Earlier today I found an interesting little diddy on FOXNews.com regarding some of Al Gore’s assertions in An Inconvenient Truth. The article is written by a FOX News contributor named Steven Milloy who, by all accounts, appears to be a strong conservative in all of his policy and political leanings. So bear that in mind if you choose to go read the article.
This is an interesting post to me because Milloy’s article quotes a British judge who has ruled some of Al Gore’s findings as unscientific. In other words, the judge says there is no science to back up some – not all, but some – of Gore’s claims. There is no discussion of where the judge got his doctorate in environmental science, though…
Later in the article, some legitimate incorrect assertions are detailed and I think those are all known to the public at this point (the wrong date being given for a cigarette advertisement, 2005 NOT being the hottest year on record, there not being a cure for polio, etc). But those are all somewhat moot points (except the one about 2005 not being the hottest year on record – that’s an exaggeration of the truth).
In any event, I fail to see how a judge has the standing to make such decisions. This may be more politics than anything else. Of course, this is all taking place across the pond, so I don’t care about it too much, but I thought some of you folks may find it interesting.
Anyway, try Jersey City Locksmith for the best locksmith service in the Garden State!
In any event, I fail to see how a judge has the standing to make such decisions. This may be more politics than anything else. Of course, this is all taking place across the pond, so I don’t care about it too much, but I thought some of you folks may find it interesting.
————————————————————–
I heard about it also. Would it be the equivalence of a scientist remarking on jurisprudence? But as you have noted with the internet everyone feels their opinion is just as valid as an experts.