Friday, October 12, 2007

IBD: Nine Inconvenient Errors for Gore

Junk Science: Al Gore's documentary on climate disaster has been ruled a work of fiction by a British judge. In legal terms, his global warming hysteria has been assuming facts not in evidence.

The judge ruled that the film could be shown to British students, but only on the condition it be accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Gore's "one-sided" views. Judge Burton documented nine major errors in Gore's film (see chart above) and wrote that some of Gore's claims had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration."


At 10/12/2007 12:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Al Gore says anything I tend not to believe it. Mr. Gore is not credible.

At 10/12/2007 12:24 PM, Anonymous RejpalCZ said...

I personally don't understand, how could someone like Al Gore be awarded by Nobel Prize for peace.
It's the biggest joke i have recently heard.

It's the biggest mistake of Nobel Prize Committee since Yassir Arafat was awarded...

At 10/12/2007 6:32 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."

At 10/12/2007 9:07 PM, Anonymous Victor said...

Not that I have any allegiance to Al Gore, but there is a problem with the standard that is being set here. I know that Al Gore is no expert in climate change. But a judge is not an expert either. Trusting the words of a judge in a scientific field is like trusting my economic forecasting.

My forecast, Wal-Mart will be controlled by the UAW and go out of business by the end of next year. Considering my expertise, you know this forecast will come true... Count on it!!

At 10/14/2007 3:25 AM, Anonymous Sudha Shenoy said...

A British judge cannot express his own private opinion in his judgment. He has to rule on the facts as presented to him by _expert witnesses_. They have to first substantiate their expertise. As this is part of the record, anyone can check to see on what basis they are speaking.

So what the judge did was to summarise what the _expert witnesses_ said, & rule on that basis. Even a British judge knows that he is not a scientific expert. I don't know what the position is in the US. Do American judges simply rule on their own private opinion? Expert witnesses aren't called?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home