Just watched "the great global warming swindle" made by channel 4 in 2007.
Whilst the programme wanders off course a few times and starts getting a little pro-captilism and acuses enviornmentalists of crippling thrid world
countries, the science is very interesting.
I have never really gone along with climate change skeptism, but I have also never seen any hard facts that prove it either. It was refreshing to see
it laid out so openly, by highly reputed scientists too.
That said, I do think the information has been sensationised a little to make the "swindle" seem more shocking... anyway watch the program,
the worst you can do is waste an hour of your life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Watch part 1 through 9 for the full film (though in my opinion the last couple are just cheap digs at certain groups)
now look up on the web for the retractions and apologies from the film to get a more balanced view.
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
I have never really gone along with climate change skeptism, but I have also never seen any hard facts that prove it either. It was refreshing to see it laid out so openly, by highly reputed scientists too.
sorry, I wasn't saying it is the whole story, but interesting to hear the other side of the story - I imagine somewhere in the middle is (as usual) the truth
Most of what the program said is probably true.
No such thing as a balanced view on climate change sooner or latter people are going to get burned at the stake for questioning man made global
warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
I have never really gone along with climate change skeptism, but I have also never seen any hard facts that prove it either. It was refreshing to see it laid out so openly, by highly reputed scientists too.
Personally i'm always sceptical of these sort of programmes. They are written by producers and journalists....... who then find the scientists to give the evidence to support what they want you to believe.
Take what you learn from this programme and balance it with plenty of others before making up your mind I recon.
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Just watched "the great global warming swindle" made by channel 4 in 2007.
Whilst the programme wanders off course a few times and starts getting a little pro-captilism and acuses enviornmentalists of crippling thrid world countries, the science is very interesting.
I have never really gone along with climate change skeptism, but I have also never seen any hard facts that prove it either. It was refreshing to see it laid out so openly, by highly reputed scientists too.
That said, I do think the information has been sensationised a little to make the "swindle" seem more shocking... anyway watch the program, the worst you can do is waste an hour of your life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Watch part 1 through 9 for the full film (though in my opinion the last couple are just cheap digs at certain groups)
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
sorry, I wasn't saying it is the whole story, but interesting to hear the other side of the story - I imagine somewhere in the middle is (as usual) the truth
Its an interesting program, its not all made up, its just a different version of the story using the same stats.
Interesting that I was reading this story yesterday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6941616/BBC-to-launch-review-into-allegations-of-bias-in-its-science-coverage.html
quote:
The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, said he was sent the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, indicating that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years, a month before the story broke.
It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and it reignited the debate over whether the corporation is biased on the issue of climate change.
Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy" to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
The review, which will be published in 2011, will assess science output relating to public policy and "matters of political controversy".
Amongst the most biased and dramatised account I have seen in ages. Widely criticised for fabricating/exagerating/misinteretation. very few in the know would consider it a fact based program, mores omething to get the headlines and the viewers numbers up...
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
I have never really gone along with climate change skeptism, but I have also never seen any hard facts that prove it either. It was refreshing to see it laid out so openly, by highly reputed scientists too.
Personally i'm always sceptical of these sort of programmes. They are written by producers and journalists....... who then find the scientists to give the evidence to support what they want you to believe.
Take what you learn from this programme and balance it with plenty of others before making up your mind I recon.
Problem is most of the work that "proves" global warming is bassed on faked or at least massaged data.
This TV programme was roundly criticised at the time and even several of the contirbuting scientists complained that they had been mis-represented.
The programme's title revealed that it wasn't going present a balanced view of the pro/com evidence.
When it was first shown there was an "ask the expert" section on the website of the makers and on it the expert admitted he couldn't
support the show's message. That doesn't seem to be online anymore though.
For some balance it's worth reading this:
Swindle-swindle
And for those who think 'Climategate' was in some way a total debunking of the evidence, look at the other 3 corroborating sources of
temperature data, starting perhaps here: NASA
It's extremely difficult to get any unbiased discussion of this subject, probbaly because it has such far-reaching implications. However, for
that very same reason it makes sense surely that we don't jump on either pro/con bandwagon but keep an open mind and assess scientific evidence
as it comes to light, preferably not through the filter of the media.
guardian.co.uk
Quote
"Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists"
End quote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
I think most of the problems root from Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'
How can we take it seriously when told by a politician who alegedly has not spoken a truthful word in his life
Very few people will read the hacked emails (because there's so many of them), but I read about 50 before losing interest as there didn't
seem to be much more in there than petty squabling between people with obvious history of conflict. There is an interesting discussion of them here
though, by people who did read them rather than just the choicest soundbites.
Detailed analysis of alleged data tinkering
This is also an interesting site with discussions (and supporting evidence) for the common issues raised.
Skeptical Science