An Oct. 12 CNSNews.com article by Randy Hall featuring attacks on Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize by his "critics" incompletely reported on a British court ruling. Hall writes:
[Steve] Milloy [publisher of JunkScience.com] pointed to a ruling last week in a British court that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least nine material falsehoods and can be shown to students only if it is identified as containing "partisan political views" that promote only one side of the global warming argument.
"It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film," Judge Michael Burton said in his ruling.
However, "it is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film," the judge added.
But Hall didn't report the full ruling from that case -- that the judge also ruled that "four main scientific hypotheses" put forward in "An Inconvenient Truth" are "very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC." As we noted, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard similarly misreported the ruling. (We also noted that one of the purported "material falsehoods" is a false conflation of two different calculations.)
Hall also wrote: "Then on Thursday, the BBC aired a report claiming that Gore knew his 'alarmist' movie presented 'false facts,' because he feared any uncertainty in his film would only fuel opponents of global warming regulation." In fact, the video report Hall cites -- which is about the above court ruling -- makes that assertion without any supporting evidence, something Hall presumably would not let stand had such a statement been made about a pet conservative cause.