The Corner compares him to Osama bin Laden. Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler puts him in the same class as Hitler and Stalin.
His real name is Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in 2000, and a winner of the Nobel Prize today. Why such virulence? Such hate?
I understand that some think Global Warming is not a serious issue. But has his work on the issue killed anyone? Has anybody become a paraplegic because of An Inconvenient Truth?
Tired of attacking 12 year olds, the wing nuts went ballistic on Mr. Gore today. And of course much of what they wrote were lies. Many of them misused a recent court ruling in England as a source for their calumny.
The Right Wing Nut House suggests that Gore and his ilk had "been proven in a court of law to be nothing more than alarmist charlatans." Captain Ed said that the British court had concluded that Gore was guilty of "misstating data and frankly lying about its effects." That insult to all dogs, the anti-idiotarian rotweiler, said that Gore's work was a "slideshow based on made-up assertions and untruths, as asserted by a court of law."
Normally the folks at the American Enterprise Institute try to stay above the fray when it becomes so muddy. But their Steven Hayward is as dishonest as they come, and dives right in:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore’s movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment,
They make up their smears by misrepresenting articles on the court's decision that appeared in either the Washington Post or the London Times.
But the London Times actually wrote that the Judge was in agreement with:
“ the 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.
The ruling did reference several potential errors, but the court quite intentionally always put the word 'errors' in quotes. It specifically said that it was not in a position to rule on whether they were errors or not, only that some of them could be disagreed with by reasonable people. He said that out of the many examples that Mr Gore used to make his point, these few warranted a disclaimer cautioning that their factual basis was in some dispute.
The dishonestly of these right wing bloggers is clear if you look at the opinion. Equally outstanding is their hypocrisy in relying on a foreign court, looking at an issue based on the fairness doctrine.
Did I mention that the Scottish Tories call the political party which the plaintiff leads "fascist?" And they don't even say neo-fascist; just plain old fashioned fascist.
(h/t scienceblog, memeorandum)
Comments