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

[Straybow]

Not meaningless. It reinforces the self-delusion of the "if everyone would just lay down their guns we'd have world peace" crowd. And now the global warming idiocy crowd.

[Berzerker]

Was this a judge making these claims about Gore's movie? Did this judge major in the environmental sciences before becoming a
lawyer? Or is he just going on what research has debunked in the movie so far?

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Was this a judge making these claims about Gore's movie? Did this judge major in the environmental sciences before becoming a
lawyer? Or is he just going on what research has debunked in the movie so far?

Does a judge need an engineering degree to decide whether a bridge collapse was caused through negligence? Or a medical degree to evaluate medical negligence?

Silly me for always thinking judges were trained in evaluating the evidence brought before them in the court and making decisions of likelyhood based on that... If the complainant in the case failed to present enough credible evidence then that is his problem, and he's certainly done his cause a fair bit of harm.

[Kuciwalker]

Does a judge need an engineering degree to decide whether a bridge collapse was caused through negligence?

He needs expert testimony from people with engineering degrees (and a good deal more).

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Shrapnel12]How many wars have started over global warming?

Wars haven't been fought over scarce resources in the past? [/Q]
Exactly what resources are to be made scarce by global warming? Low-lying property will be inundated, but that doesn't decrease the coastline. Who's going to fight over it?

From a local point of view it may seem like water level rising doesn't decrease the coastline, but from a global point of view, it usually does.

Although I'm being a bit pedantic but the argument was dumb in the first place so why not

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Good to see you admit to your lies, SpenderH

Anyways, was this 9 errors or 11 errors? All right-wing sites laud 11, the judge states 9, who do I believe?

It's irrelevant. Its likely there's more than either 9 or 11 errors. After all, this was a judge who already believes that global warming is caused by human actions. It's not likely he was a harsh critic of the movie.

[SpencerH]

I'm not a big fan of Gore and I despise the knee-jerk liberals who gleefully fling themselves on this hours cause celebre. Its a mostly meaningless award (just look at many of the former recipients) but if his winning helps to reduce pollution without crippling the economy, then its a good thing.

[germanos]

Originally posted by SpencerH
After all, this was a judge who already believes that global warming is caused by human actions. It's not likely he was a harsh critic of the movie.

All things being the same, the judge's stance on the movie is irrelevant.
He's their to judge the plaintiff's vs. the film, his own opiniouns don't matter much.

Or do they in the US?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by germanos


All things being the same, the judge's stance on the movie is irrelevant.
He's their to judge the plaintiff's vs. the film, his own opiniouns don't matter much.

Or do they in the US?

Judges are supposed to be impartial but I've never met one or heard of one who isnt effected by their beliefs (in the USA or elsewhere). At best, its a question of how much their beliefs effect their rulings. Given that this judge found fault with the film, he's still allowing it to be shown. Another judge who had made the same finding but who was of a different mindset (ie not pro-human cause to global warming) might not have allowed the film to be shown.