[BartSimpson]

eureka wrote:

This is getting silly.

Wow, you've finally posted something I can agree with.

Stop arguing with Zip, you schmutz. He's on your side for the love of Pete.

[DrCaleb]

eureka wrote:

You have to read it yourself, doc, and make an informed judgement.

My judgement isn't required though. You two are agreeing upon the facts of your debate. If you both look up and see a blue sky, you both need to agree that the sky is indeed 'blue'. The discussion about the colour of the sky ends if you can't agree on the playing field.

If the judge said there were errors in "an inconvenent truth" - even if the judge was mistaken about them - then you are at an impasse on the 'facts' and debate ceases.

[raydan]

And that's the truth.

Pbbbt!

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Do we agree, then, that the judge found errors, given that the judge, in his verdict said "There are errors"?

You have to do it like this Zip - show a consensus:

Attachment:

Judgement.jpg

Hilarious. Hey were you the one that turned me on to this?

Simon's Pie Charts

one of the funniest ever, IMHO.

[Zipperfish]

eureka wrote:

This is getting silly. The judge said clearly that he was giving an opinion and not making a finding of fact. He also, as the commentators did point out, put the qualifying quotes around the repeated word "error."

You may interpret it your way but we are going nowhere with this..

But I'm not interpreting, eureka. I'm quoting you directly:

Quote:

He found no errors, zipperfish

and I am quoting the judgment directly:

Quote:

There are errors

Do we agree, then, that the judge found errors, given that the judge, in his verdict, said "There are errors"?

[eureka]

The problem, doc, is that in law when a judge reaches a conclusion that is not a finding of fact, it is not a finding of fact. If those had been errors, then the plaintiff, the concrete manufacturer, would have won his case and the documentary would not have been allowed to be shown to schools.

But he lost and an Inconvenient Truth is shown without reservation everywhere.

The question of those quotes is key. They are there and they are the judge's commentary on his dismissal of the complaint.

I say this is not worth arguing about. Even had the judge ruled the way zipper interprets it, it would not matter. The explanations of the scientists would show that it was the judge who was in error.

[BartSimpson]

eureka wrote:

an Inconvenient Truth is shown without reservation everywhere.

Everywhere?

C'mon, you don't believe that, do you?

[DrCaleb]

eureka wrote:

I say this is not worth arguing about. Even had the judge ruled the way zipper interprets it, it would not matter. The explanations of the scientists would show that it was the judge who was in error.

You are right, it's not worth it. But Zip is a pretty sharp tool so he was going somewhere with it.

The key to your message though is: "the law != science". The judge can rule however he wants, it does not make it so. Admitting what was in the ruling also does not change scientific fact.

[Zipperfish]

eureka wrote:

The problem, doc, is that in law when a judge reaches a conclusion that is not a finding of fact, it is not a finding of fact. If those had been errors, then the plaintiff, the concrete manufacturer, would have won his case and the documentary would not have been allowed to be shown to schools.

But he lost and an Inconvenient Truth is shown without reservation everywhere.

The question of those quotes is key. They are there and they are the judge's commentary on his dismissal of the complaint.

I say this is not worth arguing about. Even had the judge ruled the way zipper interprets it, it would not matter. The explanations of the scientists would show that it was the judge who was in error.

I am not interpreting how the judge ruled, as you continue to falsely assert. I am quoting the judgment directly--and there are no quotes around the word error, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Nor am I interpreting your coments. I am quoting you verbatim.

This is why you are losing credibility, eureka. This is why, though you feel your beliefs to be based in scientific fact, people here rightly see your beliefs as more akin to that of an overzealous evangelist. Because you have been presented with incontrovertible evidence that contradicts your statement, and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Exactly the same mindset as the deniers you decry.

So the next time you wonder why deniers cannot accept the overwhelming evidence of AGW, you can ask yourself why you cannot accept the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your opinion. Same thing,

[raydan]

Pretty much what I thought about him, Zip, but couldn't put it into words as nice as you. All I could do was imagine Eureka in sandals and shorts, freezing his butt in -40C weather, because he couldn't see/accept the evidence that it was cold outside that day.

[Zipperfish]

raydan wrote:

Pretty much what I thought about him, Zip, but couldn't put it into words as nice as you. .

yes, well I am much smarter than you.

[Gunnair]

Zipperfish wrote:

raydan wrote:

Pretty much what I thought about him, Zip, but couldn't put it into words as nice as you. .

yes, well I am much smarter than you.

Possibly. Some of us sensed this sooner though! Except that was simply picking on the new leftie!

[raydan]

But I got street smarts.

[ShepherdsDog]

Gunnair wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

raydan wrote:

Pretty much what I thought about him, Zip, but couldn't put it into words as nice as you. .

yes, well I am much smarter than you.

Possibly. Some of us sensed this sooner though! Except that was simply picking on the new leftie!

Andy's feeling a little jealous and neglected.