co-op said:I am curious as to what allows you to cherry pick elements of this judgement and leave out the massive substantive finding that the Judge has accepted the IPCC take on climate change.
and
co-op said:I should just add that "Mr Downes" in the quote above is counsel for the Claimant (ie the New Party/Dimmock) and "Mr Chamberlain" counsel for the DES/DCSF. In other words both counsel accept the IPCC report as - well, if not true - then "the present scientific consensus"; ie true in effect.
The question before the judge was effectively a narrow one: does the film go beyond the science, which for purely legal reasons was accepted by the team representing the plaintiff and the judge, Mr Justice Burton, as being contained within the IPCC report. Obviously, the strategy worked. After hearing expert testimony and analyzing arguments presented by both sides, Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film does indeed go beyond the science (as it is currently understood by the IPCC) and highlighted 9 material errors. This does not mean, as you would have it, that Mr Justice Burton has endorsed the IPCC's view on climate change - only a fool would do that.