[SpiritWarrior]

You're right, it certainly is biased. It's a blog afterall - someones online opinion. I could make a blog saying the opposite and then link that here. A blog has no real context screening standard and cannot be contested if the writer doesn't listen to feedback or care to be accurate.
Our sources differ. According to wikipidea on "The Dimmock Case" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconve...e_Dimmock_case), the judge concluded that "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine 'errors', i.e. statements that he found to depart from the mainstream.
See, they added more errors in that blog. I did take a look at it and some of them are questionable at best. Just with a very brief glance of my non-expert eye, I immediately spotted two suspicious "errors", which coincidentally happens to bring the number back to nine. While some are accurate, many seem to be creative interpretations of the truth, that really could not be decided either way. Yet, alot of the time in these cases they'd dismiss claims that are unproven, as 100% untrue. Hardly open-minded or nuetral. Like this, for example:

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

I have seen numerous documentaries on National Geographic about how global warming is threatening Polar Bears. This drowning situation is always cited, and footage is shown of them half dead as crewman try to help them. To me, this is a sure inaccuracy. Some Polar Bears may die in storms, maybe those ones did, but this situation with increased mortality rate due to them being forced to dive longer as a result of sea ice shrinkage has and is happening. If they discovered that it is totally untrue then I think they forgot to inform the rest of the woirld and the National Geographic channel.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Then there's this. I don't know if the claim is true or not but when a court is unable to substantiate something it is unable to substantiate it. Why does it suddenly become false simply because no-one knows for sure? Usually it is determined that not enough evidence is present and so they can't press charges on a criminal for example. Odd that it was different here. Spin? I don't know, but something is up with that.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

I have an issue with this one too, even though for the most part it's true. That's the problem, the movie "suggests" that this could have caused the hurricane. I never once took that as him having evidence, because we all know there can only be expert speculation in this case and nobody knows for sure. What the movie did point out is the hurricanes and other natural disasters are becoming more frequent, which they are.