In February 2007, the English `Department for Education and Skills´ issued a news release stating that Al Gore´s film "An Inconvenient Truth" would form part of a pack on climate change to be sent to every secondary school in England, Scotlaqnd and Wales. When this pack was actually sent to the schools on 2 May 2007, it contained not only Al Gore´s film, but also four other short films and a cross-reference to an educational website containing teaching guides showing how to use the resources in this pack in science, geography and citizenship lessons.
    Stuart Dimmock, a state school governor in Kent and a father of two sons in the school, took action to counter this initiative. He has some connection  to a leading  sceptic organization in the UK, that campaigns against Al Gore´s film and promotes the heavily criticized alternative film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. He brought a case before a high court, claiming that Al Gore´s film promotes partisan political views, and as the promotion of such views is forbidden by the Education Act, the distribution of the film should be declared unlawful.
    As expert witness before the court, the claimant brought professor Robert Carter of James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. The defendant brought dr. Peter Stott from the Meteorological office´s Hadley Centre.
    The judge found that the film is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used to support a political programme. He accepted the proposition that the film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC, (1) global temperatures have been rising significantly, (2) climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects, and (4) there are measures that could be taken to mitigate the effects. The judge also agreed with a statement made by Dr. Stott that "Al Gore´s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." But even when he agreed on this, he also acknowledged that "there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore." Professor Carter provided a schedule of "alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical". The judge was persuaded that some of them  - 9 in all - merited careful examination. In the judgment, they are designated a `errors´, i. the word "errors" is put between inverted commas. Each such `error´ is commented upon in the judgment. Next, the judge considers if the teacher´s guidance was sufficient to compensate for these `errors´, and he concludes that this was not fully so. The defendant accepted this view, made amendments to the Guidance Note on the website, and accepted to distribute the amended notes in hard copy. With these changes made, the judge was satisfied and made no order on the application.