NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php

It's about an hour long but if you get the chance to watch it's interesting.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php

It's about an hour long but if you get the chance to watch it's interesting.

You've not been around over the past few weeks? (not sniping, just saying) We've had several threads on this, and basically, that documentary was a load of bollocks. Durkins, the director is noted for misrepresenting his interviewees, notably Carl Wunsch, who is now considering suing.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

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

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/

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

channel 4 = evil

It may have been taken out of context, but everything that the few scientists who actually were misrepresented said was still 100% fact, whatever the context. Most of the major things raised in that documentary were from scientists and other people who did have trouble with the idea of man made global warming.

It may have been taken out of context, but everything that the few scientists who actually were misrepresented said was still 100% fact, whatever the context. Most of the major things raised in that documentary were from scientists and other people who did have trouble with the idea of man made global warming.

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

It may have been taken out of context, but everything that the few scientists who actually were misrepresented said was still 100% fact, whatever the context.

Wait, what? They were taken out of context, but what they said was still accurate? How does that work?

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

Marcus Brigstock = Awesome

You've not been around over the past few weeks? (not sniping, just saying) We've had several threads on this, and basically, that documentary was a load of bollocks. Durkins, the director is noted for misrepresenting his interviewees, notably Carl Wunsch, who is now considering suing.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

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

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ
So there was one person who realized that he was probably going to lose money for this interview from sponsors. And the rest don't try to hide the fact that they believe what they said. Just fanning the flames. Continue.

So there was one person who realized that he was probably going to lose money for this interview from sponsors. And the rest don't try to hide the fact that they believe what they said. Just fanning the flames. Continue.

Who, Carl Wunsch? And I don't understand what you're trying to say, in the second part.

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

That is possibly the worst thing you could use in defence. This is just a comedian attacking his false ideas of what the documentary was actually saying, when 99.9% of the documentary was not saying that shit at all. Not only does he say right at the start "i'm no scientist" thus making this an un scientific criticism, but he also decides to not attack any of the main scientific points in that program. The only legit thing he attacks is that the solar panels in the african hospital (which already UN standard quality) were apparently shit because to him they look crap (what an argument :rolleyes: ), and thats why they only have enough electricity to power one light in the hospital.

/rant

Wait, what? They were taken out of context, but what they said was still accurate? How does that work?

Because it's still scientific fact, whether he meant that all it means is that there is more work to be done, or that man made global warming is false. Doesn't stop what he said from being true.

Because it's still scientific fact, whether he meant that all it means is that there is more work to be done, or that man made global warming is false. Doesn't stop what he said from being true.
Well, yes it does. In that they eidited his interview to make him present a very different view from that which he holds. Wunsch, in his interview, made the point that apocalyptic scenarios weren't scientifically justifiable, as the models weren't good enough. Not that there wasn't a threat, just that the specifics were unknown.

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434
Context is vital. Editing such as this changes misrepresents his opinion, and renders any credibility the program might have had, meaningless.

-snip-

But a lot of Co2 is coming from under the ocean, and what he said was true.

Anyway... this debate is pointless as I don't support the ruthless way that documentary was made. But I was still happy to see some of the central scientific conflicts being broadcasted to the public.

But a lot of Co2 is coming from under the ocean, and what he said was true.

Well, ok:
-The oceans hold considerable amounts of dissolved CO2. Nobody is contesting that.
-Heating the oceans will cause more CO2 to be released than is absorbed. Again, this isn't in dispute.
-Wunsch is of the opinion that anthropogenic warming will cause the release of more CO2, and that this is a bad thing.
However
-Swindle used context and editing to suggest that 'CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant.'

This is blatant misrepresentation and editing of his interview to support this view, a view which he clearly does not hold. Can you see that?

Anyway... this debate is pointless as I don't support the ruthless way that documentary was made.Fair enough But I was still happy to see some of the central scientific conflicts being broadcasted to the public.
I don't agree that the 'scientific conflicts shown in Swindle actually exist.

Who, Carl Wunsch? And I don't understand what you're trying to say, in the second part.

Yes, Carl. I am saying that it is very possible that what he said wasn't taken out of context and that he just got scolded by whoever pays him. I was also saying that he is the only one to denounce the documentary out of the dozen or so interviewed.

Funny, I'd been watching a documentary on CBC Newsworld about the rapid deterioration of the Andean glaciers, and the rather dramatic impact this has been having on the people and ecosystems of this part of the world. The people in the region have no appreciable impact on local conditions, yet the glaciers are melting faster and faster.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6496429.stm?ls

I tried Googling "Andean glacier" and found the BBC story posted above. I really wish people would give up this lunatic-fringe notion that there's some awful conspiracy afoot to deny them an unfettered consumerist lifestyle.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php

It's about an hour long but if you get the chance to watch it's interesting.

especially when it repeats some retardedly false bullshit that noted climatologist rush limbaugh has been repeating since the early 90s, despite every single piece of evidence anywhere, ever, saying it is flat out wrong.

i'm sorry, but if you claim that human output of CO2 is small compared to volcanic output, you can safely be ignored from then on. there is no reasonable way to make this claim, considering in reality human output is on the order of 100-150 times greater than volcanic emissions, and, in fact, volcanoes are actually linked to cooling effects. thus, by making the claim, they utterly discredit themselves, and are revealed as either lying hacks or fundamentally incapable of basic research. just about the last people you would ever want to turn to for information on anything.