We can only hope this fraud is publicly stripped of his Oscar, and everything else he has “won”.
robert108 - 08:10pm on 10/12/2007
For those interested in the judge’s actual ruling (as opposed to the right-wing spin of it) you can find it here:
Key parts:
I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
(...)
22. I have no doubt that Dr [Peter] Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
Dave - 09:10am on 10/18/2007
You seem to have overlooked this one:
iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the “consensus” expressed in the IPCC reports.
We can only hope this fraud is publicly stripped of his Oscar, and everything else he has “won”.
For those interested in the judge’s actual ruling (as opposed to the right-wing spin of it) you can find it here:
Key parts:
You seem to have overlooked this one:
Damn inconvenient, that.
Fake but accurate, Davey. You stick with that.