Did British judge say that "An Inconvenient Truth" is factual?

[DeclinetoState]

Media ignore British judge's conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

Reporting on a recent ruling (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html) by a British judge about the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), featuring former Vice President Al Gore, numerous media outlets -- including the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, CNN, and Fox News -- routinely reported that the judge found that the film contained nine "errors" without mentioning that he also stated in the ruling that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "


Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200710170001)

Spin?

[Rhino]

I'm surprised the DBM passed that up.

[RogerFGay]

The court recognized the defendant's claims that Gore's film is based on claims by other propaganda organizations, such as the IPCC. The judge did not rule indepenently that Gore's presentation is essentially factual and scientific. The meaning is only that parts of it correspond to what has been said by others.

Of course, that wouldn't stop propagandists from treating the court as an independent scientific body that also supports the "consensus" ... and as usual, they're actually reversing the primary trend in propaganda ... that they continually claim that the court found Gore's film 100% accurate in all respects .. nothing wrong with it at all ... and probably the judges started handing out copies to school children at their own expense ...