BTW, the asinine suggestion to google "AIT analysis", of course, brings up 5 million hits, of which, absolutely none have to do with analysis of hte movie because it's an absolutely stupid google search.

"no further comments needed"

Indeed. Because you a) can't even argue your own assertions and b) you really have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Still, the "halgore" is pretty funny in a third grade playground sort of way.

And I really do like the whole Birch-esque conspiracy theory (now with Eugenics!) y'all are obsessed with. C'mon, if you try just a bit harder you can tie Soros into this and accuse him of more conspiring due to his association with all this. C'mon, you can do it!

That is the issue here, not your little tantrums.

If you care to get a nose full of the facts, you should Google "AIT analysis". Serious and unbiased scientists deplore what has been done by Algore. It is quite similar to the "Eugenics" scandals of the 30s and 40s, where far too many so-called prominent and bright people fell into the delusion, perhaps because it fit into their world view and lust for power.

What is needed is good science developing good conclusions to act upon, not scare books and movies that ultimately promote a leftist agenda for world dominion. Any noise you make to the contrary labels you a leftist kook.

(No further comments needed.)

No doubt. You've had your ass handed to you and now you're munching on the hamburger made from it. What you're simply doing is moving the goal posts yet again. After you're previous chest puffing assertions vanished like pixie dust in the summer rain, you whined "The statement stands that none of these people addressed the specifics of the 9 errors or flaws in AIT being referred to". So I produced 2 posts that when into great detail in addressing the specifics - precisely as you requested. You're response? Simply copying what the judge wrote in his findings and asserting them as self evident truths. Not even the patina of an argument to back up your assertions.

Pretty darn pathetic, mannning. Now wonder you guys are simply resorting to shrill demagoguery and constant whining. Oh, I forgot. The comical reliance on Crichton's almost laughable understanding of "chaos theory as a magic wand to wave in front of the eyes of those you've confused in some vain attempt at looking like you've thought about the subject.

Seriously, dude, the whole authoritarian thing is so 20th century. Move with the times and learn the basics of argument and logical thought.

--That it is settled science! Bull.
--That the hockey stick chart is an accurate representation! Nope.
--That Greenland is losing its cover to atmospheric heat. Wrong.
--That Kilimanjaro's snow is melting because of increased CO2 (a clever misrepresentation by juxtaposition).
--That the ten hottest years occurred in the last 14 years, and 2005 was the hottest. A lie. It was 1998, and since 2001 temps have been stable, and there has been a global cooling trend.
--That the oceans would rise 20 FEET, when the NAS and IPCC have stated that under the worst scenario, we might see 4-35 INCHES.

I have no time for more of this, but it goes on for a long while, with backup from world class scientists.

The clincher is that Algore himself admitted he was "exaggerating for effect" (read lying!).

These were some of the issues that were important, and they were not properly or honestly handled by Algore, he distorted the picture. Too bad the judge was not in the same game of judgment at all, nor were the craven, religiously-motivated apologists for Father Algore, the leader of the Global Warming by CO2 sect, nor Mr. Halgore, a somewhat lesser acolyte.

You can find the judge's ruling here. Sections 23-32 contain the nine claims of errors. It's quite readable, and so I'll not reproduce it here. As to the "what percentage of claims in AIT these '9 flaws' constitute" that's kind of a non-answerable question.

As to mannning's assertion that no one has addressed these "flaws", again it's clear that mannning just doesn't read. The first reference I gave contains a detailed response to each of the nine claimed flaws. There's another detailed response by another science blogger, James Hrynyshyn.

So, if mannning actually bothered to read rather than simply assert, he'd actually find what he was looking for - assuming he wanted to find it.

So now we're in pretzel logic mode, eh? You originally made the bold claim that a Judge had determined there were 9 errors in Gore's movie. This claim of yours is plainly false. Next, you made the claim "If you are trying to suggest that the judge did this on his own sans high-level technical advice, you are wrong.", which is also plainly false. So now you're reduced to weakly asserting that no one has addressed the flaws alleged.

Well, mannning, when did you start beating your wife? Further, when did you stop sleeping with that group of football players for money? How come you stopped doing heroin? And for that matter, how come you had a lobotomy?

Seriously, dude, this is farcical. Your bold assertions evaporated and now you're whining that no one took the trouble to answer some assertions someone somewhere made.

I guess this is another classic example of a "rightist" tactic. Keep shifting the goal posts.

Geebus.

Hal keeps posting things stating that while someone claimed that "9 flaws" existed in AIT, a judge ruled otherwise.

Manning keeps posting that the "9 flaws" were not addressed, still implying that "9 flaws" were indeed found (as opposed to merely claimed) in AIT, but simply disregarded.

So someone please tell me, what are these supposed "9 flaws" in AIT, who has proven them to be "flaws" (or proven them to be true), and what percentage of claims in AIT these "9 flaws" constitute.

Thanks.

"LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg." isn't about spelling, and it's not just random characters. Note that some are upper, and some are lower case.

na just got a little angry, you know how sensitive I am about my spelling, if you think what im saying sucks and wanna make fun of me thats all good but my spelling is off limits!

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.

So, you are relying on a court decision to claim that - to quote your original assertion - "Gore had 9 false claims in his epic fear-movie" which flatly states nothing of the kind.

Guess that's another variation of the "rightist" tactic of simply making sh*t up out of whole cloth.

If you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part -- Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists' attention.

Emphasized the important sentence so you can easily find it.

Like I said, bounces off me and sticks to you.