Okay, I already think I know the answer to that question. But, really, do the facts matter at all over there? The first sentence of an editorial in today’s Herald says,
So one day a British judge is banning the distribution of Al Gore’s film on global warming from that nation’s schools and days later the former vice president is walking off with the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, sometimes you just can’t keep junk science down.
Really? Well, according to the Mike Nizza of the New York Times and the BBC News, which Mike Nizza cites, and probably every other news organization which cares about the facts, the judge did not ban the film from distribution. He allowed distribution as long as the film was accompanied by information about 9 points made in the film that the judge found to lacking in support. More importantly, the judge did not find that the basic premise of the film lacked support; that is, that climate change is real and serious and caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. BTW, for an interesting analysis of the points raised by the judge see the piece posted by Brendon Keim of Wired which is linked in the NYT piece.
Why does the Herald keep calling itself a newspaper?