U.K. Court Coverage: A Clean Kill for Climate Confusion
Media Matters has a nice wrap on how the U.S. mainstream media covered the U.K. High Court decision that approved An Inconvenient Truth for continued broadcast in U.K. schools.
In a few cases, the news slipped through that the judge had actually rejected Stewart Dimmock's request to block the movie's broadcast or insist that it be accompanied by trashy "balancing" videos (The Great Global Warming Swindle, anyone?). But mostly, papers just reported that Al Gore had been caught out overstating the case.
You have to be impressed when a disppointed plaintiff can spin a court loss that successfully. But equally, you have to wonder, did any of those reporters actually read the judgment?
TAGS: al gor, climate change, global warming, great global warmign swindle, inconvenient truth, Richard Littlemore, UK court
The GGWS
If it ever does come to The Great Global Warming Swindle being shown in classrooms, it would probably be worth chipping in to have that taken to court and analysed for accuracy :D
Even better
I know there is a very comprehensive and absolutely scathing complaint that was submitted to OFCOMM over the Swindle originally being aired on Channel 4 in the UK.
Should be interesting to see what the judgement is there. I hate this whole idea of judging science in the courtroom, but if it comes to that and its the only option, then yes, we should raise a bunch of $$.
Cough it up, Kev!
How about a link to that "scathing complaint"?
TGGWS OFCOM Complaint
Femack,
This is it.
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
Court & Legal Costs
Has anyone heard who paid the costs?
Since Dimwit Dimmock lost, presumably his sponsor will have to shell-out for the court & legal costs.