Mr “Howard” had another point, and that’s the TRUTH - how can anyone puport to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth particularly in religion or politics ? It’s all a matter of degree, applying logic, and as the court and we might try to do … “on the balance of probabilities”.

Sure Mr Gore’s film might have in/advertently uttered some inconvenient untruths of its own, but you have to look at the bigger picture and apply the preceding paragraph to the whole scene.

I’d particularly like to disabuse Mr. Howard of the notion that Al Gore is a socialist (or, worse still, that Bill Clinton is one by association). Gore and Clinton are flag-bearers for the Democratic Party, who are essentially conservative (on foreign intervention and hawkish policy, on big business, on healthcare, on law and order, on privatisation, and so forth). It’s admittedly true that you get a *slightly* more moderate perspective on *some* things from the Democrats - it’s essentially right-wing without significant Christian-fundamentalist fervour.

On another topic: I’ve surfed in from Media Lens, and they’re making some good waves on this one too. Good work!

For those concerned with truth, it is: no one in their right mind believes they can possibly know the truth about so complex and unknowable a subject as the climate of the entire earth for thousands of years. Misanthropic socialists (do I repeat myself?) love global warming hysteria because they can shame and villify the entire human race while demanding control over the entire earth to “save” it. Remember who Al Gore is: A socialist control freak who used to conspire with Willy Clinton and his hell-bitch wife to control every body, every body’s child, every body’s property, and every body’s mind. Al Gore wants to rule the earth. The earth is broken, you see, and needs Al to fix it. Be afraid, as the jargon-mongers like to say, be very afraid.

“Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 ‘errors’ that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant’s case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.”

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