How many people who cite "the British judge" have actually read what he said?

Question

"Skeptics" here often cite th British lawsuit about Gore's movie, saying that a British judge found nine mistakes.

That shows they didn't read the decision. The judge said four things were proven:

" 1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

Can I assume everyone who quotes "the British judge" agrees with that? It's the most important part of his decision.

The movie won the lawsuit.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

The judge also said nine minor details were not proven. He specifically did not say whether they were right or wrong. And he specifically said that, overall, the movie was scientific truth.

Since the movie came out, some of the minor details have been proven wrong, others right. Either way, they don't change the important things, listed above.

JELLO - The swindle movie has been edited to fend off lawsuits.

And it's SO bad, and SO unscientific that people don't worry about it. You might want to read these facts, before you defend it:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Here's the short version:

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Boatman 1 - I cheerfully agree Gore's movie was overly dramatic. Hopefully it gets people to take the science about this seriously.

For those reading this who are in that group, this is a good intermediate place between the movie, and the scientific literature (which it cites extensively).

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 1

Only what has been reported ---- like this article in Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

I think most folks that follow this stuff know that the judge agreed that global warming and that most of the film were scientifically factual------ he just pointed out some "Hollywood" exaggerations.

Answer 2

I've read the ruling (is it called a ruling in Britain?) and while I have no specific numbers, I doubt very much that those in denial about climate change have read it completely.

What I find troubling about this is that while the judge acknowledged, "global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise," he didn't comment specifically in that section it was to man made activities. Though he later does attribute our pollution as a culprit.

What really bothers me (and he does so here) is that those in denial like Mr. Jello NEVER answer the question. He's posted nothing but "comments" on my questions as well. I'm guessing he took his climate change training from the fine folks at Exxon.

Answer 3

Obviously none of the people who say "a judge ruled that Gore's movie was a big lie" have actually read the judge's comments.

Unfortunately the American media did an absolutely terrible job accurately representing his ruling. They made it sound like the 9 errors undermined the accuracy of the entire film, which is simply wrong.

There's no reason to take the Swindle to court because nobody is crazy enough to show it in schools. If somebody did, rest assured it would be taken to court and completely dismantled.

Answer 4

Congratulations, excellent piece of work. In my opinion most british judges are a bit cranky, menopause has a lot to do with their judgement no doubt.

Answer 5

No I dont agree nowhere in the decision does it say anything is
"proven"

Answer 6

People who attack the idea of global warming are already ignoring the facts. Don't try to confuse their Republican brains with more facts. They are already overloaded.

Answer 7

Still - No court has ruled that any part of the movie "Swindle" was unproven or needed parts to be disclaimed before being shown.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it......

[Edit] And you believe 'Truth" is accurate? Hell, Gore had to use animated polar bears because they sparked more emotional response. It was real sad seeing that lone polar bear swimming into the sunset towards his certain doom. The symbolism was great. Even I almost shed a tear at this point.

And why was the photo of Hurricane Katrina photoshoped to make it look bigger than it was? How "Truth"ful is this?