the small issue

and why am i not surprised?

the surprise is not because i found this article. the surprise is that this article never got the attention it deserved. proves, how one-sided the original argument was.

bye, al!

the bbc today reported that:

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.

Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore’s central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus. [Via: BBC: Gore climate film's nine 'errors']

there is small hope left in this world and a large percentage of that small hope rests with the judiciary, in most democracies. it is probably the only sane voice in the midst of all the screaming.

walter williams, had written about the global warming heresy, and had linked to excellent documentary aired by channel 4 (while you will see the link in his article, the video has been removed from youtube. channel 4 now has a microsite about the documentary: the great global warming swindle. there is also a wikipedia page about it.)

it is a debate still, and we have heard only one side of the story. and while the debate goes on:

there are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. [Via CapMag: Global Warming Heresy, by Walter Williams (March 27, 2007)]

there are too many voices talking about global warming, too few questioning the scientific basis of it all. and succumbing to data served as it is. of course there are two sides to a story and the debate will last long. this ruling by the high court judge is one step in balancing the presentation of the problem. taking care of the environment is beyond question or scientific proof. the unchecked march of the alarmists is.

like any issue that affects mankind – a single sided presentation isn’t in our interest. this judgement may not stop the gw alarmists from continuing what they do, it may not even affect the funding that they get. it may, however, at least put a small hovering question mark when we are made to feel guilty and responsible about a potentially lopsided issue.