BBC News Exposes Al Gore as "Alarmist" Gobshite

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 7:27:22 PM10/10/07
to
Loved the quote on the 9PM news tonight about "he has a very thin skin
when challenged..." Between that and an inability to come to terms
with his astounding double-standards in his own lifestyle what can you
say really...

Anyways, have we found the next amaegeddon psychosis yet? Nevermind, I
am sure one is lurking around the corner waiting for its turn next.

******************************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

The nine errors stated by the judge included:

# Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be
caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in
the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it
was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this
amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

# Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount
Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global
warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot
be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-
induced climate change.

# Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the
first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances
- up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only
scientific study that either side before me can find is one which
indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned
because of a storm."

raylopez99

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 7:30:01 PM10/10/07
to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 10 October 2007, 21:53 GMT 22:53 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Gore climate film's 'nine errors'

Al Gore's film was sent to schools in England, Wales and Scotland

A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An
Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine
scientific errors".

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to
schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the
argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film
from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by
mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long
as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed
sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the
government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England,
and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film
without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach
education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty
to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he
said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of
my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have
been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996
Education Act", he said.

The nine errors stated by the judge included:

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be


caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in
the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it
was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this
amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount


Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global
warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot
be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-
induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the


first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances
- up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only
scientific study that either side before me can find is one which
indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned
because of a storm."

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a
father of two.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still
disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.

Mount Kilimanjaro has had its snow reduce in recent years


"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would
still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs
of more than £200,000, against the government.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling would be
"embarrassing for Mr Gore" but would not affect the government, which
said it is happy that the judge did not dismiss the film's mainstream
argument.

But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think
there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important
to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient
Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are
supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

Falcon

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 8:08:28 PM10/10/07
to

Thomas wrote:

“Tony Blair's scientific adviser has said that because of what's happening
in Greenland, the map of the world will have to be redrawn.” Al Gore.

An Inconvenient Lack of Truth?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)


Thomas

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 8:27:17 PM10/10/07
to
On Oct 11, 1:08 am, "Falcon" <falcon-...@hotmale.co.uk> wrote:

> "Tony Blair's scientific adviser has said that because of what's happening
> in Greenland, the map of the world will have to be redrawn." Al Gore.
>
> An Inconvenient Lack of Truth?

Is Hansen still working for NASA?

Bawana

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 9:19:52 PM10/10/07
to

He may still be employed by NASA, but he's working for Soros.

Green Turtle

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 9:24:08 PM10/10/07
to
The sad part here is that we even had a judge and people arguing over this
movie?

If the findings have to be challenged in a court of law to PREVENT the movie
from being shown then is not the education system already in a VERY sorry
state of affairs?

You mean to say if the wonderful people here that spend time to speak out
went home and did not say anything then those terrible lies and fear
mongering in Gore's movie would be un-challenged?

What kind of society are we in when we must 2nd guess, and challenge
virtually everything those educators are willing to throw at our children?

You mean, they still get to show the movie, but now must have a paper
documenting the problems? That like saying we going to give the
children infected needles, and simply issue a document telling them to be
careful with drug use.

I expect that MOST teachers will simply ignore the issuing of the paper
document anyway. However, with the internet at least this news will be
widespread known.

It is a sad day for all of the education system that we must "fight" what
these institutions do.

At least there is some victory here as it does give credibility to the many
people that been complaining about the lies and deceptions in Gore's movie.
And, it also brings out into the open that a “fight” over ideological issues
is occurring here.

This public exposure of the ideological fight is likely MORE valuable then
the judge
issuing the decree that wrongs in the movie must accompany its showing to
the public.

Super Turtle

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:41:06 AM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 2:24 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
> The sad part here is that we even had a judge and people arguing over this
> movie?


Man Made Global Warming is the Creationism of the left. You are
dealing with a theocratic dynamic and not a rational one. They are not
interested in facts, it all about faith.


michael adams

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:48:55 AM10/11/07
to

"Thomas" <kfuz...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
news:1192106466.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Man Made Global Warming is the Creationism of the left.

Ray Cantillon himself, couldn't have put it any better.

And you're now about to disappear down the same plughole.


michael adams

...


Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:09:11 AM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 1:48 pm, "michael adams" <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> "Thomas" <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote in message

>
> news:1192106466.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Man Made Global Warming is the Creationism of the left.
>
> Ray Cantillon himself, couldn't have put it any better.

He can put it anyways he wants. But it's still true.

kT

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 11:29:25 AM10/11/07
to

What is the 'left'.

Now that you mention it, what is a 'fact'?

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:50:37 AM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 4:29 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> Now that you mention it, what is a 'fact'?

Al Gore is a liar.


columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 10:27:30 AM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 5:41 am, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:" Man Made Global

Warming is the Creationism of the left"

actually just compared a group of people who is motivated to reduce
emmissions of green house gasses and areosols (man made actions), are
on the same level as the almighty granting us life or nature
evolving.. Dude thats an absurd, and beligerent statement

Westprog

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 10:30:29 AM10/11/07
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:41 am, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:" Man Made Global
...

>Dude thats an absurd, and beligerent statement


You know him then?

--

J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey


columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 10:49:18 AM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 7:30 am, "Westprog" <westp...@hottmail.com> wrote:" You
know him then?"

Nope, i just like calling his bs out for what is is, How about you do
you know him?

Michael O'Neill

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 12:52:22 PM10/11/07
to
Thomas wrote:
>
> Loved the quote on the 9PM news tonight about "he has a very thin skin
> when challenged..." Between that and an inability to come to terms
> with his astounding double-standards in his own lifestyle what can you
> say really...
>
> Anyways, have we found the next amaegeddon psychosis yet? Nevermind, I
> am sure one is lurking around the corner waiting for its turn next.
>
> ******************************************

<snip>

I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.

They won too.

M.

John M.

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:13:08 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 1:27 am, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> Loved the quote on the 9PM news tonight about "he has a very thin skin
> when challenged..." Between that and an inability to come to terms
> with his astounding double-standards in his own lifestyle what can you
> say really...
>
> Anyways, have we found the next amaegeddon psychosis yet? Nevermind, I
> am sure one is lurking around the corner waiting for its turn next.
>
> ******************************************
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>
> The nine errors stated by the judge included:
>
> # Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be
> caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in
> the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it
> was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this
> amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

It doesn't actually need to melt - simply slide into the ocean where
Archimedes' Principle will do the rest

> # Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount
> Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global
> warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot
> be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-
> induced climate change.

The judge should have added that none of the environmental changes
observed in the last 50 years can be 100% attributed to climate
change.

> # Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the
> first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances
> - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only
> scientific study that either side before me can find is one which
> indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned
> because of a storm."

This seems to be a valid criticism. Pity it concerns a trivial fact,
in the face of other potentially more disastrous effects from CC.

I suppose the other 6 errors were pretty low key, as you have failed
to mention them in your post.

John M.

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:15:45 PM10/11/07
to

It seems that the maps currently available do not show the North-West
passage open at any time of year. Should they not be redrawn?

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:18:10 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 5:52 pm, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:

> I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.

I love McDonalds. Especially the cheeseburger.

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:23:16 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 6:15 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> It seems that the maps currently available do not show the North-West
> passage open at any time of year. Should they not be redrawn?

I think Mr Blair's in-house New Labour approved boffin/spin-doctor was
talking about land maps being redrawn, not ice sheets which have
always fluctuated over the centuries.

Not that it matters anyways. Gore will most likely get the Noble Prize
tomorrow.


Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:42:16 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 3:27 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:41 am, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:" Man Made Global
> Warming is the Creationism of the left"
>
> actually just compared a group of people who is motivated to reduce
> emmissions of green house gasses and areosols (man made actions), are
> on the same level as the almighty granting us life or nature
> evolving..

They are both concepts rooted more in faith than facts. There are
scientist who can pick up fossil records which fly in the face of
genetic mutations evolving species of long periods over time as well.
Doesn't mean Darwin was completely wrong - for Darwin to be completely
wrong and the Book of Genesis to be the absolute truth requires a
"leap of faith" - it's the same "leap of faith" Al Gore used in his
movie to get past the dodgy science and highly selective data. The
only difference in the that Creationist side are honest about it.

Most of my own political belief's tend to be left of centre. I am no
more going to accept that scientific consensus on AGW is absolute and
total, when it isn't. Man-made Global Warming is the Creationism of
the left/PC brigade. It's OK to be an environmentalist and not
subscribe to this AGW crap. I am not going to be emotionally
manipulated by a now legally determined fraudulent Hollywood film,
into accepting something because it's expected of me when there are
vast numbers of top scientists who disagree with AGW.


Séimí mac Liam

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 2:14:39 PM10/11/07
to
Thomas <kfuz...@tinet.ie> wrote in news:1192123090.152597.272430
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 11, 5:52 pm, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.
>
> I love McDonalds. Especially the cheeseburger.
>
>

Do they serve breakfast over there? The pancakes and sausage are good.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

Falcon

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 2:16:24 PM10/11/07
to

michael adams wrote:

> "Thomas" <kfuz...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
> news:1192106466.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Man Made Global Warming is the Creationism of the left.
>
> Ray Cantillon himself, couldn't have put it any better.
>

Even the most gobshite gets it right occasionally.
He's just put the blame in the wrong place. As usual.

max.it

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 2:58:27 PM10/11/07
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:14:39 -0500, "Séimí mac Liam"
<gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:

>Thomas <kfuz...@tinet.ie> wrote in news:1192123090.152597.272430
>@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 11, 5:52 pm, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.
>>
>> I love McDonalds. Especially the cheeseburger.
>>
>>
>
>Do they serve breakfast over there? The pancakes and sausage are good.

Don't eat that stuff.

max.it (the orange cage)

WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:10:38 PM10/11/07
to

And if he does, there goes any remaining respect, no matter how insignificant it
might be, for the value of winning that "prize"...

Ray

--
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:12:04 PM10/11/07
to

Your the biggest gobshite on this... oh wait... I can think of someone even
worse... Hmmm... Decisions, decisions.... We should have a poll! Who is the
biggest gobsite on SCI...

Window Licking

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:41:11 PM10/11/07
to
Séimí mac Liam wrote:
> Thomas <kfuz...@tinet.ie> wrote in news:1192123090.152597.272430
> @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 11, 5:52 pm, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.
>> I love McDonalds. Especially the cheeseburger.
>>
>>
>
> Do they serve breakfast over there? The pancakes and sausage are good.
>

Eat up.... I found a consensus amongst the Chinese. It seems they think
the Chinese cat shortages are due to Global Warming.

McMeow

ShortBus Driver

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:59:33 PM10/11/07
to
Thomas wrote:
> On Oct 11, 3:27 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 5:41 am, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:" Man Made Global
>> Warming is the Creationism of the left"
>>

So what did their God do the other 6days 23hours and 59 minutes?

WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 4:08:02 PM10/11/07
to

Burn people in sulphur and hell fire!!!

Their "God" is the devil... or Lemmings... Hmmm...

Either way... They are best described as unthinking moronic robots who follow
the herd mentality... That is the lemming mentality...

Sadly... Not enough of them have jumped off the cliff yet!!! LOL!!!

But we wait in hope!

Ray
(Conservative) :)

Whata Fool

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 4:57:52 PM10/11/07
to
J wrote:

>It seems that the maps currently available do not show the North-West
>passage open at any time of year. Should they not be redrawn?

Not yet, remember the Titanic?


Window Licking

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 5:22:13 PM10/11/07
to
I'll apply for the government grant....

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 5:52:54 PM10/11/07
to

You will not illogically draw me into a discussion about two subjects
that in your opinion are related, as that is your opinion, and in my
opinion they are two separate issues, and i find it amusing that you
find a need to use the tactics you have. Now look i respect for your
belief system, but i don't respect your opinions if you decide to
present them in the manner you have as above. I could illogically
compare your words posted here to those of sen inhofe, or anne
coulter, etc., so your words really are meaningful only to you, as it
is a demonstration of your thinking, and not how you approach
describing your own beliefs. Meaning if you choose to state your
opinions through negative references to others, you must feel your
argument is so weak that you need to use negatives in order to
communicate your message effectively. Now I have many opinions that i
have decided not to share on usenet, and my belief system is one of
them, but you can do as you choose, and believe what you will, but
with respect to man made emissions of green house gasses and aerosols
causing climate change, you are entitled to cling to your ignorance as
long as you choose....

Bawana

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:04:14 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 5:52 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> that in your opinion are related, [...]

Then shut your boring pie hole, asshole.

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:04:18 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> This seems to be a valid criticism. Pity it concerns a trivial fact,


> in the face of other potentially more disastrous effects from CC.

Nah, nothing bad will happen. I promise.

I suggest people read Norman Cohn's 'Chaos and the World to Come' in
which he searches for the origins of humanity's desire for a
apocalypitic belief. It's always rooted in a response to change - the
fact that all this AGW hysteria is going hand-in-hand with 'The War on
Terror' is part and parcel of the same package. It is also why the USA
is the hot bed of this AGW hysteria more than anywhere else. We have
been here before in human history many times. Nothing to worry about.


> I suppose the other 6 errors were pretty low key, as you have failed
> to mention them in your post.

Funny, I recall the producers of the Great Global Warming Swindle
being "discredited" by the Al Gore shower for far less.

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:04:46 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> This seems to be a valid criticism. Pity it concerns a trivial fact,


> in the face of other potentially more disastrous effects from CC.

Nah, nothing bad will happen. I promise.

I suggest people read Norman Cohn's 'Chaos and the World to Come' in
which he searches for the origins of humanity's desire for a
apocalypitic belief. It's always rooted in a response to change - the
fact that all this AGW hysteria is going hand-in-hand with 'The War on
Terror' is part and parcel of the same package. It is also why the USA
is the hot bed of this AGW hysteria more than anywhere else. We have
been here before in human history many times. Nothing to worry about.

> I suppose the other 6 errors were pretty low key, as you have failed
> to mention them in your post.

Funny, I recall the producers of the Great Global Warming Swindle

Thomas

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:08:21 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 7:14 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
wrote:
> Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote in news:1192123090.152597.272430
> @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> > I love McDonalds. Especially the cheeseburger.


>
> Do they serve breakfast over there? The pancakes and sausage are good.


Sadly no, but I just brought a load of Jimmy Dean's back from the USA
with me on my last trip over a few weeks ago and I am still working
through them.

The American sausage is a work of art.


columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:11:04 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 3:04 pm, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:"Then shut

your boring pie hole, asshole."

Laughing, Na, but maybe you should...

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:28:39 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 12:59 pm, ShortBus Driver <Climb_Aboard@Talk-n-Dog..com>
wrote:"So what did their God do the other 6days 23hours and 59
minutes?"

mmm, let me see, ill check my date planner book for what i saw during
that time, ok that would be pre earth formation right, ok i have it,
man im sorry that page is blank for me, why dont you ask me that
question in six days 23 hours and 58 minutes...

E = mc²

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:51:08 PM10/11/07
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:59 pm, ShortBus Driver <Climb_Aboard@Talk-n-Dog..com>
> wrote:"So what did their God do the other 6days 23hours and 59
> minutes?"
>
> mmm, let me see, ill check my date planner book for what i saw during
> that time, ok that would be pre earth formation right, ok i have it,
> man im sorry that page is blank for me,

No surprise there....

> why dont you ask me that
> question in six days 23 hours and 58 minutes...
>

As if...

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 11:11:37 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 6:51 pm, E = mc² <"Slingshot. Around.The.Sun"@Talk-n-

As if.. let me finish the sentence for you as if one has to accept
another's opinion that is based on an illogical premise is a joke,
which is exactly what he did by attempting to label global warming a
belief system. The person who stated his opinion in such a manner does
not deserve the respect of a logical reply, simply because that person
felt necessary to use others as negative examples in order to
communicate his ideas, which were completely rhetorical in nature.
Now if he does not accept others ideas and must use negative
connotations when addressing others, he is demonstrating that he
perceives himself in a position to declare others ideas as non-
acceptable, but yet does not perceive himself in a position to be
judged on the same level, which is hypocritical. Now based on the
facts the post was rhetorical and hypocritical it really does not need
to be taken seriously, and that is what I have done.

Eeyore

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:00:26 AM10/12/07
to

Green Turtle wrote:

> The sad part here is that we even had a judge and people arguing over this
> movie?

The Judge doesn't argue. His/her job is simply to rule on the validity/veracity
of the arguments put before him/her.


> If the findings have to be challenged in a court of law to PREVENT the movie
> from being shown then is not the education system already in a VERY sorry
> state of affairs?

If the film contains significant LIES (which it does) how could anyone argue in
favour of it being promoted as education ? It's no better than promoting
religious ideas as facts.

The judge very correctly ruled than any showing of the film should be
accompanied by a warning abouts its inaccuracies.

Thank God for British Law !

Graham


Eeyore

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:01:45 AM10/12/07
to

Green Turtle wrote:

> And, it also brings out into the open that a “fight” over ideological issues
> is occurring here.

Quite !

No longer can the 'greenies' maintain that there is no controversy about their
insane ideas.

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:03:20 AM10/12/07
to

Thomas wrote:

> On Oct 11, 2:24 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
> > The sad part here is that we even had a judge and people arguing over this
> > movie?
>

> Man Made Global Warming is the Creationism of the left. You are
> dealing with a theocratic dynamic and not a rational one. They are not
> interested in facts, it all about faith.

Correct. It's a 'green religion'.

These people would have us dismantle our technological society and have us back
in mud huts scraping a living off the land if they had their way.

Graham


Eeyore

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:05:10 AM10/12/07
to

Michael O'Neill wrote:

> I'm reminded of the time McDonalds went to court.
>

> They won too.

Over 'global warming' ?

Graham

Eeyore

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:05:59 AM10/12/07
to

"John M." wrote:

> Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:
>
> > # Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be
> > caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in
> > the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it
> > was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this
> > amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".
>
> It doesn't actually need to melt - simply slide into the ocean

May the Lord preserve us from IDIOTS like you !

Graham

Tim Murphy

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 10:18:03 AM10/12/07
to
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:470F0E96...@hotmail.com...

Michael O'Neill wrote:

If you are talking about the famous McLibel case then no, they only "won" if
you can call it that on a few narrow points, mostly technicalities and legal
issues in parts of the judgement, McDonalds lost on the most serious points
(1. the negative health affects of their food, 2. the exploitation of their
workforce and 3. their exploitation of children through advertising).

McDs are still reeling from the damage they inflicted on themselves with
this ill judged law suit. It was like a PR self-immolation.

This was the longest court case in British legal history and produced 100s
of millions of $s worth of free publicity for the anti-McDonalds
campaigners. By attempting to use heavy handed legal tactics to suppress the
distribution of a few thousand flyers, McDs caused millions of the same
leaflets to be requested from all around the planet and to be translated
into numerous foreign languages. Not to mention thousands of print articles
and many radio and TV features, videos, films, documentaries and many many
millions of Website hits etc...

McDonalds did not even collect the limited damages they were awarded for the
points that they "won" on, in case they got even more bad PR.

This fightback by the anti-McD campaigners is now used as a model of how to
take on and defeat neo-imperialist multinationals. Of course the fight is
not over yet but the McLibel case was a very significant advance for the
progressive cause.

Check for yourself, all the legal issues in the McLibel case (including
court transcripts) and some of the subsequent campaigns are online here.

www.mcspotlight.org


============


Talk-n-Dog

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 10:54:02 AM10/12/07
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Oct 11, 6:51 pm, E = mc² <"Slingshot. Around.The.Sun"@Talk-n-
> Dog..com> wrote:
>> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 12:59 pm, ShortBus Driver <Climb_Aboard@Talk-n-Dog..com>
>>> wrote:"So what did their God do the other 6days 23hours and 59
>>> minutes?"
>>> mmm, let me see, ill check my date planner book for what i saw during
>>> that time, ok that would be pre earth formation right, ok i have it,
>>> man im sorry that page is blank for me,
>> No surprise there....
>>
I expected no less from you. Or is it no more?

>>> why dont you ask me that
>>> question in six days 23 hours and 58 minutes...
>> As if...
>
> As if.. let me finish the sentence for you as if one has to accept
> another's opinion that is based on an illogical premise is a joke,
> which is exactly what he did by attempting to label global warming a
> belief system. The person who stated his opinion in such a manner does
> not deserve the respect of a logical reply, simply because that person
> felt necessary to use others as negative examples in order to
> communicate his ideas, which were completely rhetorical in nature.
> Now if he does not accept others ideas and must use negative
> connotations when addressing others, he is demonstrating that he
> perceives himself in a position to declare others ideas as non-
> acceptable, but yet does not perceive himself in a position to be
> judged on the same level, which is hypocritical. Now based on the
> facts the post was rhetorical and hypocritical it really does not need
> to be taken seriously, and that is what I have done.
>

as if it will be worth the effort?
as if your answer in a ~week will be any better?
as if I wouldn't notice your vocabulary growing and mine being
regurgitate back to me.

as if - it will be an original concept and innovative and stimulating...Not

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 11:22:54 AM10/12/07
to
On Oct 12, 7:54 am, Talk-n-Dog <WatchDog@talk-n-dog..com> wrote:" I
expected no less from you. Or is it no more? as if it will be worth

the effort? as if your answer in a ~week will be any better? as if I
wouldn't notice your vocabulary growing and mine being regurgitate
back to me.as if - it will be an original concept and innovative and
stimulating..."

your expectations of me are irrellavent, and if you dont get the joke
thats fine, but the joke was put back on somebody for attempting to
label global warming as a belief system, and i know you would rather
have jokes be one sided around here but, thats too bad. Now if he
wants to continue his rhetoric thats fine, but if you or him cant
handle a joke being turned around, then dont post it in the first
place....

Ramalamadingdong

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 9:53:43 PM10/12/07
to

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:470F0DC9...@hotmail.com...

Well actually, gobshite:

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.

Talk-n-Dog

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 11:27:02 PM10/12/07