British Court Rules Gore's Convenient Lie Wrong on 11 Counts

[Dracon II]

Could someone please show me where Gore was vindicated?

He was vindicated because he only got a few things wrong. Not much of a vindication if you ask me, given that I'm assuming Gore would've believed the whole thing was true... unless he was being purposefully dishonest, in which case we should kill him, hey Aggie?

[Straybow]

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

In other words, the judge recognized that ice cores showed CO2 increases typically 800+ years after cyclic climate change events, but somehow misses that the current CO2 & CH4 increases followed the onset of warming by about 100 years?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dauphin

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

OH GOD! The PWNAGE! The anti-Gore people just got smacked with reality! :lo:

[MikeH]

And Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

[SpencerH]

And now the "inventor of the internet" has won the Nobel Peace Prize for this trash. The irony is that too many people will associate "Nobel" with science and believe the falsehoods in "chicken-littles" piece of trash.

Leave science to the scientists Mr. Gore.

[Gibsie]

Cry us a river, SpencerH

[Dauphin]

The peace prize? Laugh or cry....

[Cort Haus]

Well, he has saved the world from ManBearPig.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
And Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/2007/

Was there no one that actually advanced the cause of peace for them to choose?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Do you intend to prove this in a court of law before having the ungoodthinkers shot?

[Shrapnel12]

I think people missed my sarcasm? This goes both for and against both sides, but just who is this judge to say what's wrong and what isn't in this film? He's no scientist and he's one man who's no smarter then all the scientists who have actually studies global warming. If all these scientists can't agree, what makes this judge the definitive source?

As for Gore winning the Nobel peace prize, what the hell does global warming have to do with peace? How many wars have started over global warming? I've lost all respect for this prize. Gore is a hack and the Nobel peace prize is a farce.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was there no one that actually advanced the cause of peace for them to choose?

You can probably ask the same of the 1979 award they gave to Mother Teresa or the award last year to Muhammed Yunis for microloans. It would be nice if they thought they could get away with not awarding a prize (which they used to do if there was no one suitable), but the reality is that it really ends up being an award for who has done most good according to the values of Western democracies.

Though, I think the explination of how this ties into peace (fighting over scarce resources, etc) is better than how helping poor people fits.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I've lost all respect for this prize. Gore is a hack and the Nobel peace prize is a farce.

Old news.

Gore has good company now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Shrapnel12]How many wars have started over global warming?[/q]

Wars haven't been fought over scarce resources in the past?

[Wezil]

How did Gore win? Did the Nobel committee not find any deserving terrorists this year?