the Act.

Many would think that such a series of errors would undermine the credibility of the whole. Not so, for as I write the MSM, the SKYs and the BBCs, are working themselves into a veritable frenzy of Onanistic bliss at the wonderful news that Gore has been awarded half a Peace prize for this, in their eyes, is far more important than the fact that, in material particulars, the film is deeply misleading or just plain wrong. “Who cares?”, they will say to themselves, “if we never mention the flaws ever again, no one will be the wiser”. Even poor old David Attenborough has been brought out to offer his paean of praise to the film.

This is yet another reminder of how any question of dissent from the Party Line on Climate Change is to be ruthlessly suppressed. The BBC and others have decided that Al Gore and the rest of the Climate Change Cadres are Right and anyone who questions their opinions is heretically Wrong. No matter that the Dissenters have been ruthlessly unpicking all the scientific ‘evidence’ upon which the Party Line is based, no matter that the principal instrument of propaganda, Gore’s film, has more holes in it than a gorilla’s string vest, no matter that the film is, in the absence of a briefing note to explain its imbalance, just a partisan piece of self-advertising political junk, to the Party Faithful this is the modern equivalent of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. And just as the Red Guards fanned out all over China to enforce the ownership and reading of that dreary little tome, so today the Green Guards fan out all over the media and our schools, bent on enforcing the central tenets of climate change theory and vilifying adherents of the Heresy.

Which brings me neatly to one of our most high and mighty of EuroNabobs, one Margot Wallstrom Vice President of the European Commission in charge of Institutional Relations and Communication. She it is who leads a department which has plainly concluded that, for reasons that cannot be fathomed adult voters all over the Union have a deeply ignorant and misguided distrust of the EU, to such an extent that the EU has decided to ensure that the next generation of adults are not allowed to make such a serious mistake in future.

Thus, mindful of the Jesuit view of education (“Give me a child until it is seven years old and it is mine for life”), plans are underway whereby, under the guise of ‘civic education’, pupils are to be taught about European institutions and policies:

In this context, civic education is crucial for enabling people to exercise their political and civic rights and to become active in the public sphere. Without a basic knowledge on the European Union and its institutions citizens cannot exercise democracy. Part of civic education is also the non-formal education which allows citizens to get engaged and learn from their experiences. As such civic education should not be confined to teaching school pupils about EU institutions and policies, but should help people of all ages to improve their skills and get involved.

[Document SEC (2007) 1265]

The Commission will use the results of a 2007 public consultation which will identify the aspects of school education where joint action at EU level could support Member States. For example, it will examine how schools could best provide students with the key competences, and how school communities can help prepare young people to be responsible citizens, in line with fundamental European values…

[Communication from the Commission to the Council, The Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions]

So there we have it. The EU is now to turn its gaze on the youth and set about the systematic brain-washing of schoolchildren about fundamental European ‘values’, EU ‘institutions’ and EU ‘policies’. Doubt not that any Eurosceptic line will be strictly forbidden from such a programme. For the moment such an unbalanced and obviously propagandist effort will fall foul of Sections 406 & 407 of the Education Act 1996. After 2009, however, that will not trouble the EU which will simply repeal the Act for us by passing an overarching EU Directive so as to ensure that, in any future Referenda, the people will always get the ‘right’ answer.