Clearly the documentary has struck a chord and there's not a small number of people gloating over the evidence featured in the programme.
However, does it not concern any of them that not once did the documentary allow any scientist who believes in current Global Warming theory to speak for themselves? Their opinions were represented exclusively by the narration, sometimes quite sneeringly. By the standards of science film-making, if we compare against Horizon, Equinox, etc, this means that 'Swindle' was exceptionally flawed. Just bad journalism.
For a documentary claiming to break an ideological tyranny, it's remarkable that it could not tolerate any criticism of its own very selective evidence.
It is a shame the important voices of scientific dissent have been so very poorly served by a biased film-maker, Martin Durkin.
It was biased but it was a polemic after all. The whole point was to present an unorthodox view which has, to be fair, probably been suppressed by the media. So I have no problem with the fact that it was one sided, despite the fact it was deeply flawed.
It would be nice of someone (BBC?) could commission an nice "balanced" documentary with a follow up debate to discuss this material.
Phil
I agree that a debate would clarify some issues that were not adequately proved on the Swindle programme. To be fair to all the posters who mistrust the Channel 4 prog, this was the first time I have seen anyone try and redress the balance over the hysterical stuff we've been subjected to recently. Let's get our feet back on the ground, while there's ground to put them on.
Perhaps it is fair comment that a polemic shouldn't necessarily feature counter-arguments. For me though, that changes when selective science is used to enforce the bias, it is obviously misleading to include only the evidence you agree with and daub that as scientific proof of your opinion without any mention of a caveat.
In most polemics, of any kind, the opposition is given some chance to speak for themselves - indeed it helps the viewer scrutinise their case. Again, that did not happen here.
How very telling it would have been to represent the data to a pro-AGW scientist or activist and watch them squirm. You have to wonder why that didn't happen.
You make a valid point regarding a balanced argument but we havent had that. This programme is a response to all the hype and misinformation that is already out there. There have been suggestions that this is a conspiricy theory what a load of rubbish these are eminent scientists recognised top in their field who are a bit more than upset about being posted as the 2500 leading scientists on the un report. I consider myself open minded I agree with recycling and reducing polution this programme was full of evidence to back the claims of the participants Tony Blair has told us we are resposible for global warming offering no evidence of fact. On the back of his claims his goverment has put a fuel duty on passengers due to rake in 1 Billion pounds for the treasury the scandal is that it is not earmarked for any improvements to transport or alike. Finally C02 is produced in vast ammounts by volanoes animals, from the sea. The argument is the wrong way round when temperatures rise C02 will follow....This is only the start of a true debate.
'these are eminent scientists recognised top in their field who are a bit more than upset about being posted as the 2500 leading scientists on the un report.'
Only some of them, the majority of 'eminent scientists recognised top in their field' who agree with AGW were not featured, indeed completely ignored. How can an argument be made against them when they aren't properly represented in it?
The documentary is just as bad as the hegemony it attacks. It says the AGW theorists can't face any critique, but then it didn't allow any scrutiny of its own theories.
Indeed, we're left to discuss it on the internet, rather than see the rebuttals on Channel 4 where they belong.
Originally posted by James O: However, does it not concern any of them that not once did the documentary allow any scientist who believes in current Global Warming theory to speak for themselves?
Maybe there aren't any pro-AGW climate scientists. Was the Stern report written by some eminent climatologist? Nope an economist. Are the most vocal leaders of the pro-AGW debate climatologist? Nope journalist, politician and the ‘we are doomed’ believers.
In fact I can’t recall any pro-AGW climate scientists voicing a strong opinion about man-made global warming – so maybe there are non.
The human activity cause of global warming has had massive and world wide publicity, while the dissenting view has had almost none. This programme has been one chance for scientists to put a different view and there is no reason why they shuold give the other side of the case in this programme. Did the pro-human activity cause people criticise Al Gore's film on the grounds that it only gave one side?
'Maybe there aren't any pro-AGW climate scientists.'
There quite certainly are plenty, if you care to research what you're saying.
'This programme has been one chance for scientists to put a different view and there is no reason why they shuold give the other side of the case in this programme. Did the pro-human activity cause people criticise Al Gore's film on the grounds that it only gave one side?'
Again, I'm not saying the Al Gore film was any better. With such a contentious subject, a polemic that sets out to prove something ought be able to scrutinise what it's saying, rather than carrying on without a pause to ponder, what if?
An Inconvenient Truth annoyed me because it used a very lazy argument, basically just saying correlation means causation- obviously scared of boring the audience by talking about anything more complex than a big graph.
What is always lacking in the media is a proper presentation of the whole AGW rationale, including rebuttals of the cynics' arguments. Just saying "the debate is over" isn't going to convince anyone.
*Just saying "the debate is over" isn't going to convince anyone.*
Unfortunately it is convincing a lot of people and that is why programmes like Swindle are so important. We should never swallow ideas hook line and sinker without question. The media have a lot to answer for.
I swing from side to side on this issue which tells me logically that if both sides have a point then the truth must lie somewhere in the rather boring middle.
Down with extremism and long live the moderate revolution!
As Brian says you can 'fiddle' with the figures to read what you like as long as you speak loudly and confidently to explain it!!! lol
What is going on here!! someone really needs to finalise this debate, if it means job loses to tell the truth what is the answer??? if a whole business is based on a lie does the lie go unchallenged??
C4 Forums 
