NationStates Jolt Archive

A few days ago, channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called "The great climate change swindle" perpetuating the belief that climate change is some kind of elaborate panicy hoax. I'd just like to show you the BBC's response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ

Is this the interview of the scientist who was quoted in the C4 programme?

Is this the interview of the scientist who was quoted in the C4 programme?

No, not at all...

No, not at all...


heh ;)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

Nice one!

Brilliant! What's funny is that the american right wing, bat-shit crazy assholes are gloming onto Derkin's documentary like it's the second coming of J.P. Morgan.

A few days ago, channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called "The great climate change swindle" perpetuating the belief that climate change is some kind of elaborate panicy hoax. I'd just like to show you the BBC's response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ

heheh funny and great points made at the same time

lol! hooray for Mr. Angry marcus brigstock! :p


"The Daily Mail ran a headline last weekend: EU Switches Off Our Lightbulbs. Good grief... only the Daily Mail could try to generate a feeling of nostalgic enertia over a bloody lightbulb!

How many Daily Mail readers does it take to change a lightbulb?
What was wrong with the old one, eh? Remember the good old days when lightbulbs were round and not curly! Oh where is the Britain of our past... is political correctness gone mad?!"


hahaha :p
i love the now show

A few days ago, channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called "The great climate change swindle" perpetuating the belief that climate change is some kind of elaborate panicy hoax. I'd just like to show you the BBC's response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ

That was freaking hilarious. I literally LOL'd. :)

That was freaking hilarious. I literally LOL'd. :)

So did I, especially the bit about the people who two years ago said, "No, not happening" and are now saying, "Okay, it's happening but it's not our fault" being like someone who says, "I did not have an affair and anyway, she seduced me!"

Oh man...yeah that was good LOL!!!

Awesome. Made of lols and truth.

Marcus Brigstocke is funny, but he knows bat shit.

Marcus Brigstocke is funny, but he knows bat shit.

Are you going to argue with his points or just insult him?

He didn't make any point, all it was was ad hominem after ad hominem after ad hominem. He even said right at the beggining of the recording "i'm no scientist but....".

its comedy right? As for ad hominem (a term used far too often) I would say it was satire. After all the basis of his comments does have truth. The programme did misrepresent itself to the scientists and misrepresented at least one prominent scientist who is considering legal action.

I'm no scientist but I know how a wing works. Go figure ;)

Are you going to argue with his points or just insult him?

He didn't make any point, all it was was ad hominem after ad hominem after ad hominem. He even said right at the beggining of the recording "i'm no scientist but....".

He didn't make any point, all it was was ad hominem after ad hominem after ad hominem. He even said right at the beggining of the recording "i'm no scientist but....".

Actually if you listened, he did make several points, namely

- Saying 'lets not do anything because China isnt' is childish
- If you did used to say 'its not happening' and now say 'it may be happening but its not us causing it' makes your motives deeply suspect
- If scientits are wrong about climate change, the consequences are far worse than if we are right
- The facts in the documentary were grossly misrepresented and manipulated

People like him should get 24/7 airtime!

:D Great!!!

Actually if you listened, he did make several points, namely

- Saying 'lets not do anything because China isnt' is childish


Yet the program never, ever, ever once said that.


- If you did used to say 'its not happening' and now say 'it may be happening but its not us causing it' makes your motives deeply suspect


Nothing to do with the program.


- If scientits are wrong about climate change, the consequences are far worse than if we are right


Irellevant.


- The facts in the documentary were grossly misrepresented and manipulated


No they wern't, the words came straight from that scientists mouth, the program never stated that he was anti man made global warming but just showed him stating the huge complexities and flaws in the science. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it, you cannot take science out of context as everything he said was scientific fact. Whether or not the rest of what he was going to say was arguments for global warming, that doesn't stop everything he said in the program from being true.

No they wern't, the words came straight from that scientists mouth, the program never stated that he was anti man made global warming but just showed him stating the huge complexities and flaws in the science. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it, you cannot take science out of context as everything he said was scientific fact. Whether or not the rest of what he was going to say was arguments for global warming, that doesn't stop everything he said in the program from being true.

i should imagine the chorus of people claiming the facts were misrepresented are saying so because one side of the debate was presented without the counterbalance, which the interviewees would have otherwise presented had they not been 'duped'
arguing only one side of an arguement is misrepresenting the whole arguement.

i however did not see the program in question, but that's what i understand misrepresentation is in this context. not to mention 'taking scientists' quotes out of context' may in fact also involve high levels of video editing to again only present one side of the debate, as witnessed by the Channel 4 on-air apology mentioned in Marcus' rant.

No they wern't, the words came straight from that scientists mouth

Listen to the program again...it says quite clearly that there were massive distinctions between the edited and unedited versions of the interviews with the scientists. And also scientitsts since have pointed out that the data used by the program was out of date. (See the 15th March edition of the Times)

Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with the enviromentalists that contributed had indeed distorted or misrepresented there own views. It was also found the production company had misled them

No they wern't, the words came straight from that scientists mouth, the program never stated that he was anti man made global warming but just showed him stating the huge complexities and flaws in the science. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it, you cannot take science out of context as everything he said was scientific fact. Whether or not the rest of what he was going to say was arguments for global warming, that doesn't stop everything he said in the program from being true.

Oh really? (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

Looks like the facts were distorted. Sorry.

No they wern't, the words came straight from that scientists mouth, the program never stated that he was anti man made global warming but just showed him stating the huge complexities and flaws in the science. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it, you cannot take science out of context as everything he said was scientific fact. Whether or not the rest of what he was going to say was arguments for global warming, that doesn't stop everything he said in the program from being true.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

I think this guy might take issue with what you are saying...

A few days ago, channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called "The great climate change swindle" perpetuating the belief that climate change is some kind of elaborate panicy hoax.

Quoted for lolz.

Listen to the program again...it says quite clearly that there were massive distinctions between the edited and unedited versions of the interviews with the scientists.

I do not deny that they were cloistered with the anti man made global warming crowd and thus implied to be part of that crowd, I also do not deny that they cut the interviews and only should parts of the interview that displayed their point. However the environmentalists still said it, it is still scientific fact what they said.

I do not deny that they were cloistered with the anti man made global warming crowd and thus implied to be part of that crowd, I also do not deny that they cut the interviews and only should parts of the interview that displayed their point. However the environmentalists still said it, it is still scientific fact what they said.

Erm, nope. It isnt. The data is out of date, as has been said in the Times, and the producer of the program was shown this in the Times.

Also, he claimed that Solar power didnt work, using an example of an African hospital. Seriously...

I do not deny that they were cloistered with the anti man made global warming crowd and thus implied to be part of that crowd, I also do not deny that they cut the interviews and only should parts of the interview that displayed their point. However the environmentalists still said it, it is still scientific fact what they said.

Yeah, how about following the link I gave. They deliberately removed context so that statements in support of global warming appeared to be against it.

I do not deny that they were cloistered with the anti man made global warming crowd and thus implied to be part of that crowd, I also do not deny that they cut the interviews and only should parts of the interview that displayed their point. However the environmentalists still said it, it is still scientific fact what they said.

true, but me providing a bit of evidence that, say, supports the arguement that the holocaust never happened doesn't make it true, no matter who says it or how factual that particular part of the puzzle is. you got to look at all sides of the debate, something this "documentary" deliberately avoided in an attempt to either grab ratings or seem 'right' (and documentaries, on prime time public television, should really try to be more impartial than that...)

We've got Al Gores documentary for that, which also happens to be incredibly one sided, scewed and based on out of date evidence.

Remember the majority of people on there were anti man made global warming, and most of the evidence supporting natural globar warming came from people who actually believed it.

i wouldn't know... i didn't see the program or Al Gore's movie :p

true, but me providing a bit of evidence that, say, supports the arguement that the holocaust never happened doesn't make it true, no matter who says it or how factual that particular part of the puzzle is. you got to look at all sides of the debate, something this "documentary" deliberately avoided in an attempt to either grab ratings or seem 'right' (and documentaries, on prime time public television, should really try to be more impartial than that...)

We've got Al Gores documentary for that, which also happens to be incredibly one sided, scewed and based on out of date evidence.

Remember the majority of people on there were anti man made global warming, and most of the evidence supporting natural globar warming came from people who actually believed it.

Remember the majority of people on there were anti man made global warming, and most of the evidence supporting natural globar warming came from people who actually believed it.

Read the goddamn link I gave. They weren't supporting natural global warming. They were supporting man-made global warming. The producers twisted it and raped the context to make it look like they were supporting natural warming.

I said the majority, not all of them.

Quite clearly that isnt the case, if a formal apology had to be sumitted on prime time.

Read the goddamn link I gave. They weren't supporting natural global warming. They were supporting man-made global warming. The producers twisted it and raped the context to make it look like they were supporting natural warming.

I said the majority, not all of them.

Oh really? (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

Looks like the facts were distorted. Sorry.

Don't be duped. You know the liberal conspiracy in the uni made him say that!

Quite clearly that isnt the case, if a formal apology had to be sumitted on prime time.

I would expect an apology even if one scientist had been duped.

I would expect an apology even if one scientist had been duped.

The question is: if Derkin is right in his point of view, which you have demonstrated that you totally agree with, why would ANYONE need to be 'duped'? Or, why would he need to so strategcally edit his footage to make his case? You're just flailing for anything that has the faintest glimmer of agreeing with you, and are utterly afraid of being wrong. For what reason is totally beyond me. What's in it for you? Honestly.

The question is: if Derkin is right in his point of view, which you have demonstrated that you totally agree with, why would ANYONE need to be 'duped'? Or, why would he need to so strategcally edit his footage to make his case? You're just flailing for anything that has the faintest glimmer of agreeing with you, and are utterly afraid of being wrong. For what reason is totally beyond me. What's in it for you? Honestly.

Funnily enough, I am actually on the fence on global warming, but it is so boring to argue for the pro man made side and I do believe that there is a terrible ellitism/bias within the scientific community which is may be a reason why I never normally debate for man made global warming. Documentaries are alllllways cutting and edditing and taking things out of context, the fact that this particular issue is very contraversial will obviously cause a lot more of an uproar. I do not know where you get this impression that I am afraid of being wrong.

It was funny, buy the guy seemed a bit pretentious at times. Certainly greens have something to be gained by perpetuating the idea of man-made global warming, and that is the implementation of environmental and economic regulations that they supported long before global warming became an issue. For them, that's a greater reward than anything material.
That's not even mentioning that the issue has opened up a brand new angle from which politicians and the media can spew superficial garbage.

I'm not saying that man-made global warming isn't happening, and I'm not saying that the regulations recommended by most greens are bad, but it's dishonest to say that no one has anything to gain from it.

Certainly greens have something to be gained by perpetuating the idea of man-made global warming

Very true, but since when have green activists been running the media or influencing national economic policy?

I would expect an apology even if one scientist had been duped.In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected. Excerpt from CWs public reaction to the Swindle. That, as well as his initial communication with Steven Green & Co. and his post-Swindle communication to Steven Green can be found here. (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

So when's the apology comming?

Incidentially, there's rules (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--i.htm) for just how you can mash shit together and air it as a documentary on British TV. Swindle would appear to have failed to abide by those rules in a surprisingly consistent way - seemingly in an attempt to be mostly content-free propaganda.

Channel 4 Programme In "Load Of Shite" Shocker.

Very true, but since when have green activists been running the media or influencing national economic policy?

Since about 2000, when the slimy politicians found out the green vote could be used in the so called swing seats to gain a few extra votes.

These 'swing seats' are actually the focus of every politicians aim, they could'nt give a f**k about the true blue or true red areas because they will always return a blue or red politician (giving rise to the old saying 'they'd elect a donkey as MP if you stuck a red rosette on it')

As for the global warming thing, nothing will be done about it, as it provides a nice little earner for all those who hang onto it
If governments were really serious about tackling CO2 emission, they'd go for one of the main sources, that being power generation and force the companies to build nuclear and wind powered pumped storage hydro
Instead they come up with bright ideas :D about banning lightbulbs and adding more taxes to people's lives:upyours:

El-Presidente Boris

I hope some of the ideas in the documentery are true, because a lot of people will look realy stupid if they are

Since about 2000, when the slimy politicians found out the green vote could be used in the so called swing seats to gain a few extra votes.While there's at least some truth to that, it doesn't mean politicians will act to please. Precedent shows they'll only pretend to.


As for the global warming thing, nothing will be done about it, as it provides a nice little earner for all those who hang onto itRubbish. Nothing much is being done, because it's too slow, too complicated, and hits people with too much economic (and thus political) power.

EDIT: And because those fucking Greens don't want nuclear power! Infuriating how our biosphere got mixed up in their ideological wank. I'm a fucking Green, and even I'm not daft enough to think there's any alternative.

It's not much different from if there'd been a lethal plague sweeping Europe in the Darkages that only infected clergy. The Church wouldn't have disestablished itself 'til the last idiot priest was dead.

I hope some of the ideas in the documentery are true, because a lot of people will look realy stupid if they areI would've hoped so too, but I've seen it. There's nothing in it one can hope is true. It's just a load of debunked shit and strawmen. It's not like religion where you at least can't positively rule out the existence of the shit they talk about. The propaganda piece is here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=swindle) if you haven't seen it.

NB: Don't watch it if you don't have a sense of humour, or it'll ruin your day. Sort of like watching US presidential debates.

Very true, but since when have green activists been running the media or influencing national economic policy?

Which is why there's no huge scam. They certainly have their own kind of influence on the media and there are a few federal agencies that help 'em out, but nothing that could perpetuate a world-wide conspiracy.

Just because they have something to gain doesn't make global warming untrue.

Since about 2000, when the slimy politicians found out the green vote could be used in the so called swing seats to gain a few extra votes.


Come off it - it's one thing for a party to make some speeches about protecting the environment, quite another to actually do anything.

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/17/td070317.gif

So, let me get this straight. On one side, we have Channel Four and the Daily Mail, and on the other the entire British academic world.

Which to trust..?

So, let me get this straight. On one side, we have Channel Four and the Daily Mail, and on the other the entire British academic world.

Which to trust..?

It's a dilemma, isn't it?

Another interesting link. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

It's a dilemma, isn't it?
You mean you don't trust the Mail!:eek:

Another interesting link. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

NewScientist has something similar:
FEW areas of science have implications as momentous as those of climate change. Much is riding not only on ensuring that the science is as accurate as possible but also on getting the political and social response right. Given the high stakes, it is hardly surprising that scientists' methods and conclusions are coming under considerable scrutiny. This is as it should be. After all, scepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.

Scepticism is one thing; cynicism and conspiracy-theorising are quite another. These are the hallmarks of a recent attempt to discredit the widely accepted theory that human-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. A loose affiliation of scientists and writers is pushing the alternative idea that fluctuations in solar activity provide a better explanation for the rise and fall in the temperature of Earth's atmosphere over the past few centuries.

Their basic argument goes something like this. When the cosmic rays that constantly bombard Earth from outer space hit water vapour rising from the oceans, they cause clouds to form in the atmosphere which shield the planet from solar radiation and cause it to cool. The sun's magnetic field dampens the effect of cosmic rays, so reducing cloud cover and causing Earth to heat up. Thus an active sun makes for a warmer planet - a correlation these scientists claim is borne out by the records.

Readers in the UK may have seen the most recent incarnation of this theory in the Channel 4 television programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast last week. The programme questioned not only the mainstream of global warming science but also the integrity of the researchers involved in it. As I am the head of the major funder of climate science in the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), such accusations of bias, lying and prejudice were bound to catch my attention.

First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role. The climate system is complex and it is likely that many factors affect it, cosmic rays among them. But to claim they are a major influence is disingenuous. There is far greater evidence suggesting CO2 is the major cause of warming.
"To claim that cosmic rays are a major influence is disingenuous"

Another claim made by the sceptics relates to the observation that in the long-term history of Earth's climate, variations in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have lagged behind variations in the temperature of the atmosphere. Therefore, they say, the theory that human-produced greenhouse gases are the cause of current warming must be wrong.

Not so. True, the historical rhythm of major ice ages and interglacial periods is set by Earth's orbital variations, known as Milankovitch cycles, not by levels of greenhouse gases. However, these cycles in turn trigger feedback effects - such as increases or decreases in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - which amplify the change in temperature.

There is no question that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes. It is not the only mechanism for warming, but it is a prominent one. We are adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in a way that has never happened before. The physics of how these gases cause warming by trapping the sun's radiation within the lower atmosphere - the greenhouse effect - is well established and it is no surprise that temperatures have been rising over the past 40 years. What's more, from the comprehensive models that climate scientists have built up, it is clear that only human-made greenhouse gases can explain this warming. Other factors, such as solar variations, have been found to be insignificant in comparison.

This debate is not just about science. Implicit in the sceptics' message is the suggestion that scientists are lying about the role of CO2 in climate change. The impression given is that this is a conspiracy; that climate scientists are deliberately trying to mislead the public, either to affect policy because of their private political motivations or to be more successful in attracting research funding.

Again, this is not backed up by any evidence. In my experience the climate science community operates at the highest ethical level and sticks to the scientific evidence.

The problem with debating the science of something like climate change is that it is hard for the public to assess the arguments across the whole spectrum of scientific opinion. It is partly in recognition of this that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change periodically publishes its scientific assessments that draw together the full body of knowledge on the subject. That is not a political process. It is a scientific one. Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence.

And on a related not, this is quite interesting:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11390-catalyst-could-help-turn-cosub2sub-into-fuel.html

Well the documentary got one things right, the global warming hysterics are (or soon will be) telling the developing world to stop developing the way that they are because they are polluting too much and jeopardising the future. Since most governments in the developing world know full well how Western countries industrialised, and don't have the luxury to slow down their growth rates (higher unemployment would cause far more social troubles in these countries than it would in any Western nation + Japan); their response will and always will be :upyours:

Well the documentary got one things right, the global warming hysterics are (or soon will be) telling the developing world to stop developing the way that they are because they are polluting too much and jeopardising the future. Since most governments in the developing world know full well how Western countries industrialised, and don't have the luxury to slow down their growth rates (higher unemployment would cause far more social troubles in these countries than it would in any Western nation + Japan); their response will and always will be :upyours:

Hysterics?

So, let me get this straight. On one side, we have Channel Four and the Daily Mail, and on the other the entire British academic world.

Which to trust..?

Toughie.

Well the documentary got one things right, the global warming hysterics are

Global warming hysterics?

We've got Al Gores documentary for that, which also happens to be incredibly one sided, scewed and based on out of date evidence.

Then why, prey tell has Al Gore not had to publically apologise for misrepresenting the public, where as Martin Durkin has, for seriously twisting the words of the scientitsts

It was funny, buy the guy seemed a bit pretentious at times. Certainly greens have something to be gained by perpetuating the idea of man-made global warming, and that is the implementation of environmental and economic regulations that they supported long before global warming became an issue. For them, that's a greater reward than anything material.

I'm sorry...let me get this straight. The greens do have something to benefit from the implimentation of enviromental and economic regulations and that is the implimentation of enviromental and economic regulations?

If there is some kind of conspiricy there must, logically, be some kind of motive which involves those orcistrating it to be benefited further. What benefit would green people recieve from this? After all they would be equally affected by these changes.