Martin Durkin, the maker of this program, has a track record of misrepresenting scientific facts to further his own obscure agenda, whatever that may be.
For instance, in 2000 he produced a program claiming that silicon breast implants are beneficial and reduce the risk of breast cancer, thereby ignoring a whole body of scientific evidence claiming the opposite. The program was refused by BBC after research had shown his claims to be largely false, but later accepted by Channel 4. The researcher at Channel 4 walked out after two weeks, claiming all her research was ignored by him.
This man constantly misrepresents scientific facts and opinions of scientists, e.g. in 2002 a scientist in his program on genetic modification complained of gross misrepresentation, in 1997 the Independent Television Complaints commission wrote on one of his other programs: the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part".
It is a real shame that Channel 4 continues to give this man a public forum!
All of which is quite true, there's no scientific argument about the course his career has taken and the fallings out involved.
I can understand people have different opinions about AGW, what I can't conceive of is why the anti-AGW aren't worried the documentary was made by a clown like Durkin. Too busy celebrating a victory it seems.
Very true... I just guess no one bothered to check.
If the program had just highlighted the uncertainty surrounding global warming, that would have fine by me. However, it presented that uncertainty as a established "scientific truth" that is being repressed by a scientific establishment trying to protect its own vested interests. And that is what makes it so objectionable.
Yeah, damn straight! And someone tell me this, why did some of the graphics on that show suggest the Earth isn't flat?!!! I mean, we couldn't live on a ball, that'd be ridiculous!
If someone is known to have misrepresented facts in the past, why would you trust him in this particular instance? Just because you WANT to believe him?
Originally posted by Diego A.: Yeah, damn straight! And someone tell me this, why did some of the graphics on that show suggest the Earth isn't flat?!!! I mean, we couldn't live on a ball, that'd be ridiculous!
I also thought that Channel 4 didn't go about promoting the programme in a terribly responsible manner. Instead of taking the sting out of a more polemic than informative title, they went right with it and presented this programme as the definitive end to the whole global warming debate, dispensing with decades of research of the scientific community. This is hardly a balanced approach by a channel that I have so far seen as pretty much the most open and progressive of the five terrestrial channels. Or maybe that is not true for the whole channel but only John Snow, anyway.
Originally posted by Hobbes007: Once a liar, always a liar.
If someone is known to have misrepresented facts in the past, why would you trust him in this particular instance? Just because you WANT to believe him?
I don’t trust him any more than the editor of the Independent newspaper.
But since people are telling me I am destroying the world. I think only fair for them to prove it beyond doubt. Is that so unreasonable?
Originally posted by so is it true?: I also thought that Channel 4 didn't go about promoting the programme in a terribly responsible manner. Instead of taking the sting out of a more polemic than informative title, they went right with it and presented this programme as the definitive end to the whole global warming debate, dispensing with decades of research of the scientific community. This is hardly a balanced approach by a channel that I have so far seen as pretty much the most open and progressive of the five terrestrial channels. Or maybe that is not true for the whole channel but only John Snow, anyway.
They should really stick to Big Brother - it was laughable stuff - harked back to Rod Liddle's pathetic critique of Atheism - innacuracies-selective interpretation of the evidence etc etc. It seems Channel 4 have abandoned serious programming - oh well at least Jade may have understood it too.
So the guy got in wrong previously. And Bush and Blair never have so lets believe them and their experts - after all they found all those weapons in Iraq, right?
Face it guys nuclear power is so much safer than fossil fuels, and so long as we get rid C02 emissions we can pollute the planet as much as we like with all the other crap.
And hey, if Afgrica has no technology of its own we can keep it in ecomonic slavery for decades to come! Hurrah for us!
You are attacking side issues. I am not a proponent of nuclear power, and I am not a proponent of keeping Africa in slavery. However, that does not mean that global warming is not a threat.
The point is that Durkin willfully misleads people. He has done it again for this program, please see my other post on Carl Wunsch's reaction.
Originally posted by Diego A.: Yeah, damn straight! And someone tell me this, why did some of the graphics on that show suggest the Earth isn't flat?!!! I mean, we couldn't live on a ball, that'd be ridiculous!
Your point?
Think about it man! If the Earth was a ball everyone would have to live right on the top! I know it's flat because I went from one end to the other on Google Earth - flat as a blueberry pancake. You could ride a bandwagon over the whole damn thing!
Originally posted by Hobbes007: You are attacking side issues. I am not a proponent of nuclear power, and I am not a proponent of keeping Africa in slavery. However, that does not mean that global warming is not a threat.
The point is that Durkin willfully misleads people. He has done it again for this program, please see my other post on Carl Wunsch's reaction.
He might have misleading fact. but he does have a point when he points out there might be hidden agenda that driven by extreme environmentalists.
I don't mind saving energy, resources, or recycling. Many things the moderate environmentalists suggest are generally a good thing to both humanity and the planet and whoever lives on the Earth. But the way the UK government is doing is simply taking any opportunity to tax ppl.
Furthermore, the west should demonstrate how to produce electricity by not burning things first before forcing developing countries to buy expansive equipments. I think the government should change the building regulation such any new houses should have PV panel fitted although they are not quite efficient yet.
You may be right that some people have a point, cfr. Bush with his recent useless pledge to go for biodiesel and ethonal (agro-industrial lobby is behind that)... but let that not sidetrack us from the main issue: man-made global warming IS a threat.
I don't think nuclear power is a side-issue. I think it is a key issue. If the debate and the science is being hi-jacked by powerful and wealthy groups with their own agendas, then how do we tell what the truth is. And both sides have hiden agendas, not just one. And the programme never seaid global warming wasn't taking place, it said it wasn't caused by C02.
There can be no doubt that the media are hyping up the global warming agenda for their own ends either - or that people are cashing in and are confusing the issues for their own ends.
I think there have been some unfair criticisms in this thread. Documentaries are essentially the product of collaborative team-work, and give voice to groups of individuals whose collective views create the overall message of the programme. To say that The Great Global Warming Swindle is purely the perspective of the producer, Martin Durkin, is rubbish. Of course he has an influence. But the content is there for all to see and hear.
Top scientists have made very revolutionary statements which seriously oppose the forces of fashion. They are brave men indeed, and should be applauded for their courage. Channel 4 should also be congratulated for giving this alternative scientific view the airtime it deserves. There is no single way of seeing anything on this planet. The more perspectives we have on any problem, the more chance there will be of finding a real solution. Individually we are weak, but collectively we are strong.
Only a fool would deny that the sun is controlling our weather. Our ability to survive long-term climate changes will require a far bigger debate than simply discussing ways of controlling Co2 emissions. The reality is that oil production has peaked, and the gap is widening between supply and demand. We are being forced to examine alternative energies on which our "civilisation" currently depends. As a result, Governments are conveniently using "global warming" as a means of preparing us for the necessary painful changes of lifestyle ahead. Everyone will have to adopt ways of conserving the finite natural resources of this planet.
The UK represents a tiny percentage of the global population - yet we persist in enjoying a totally unrealistic lifestyle when compared with the changes we ought to be making as an "educated" responsible nation. Time is running out. The time for talk is nearly over - we need urgent action. The solutions involve localisation of food and energy supplies. We can no longer support the "luxury" of vegetables flown in Co2 emmitting jets from the four corners of the world - we need to rebuild our farms as producers of clean bio-fuels and organic foods. There is a whole culture change ahead. The sooner we realise this and start making personal sacrifices, the less painful it will be in the long-run.
