"Canada's Leading Asshole" Mark Steyn is so all about the scientific accuracy:
A COUPLE of days before Al Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace prize, Michael Burton, an English High Court judge and apparently a fine film critic, ruled that Al's Oscar-winner An Inconvenient Truth was prone to "alarmism and exaggeration" and identified nine major factual errors.
Yes, that would be Mark Steyn, seriously suggesting that someone else could have used a fact checker:
Incidentally, I stopped writing for the Times a few years ago because their fanatical "fact-checking" copy-editors edited my copy into unreadable sludge.
So many punchlines, so little interest in picking the best one.
7 comments:
First of all, Steyn's picking up on this right-wing talking-point has been proven completely wrong.
Secondly, what makes Steyn imagine he's anymore fit to talk about climate change than he is to talk about war?
He's already demonstrated incompetence in his area of primary interest. He should learn to cut his losses.
Better yet, we could overthrow the media system that perpetuates the careers of these stupid propagandists.
Steyn should read the fricken judgment. How do words like "major" get stuck in front of "errors," the latter placed in quotation marks by the judge most of the time? Indeed, turns out the "errors" were largely on the part of the judge:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
Shoot. You were ahead of me. Still, never hurts to repeat the truth.
As if Steyn cares about the truth. He clearly does not.
Remember Solomon? It's been a long day and these two women show up arguing about whose baby this kid is, for Moses' sake.
Everyone who's ever been to court more than a couple of times knows the judge always give something to both sides. After all, the judges personally knows the attorneys, and the clients are all "this is the end of theworld," and not in a warm-feeling "Second Coming" sense, either.
This judge is no more of a genius than Solomon.
Seer : A little-known fact about Solomon's most famous case is that in the interest of fairness, he initially ruled that the baby be cut in two and each mom be awarded a half.
This judgement was of course overturned on appeal.
Irony, isn't that like, 'bronzey' or 'goldy'?
Post a Comment