Channel4 are in trouble again for wheeling out right-wing propaganda. They can be forgiven for bad programming once but you have to question their motives since they have had to apologise for Martin Durkin's propaganda before, ten years ago with his anti-green program Against Nature.

On that occasion four of the scientists featured in the program complained about the way their interviews were edited and hence that they were misrepresented. Channel4 had to make an on-screen apology. This is a document on the complaint that was upheld by the ITC:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_publicat...complaint_id=40.html

Conclusion:

"The ITC did not uphold the majority of the complaints. However, the programmes breached the Programme Code in respect of the failure to make the four interviewees adequately aware of the nature of the programmes, and the way their contributions were edited. The Commission directed Channel 4 to issue an on-screen apology to the individuals concerned. The apology was transmitted on Sunday 5 April."

Many of the scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle are paid by the oil industry. The documentary made a big argument how scientists will adapt their research to receive funding. This is the oil pot calling the kettle black.

Of the more respectable scientists featured in GGWS, Carl Wunsch has now complained about being misrepresented:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

Since many people will be complaining to the tv regulator, Channel4 will be forced to apologise again.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

No surprise there.

I regularly read his papers: he likes to put the cat among the pigeons by testing the theory, even if he gets shot down that seems OK by him. He's forced deeper consideration.

That's a real scientist at work always more concerned with ensuring accuracy and comprehensive consideration. His objection is very significant because of his standing.

I've watched Channel 4 since it's first night, and was very fond of it, was being the operative word.

As far as I'm concerned it's failed it's public duty remit so massively it should be thrown to the dogs of the same market forces that govern ITV and Sky.

William Connelly of the British Antarctic Survey:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind.php

"The film features an impressive roll-call of experts. Aha! Argument from authority. Excellent: then IPCC clearly wins, as it has far more than the 9 experts these people claim. Who are these experts?

Tim Ball - hardly impressive as a start.

Next, John Christy - now Christy is a genuine expert, albeit one who has made some mistakes. But what does he have to say? 'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

Disappointing - the old "catastrophe" strawman. Does Christy not engage with the causes, which is nominally what this prog is about. Most likely, though, they will just go for scattershotting stuff in the hope of confusing.

Then Eigil Friis-Christensen, fair enough, though hardly a world-leader. Clouds and cosmic rays, of course, and we'll neglect the lack of an 11-y solar cycle on any recent increase in solar.

And finally Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa explains: Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature. Well no it doesn't; and of course we don't have solar records anyway; but never mind.

So that seems to be it from the experts, unless they are waiting to spring out others as a surprise on the night.

Oh, I missed the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises - gosh, are they really dumb enough to argue that CO2 isn't anthropogenic. Maybe they are - who knows."



With regards Christy and Strawman.

A "strawman argument" is when you pretend your opponent is saying something they aren't, then use it against them.

The strawman is this:

The consensus is that CO2 increase is causing the warming observed since the 1970s and that as the increase in CO2 is known to be due to humans, humans are causing the warming. That is accepted by the vast majority of scientists qualified in the relevant fields.

However what Christy referred to was catastrophe, and it's true, most scientists would be much more qualified in commenting on that and would not say that we are going to have a disaster.

But that does not challenge the fact that almost all of the published science, and almost all of the relevantly qualified scientists do not challenge the theory that more CO2 means a warmer planet and that the signature of human CO2 emissions is clearly evident in the warming of the 20th century.



So if you don't understand the science, but you don't believe in human driven global warming. What makes you think you know better than the scientists?

"But Cobbly, it's a lefty conspiracy, it's the new world order, the Illuminati, they're chasing funding...."

Whaddeva.