Sense, Nonsense, and Not-Sense

I did see the articles about the UK court case. I'm disappointed that this is the best example you can come up with. The judge in this case in fact found that the key arguments in the documentary are supported by scientific opinion. Out of thousands of assertions made in the film, the judge found only 9 to be problematic. The plaintiff in the case has motives that are seriously suspect. According to the Observer this gentleman "was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming." And the High Court ruling was hardly a death blow to "An Inconvenient Truth." It will still be shown in British secondary schools.

With all science, it's always possible to exploit the inevitable gap between scientific consensus and the available evidence. This is particularly evident when consumer products such as food additives, etc., are deemed to be carcinogenic. The point is, those whose profits would be affected as a result of policy changes dictated by scientific consensus will always hold the science affecting them to a higher standard of proof than they would the research done in their favor.

Who, exactly, is saying "unless someone gives them power/money right away, something drastic is going to happen that only they can stop!" That sounds like an unoriginal comic book scenario. I suggest that, on the contrary, it's the people behind the industries that stand to lose money if global warming is taken seriously who are being called on the scam they've been perpetrating for decades.