I'd like to ask everyone in this forum to complain to Ofcom, and also to channel 4, about the "Swindle" documentary.
Whatever you may think about the science, it should be obvious to everyone who's been following this forum recently that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was an extremely biased, one-sided polemic. No mainstream climate scientists were interviewed (apart from Carl Wunsch, who now says he was lied to about the nature of the program!).
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the mainstream scientific view of climate change -- which this program opposed -- is broadly correct. In that case, the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic... but if we all pull together to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could save save millions of lives, and avoid the worst economic and environmental effects. However, if a lot of people are persuaded, wrongly, that AGW is a lie, then this task will be a great deal harder.
This doesn't mean that dissenting views should not be heard. However, it is clearly important that when these arguments are presented to the public, by a public service broadcaster in a "science documentary", they should also give people a chance to hear what mainstream scientists have to say in reply. Not to do so, I think, is shamefully irresponsible.
This program did not allow that.
Also, the film was misleading because it gave no information about the political and/or corporate PR affiliations of many of the interviewees. For example, Pat Michaels was referred to as a "founder of Greenpeace". It was not meantioned that he left after a few years, to launch a highly successful Public Relations firm, working to help his corporate clients fight environmental criticism of their activities. Paul Driessen is another interviewee with no climate science credentials whatsoever -- he is also principal of Global-Comm Partners, a Northern Virginia corporate PR firm specializing in energy and environmental public policy issues. Many of the other speakers are closely affiliated with a variety or right-wing "not for profit", advocacy groups -- heavily supported by donations from big business.
I think its a scandal that WagTV channel 4 has concealed this obviously relevant information from viewers. It surely would make a lot of people think twice about the credibility of the film!
If you really feel dedicated, you can complain to the advertisers who's commercials appeared during the programme. These include: Volkswagon, Hastings & Direct, Bradford & Bingley, Visa, Yakurt, Orange, Audi, Virgin Media, Mitchelin, Zurich finance, Wrigley (orbit gum), Ing Direct (finance), Magners Cider, confused.com (insurance), Christian Dior (J'adore), Kraft foods (Toblerone, Cote d'or), Nat West, Love Films, Citreon, Nissan, Expedia, Microsoft, Ibuleve, Otex ear drops.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Originally posted by TheHeretic: I'd like to ask everyone in this forum to complain to Ofcom, and also to channel 4, about the "Swindle" documentary.
Whatever you may think about the science, it should be obvious to everyone who's been following this forum recently that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was an extremely biased, one-sided polemic. No mainstream climate scientists were interviewed (apart from Carl Wunsch, who now says he was lied to about the nature of the program!).
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the mainstream scientific view of climate change -- which this program opposed -- is broadly correct. In that case, the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic... but if we all pull together to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could save save millions of lives, and avoid the worst economic and environmental effects. However, if a lot of people are persuaded, wrongly, that AGW is a lie, then this task will be a great deal harder.
This doesn't mean that dissenting views should not be heard. However, it is clearly important that when these arguments are presented to the public, by a public service broadcaster in a "science documentary", they should also give people a chance to hear what mainstream scientists have to say in reply. Not to do so, I think, is shamefully irresponsible.
This program did not allow that.
Also, the film was misleading because it gave no information about the political and/or corporate PR affiliations of many of the interviewees. For example, Pat Michaels was referred to as a "founder of Greenpeace". It was not meantioned that he left after a few years, to launch a highly successful Public Relations firm, working to help his corporate clients fight environmental criticism of their activities. Paul Driessen is another interviewee with no climate science credentials whatsoever -- he is also principal of Global-Comm Partners, a Northern Virginia corporate PR firm specializing in energy and environmental public policy issues. Many of the other speakers are closely affiliated with a variety or right-wing "not for profit", advocacy groups -- heavily supported by donations from big business.
I think its a scandal that WagTV channel 4 has concealed this obviously relevant information from viewers. It surely would make a lot of people think twice about the credibility of the film!
If you really feel dedicated, you can complain to the advertisers who's commercials appeared during the programme. These include: Volkswagon, Hastings & Direct, Bradford & Bingley, Visa, Yakurt, Orange, Audi, Virgin Media, Mitchelin, Zurich finance, Wrigley (orbit gum), Ing Direct (finance), Magners Cider, confused.com (insurance), Christian Dior (J'adore), Kraft foods (Toblerone, Cote d'or), Nat West, Love Films, Citreon, Nissan, Expedia, Microsoft, Ibuleve, Otex ear drops.
What a perfectly silly set of options you present.
Your attempt to stifle fee speech is indicative of the increasingly dogmatic and intolerant approach taken by those who believe in man-made global warming.
You may be right but the 'poll' was also biased, there was no question - I think that the programme was biassed but climate change is a controversial subject....(for example)?
Also your list of 'bias' is also biassed, have your read any of the materials from Ball or Lindzen?
Originally posted by Lucibee: Channel 4 is going to show the Swindle again on More 4 tonight at 10pm.
Well it shouldn't do so without editing:
Prof Carl Wunsch. "At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest." http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/925003...240089457#3240089457
You have lost the argument. When you make personal attacks without addressing the issues with a reasoned rebuttal it demonstrates your weakness on the subject. So let us hear your reasoned "scientific" justification for human activity causing global warming. Over to you.
No wonder these threads keep getting removed when people like "Heretic" keep posting the same thing time and again.
Stop complaining. You didn't like the progam, WE GOT THE MESSAGE. However, it's quite clear that a substantial number of people appreciated having the chance to see it.
Apart from the attempts at censorship you and your ilk continue to foist on the rest of us, what really comes across to me is your utter contempt for your fellow human beings.
If the program didn't convince you then why are you so concerned it will convince anyone else?
Unless you think we're all imbeciles who simply believe the last thing we're told?
Or unless there really is some truth in it in which case your entire world-view will be left in tatters? Can't afford to have your faith shaken in this way, Heretic.
Now leave the rest of us to have a grown-up discussion.
I've seen so many programmes on climate change presenting as 'fact' that manmade CO2 emmissions are responsible for climate change - and none of them featured the views a sceptic.
So how can this programme be guilty for not presenting an alternative view? It's one programme is a zillion hours of programmes about climate change.
(And Heretic - look at the 'no' choices you offer in your poll... very very silly.)
Originally posted by TheHeretic: This doesn't mean that dissenting views should not be heard. However, it is clearly important that when these arguments are presented to the public, by a public service broadcaster in a "science documentary", they should also give people a chance to hear what mainstream scientists have to say in reply.
quote:
Your attempt to stifle fee speech is indicative of the increasingly dogmatic and intolerant approach taken by those who believe in man-made global warming.
I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH. Contrary to your insults, I'm 100% in favour of the views of climate change skeptics being aired - I've already made that perfectly clear, but YOUR dogmatism seems to be getting in the way of your ability to read!
My point is simply that a hugely important scientific controversy should be presented to the public in a BALANCED way -- with free speech on BOTH sides. That way, people can weigh the arguments on both sides then and make up their minds.
Can you explain what you have against this idea?
Do you think it should just be one-sided, totally biased propaganda from both sides -- so people tune in to whateve they most want to believe, and reinfoce their prejudices?
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Originally posted by Cloud Man: I don't hear any move to censure Al Gore for his misrepresentation of the CO2/temperature correlation graphs in his film. I wonder why not?
OK so that's one simplification in the film that I too wasn't keen on (another was the twee cartoon bit). But measured against the appalling mess of the "Scandal" film...
Originally posted by DandyDickens: I've seen so many programmes on climate change presenting as 'fact' that manmade CO2 emmissions are responsible for climate change - and none of them featured the views a sceptic.
So how can this programme be guilty for not presenting an alternative view? It's one programme is a zillion hours of programmes about climate change.
(And Heretic - look at the 'no' choices you offer in your poll... very very silly.)
You make a valid point - a lot of programmes on climate science don't bother to mention the skeptical views. In my opinion, this is a grave mistake. That's why I think Al Gore's documentary is flawed; not because I think his conclusions are wrong, but because he oversimplifies the science. He should have raised these alternative views -- and then set about debunking them.
The reason I object to this programme is that extremely partisan programmes, on either side, tend to "preach to the choir"; they just reinforce prejudices and polarise public opinion. This does no one any good.
I accept that my 'no' choices leave something to be desired... I thought they were kinda funny though. They're meant to satirise those who deny that there was any bias in this film.
Perhaps I should create a new poll, with alternative "no" questions. Any suggestions?
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Originally posted by TheHeretic: You make a valid point - a lot of programmes on climate science don't bother to mention the skeptical views. In my opinion, this is a grave mistake. That's why I think Al Gore's documentary is flawed; not because I think his conclusions are wrong, but because he oversimplifies the science. He should have raised these alternative views -- and then set about debunking them.
The reason I object to this programme is that extremely partisan programmes, on either side, tend to "preach to the choir"; they just reinforce prejudices and polarise public opinion. This does no one any good.
Well said. There was a time not so long ago when the media felt they had to present both sides to be balanced. Then they realised that the main-stream scientific argument wasn't "if" but "when" and "how bad". Now they seem to have swung totally away from mentioning the denier's views.But then again, there is such a lot to report, and limited time in which to do it.
Originally posted by gordonchas: Stop complaining. You didn't like the progam, WE GOT THE MESSAGE. However, it's quite clear that a substantial number of people appreciated having the chance to see it.
I don't think the fate of this planet should depend on a TV documentary popularity contest. What we need is reasoned debate, not biased propaganda, on either side.
quote:
Apart from the attempts at censorship you and your ilk continue to foist on the rest of us, what really comes across to me is your utter contempt for your fellow human beings.
I'm getting sick of these false accusations of "censorship", when I've repeatedly said that I believe dissenting views SHOULD be aired. As for my "comtempt for fellow human beings", that exists entirely in your own imagination.
quote:
If the program didn't convince you then why are you so concerned it will convince anyone else?
Evidently, many people HAVE been convinved by it. I'm not surprised; its a brilliant, expertly crafted piece of propaganda. And lots of people, understandably, don't want to accept AGW - its bloody bad news! The trouble is, if AGW is right, this feel-good story is liable to land us in trouble.
quote:
Unless you think we're all imbeciles who simply believe the last thing we're told?
Certainly not. I would have found this documentary convincing -- if I didn't happen to already know some stuff about the science, and the politics. I count myself lucky I wasn't taken in.
quote:
Or unless there really is some truth in it in which case your entire world-view will be left in tatters? Can't afford to have your faith shaken in this way, Heretic.
Projection, projection. YOU DON'T KNOW ME. I've changed my views on so many things, so many times, it makes my head spin... show me a really good, robust case that AGW is wrong and I'll drop it in a heartbeat. but these arguments just don't cut it -- I'm well aware the've been repeatedly debunked, long before this film was made.
Since you're so totally undogmatic tell me this: what would persuade you that AGW is true, after all? From what you say, you seem very willing to consider the possibility.
Now leave the rest of us to have a grown-up discussion.[/QUOTE]
Your ad-hominem insults are ridiculous, unjustified and grossly offensive. I don't hold contempt for my fellow human beings -- not even *you*, even though I have to admit, you're rather annoying.
I HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP. I UTTERLY HATE AND DESPISE CENSORSHIP. What I call for is honesty and balance.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Originally posted by Tom H.: You say, "Pat Michaels was referred to as a "founder of Greenpeace"." I hope your other facts are a tad more accurate.
You're right, my mistake! I was referring, of course, to Patrick Moore (the climate change skeptic and anti-environmentalist PR consultant, not the astronomer).
quote:
If you are complaining about this film, did you also complain about the Al Gore film now being shown in schools all over the UK at tax payer expense?
I haven't seen the Gore film yet, so I can't really comment. From what I've heard, it has some flaws, oversimplifying the science a bit... an element of dumbing down seems to be the main fault.
I'll reserve judgement until I've actually SEEN the movie -- but for what its worth, I suspect that "an inconvenient truth" would have been a better film if it had taken the arguments in TGGWS head on.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
The debate on this thread is all very well but where does it get us? We saw a TV program and believed it, did not believe it, believed bits of it etc etc. That's TV folks. Get used to it.
I was once convinced by a TV program claiming we never went to the moon. I checked the facts, realised that the program was exploiting my ignorance, and have never trusted a TV program since.
Lets be clear about this. We are talking about a TV program - not the issue itself (GW). So, enjoy the ride, it's taking us nowehere.
The poll at the start of the thread is totally ridiculous.
What about the middle question?
!I am not complaining because this is no less "biased" than the BBC or any other pro GW coverage that has been on previously...!
Also the only "NO" options offered require a voter to either have no brain (of course the programme was biased) or to be quite supportive of all the same kind of lies and BS that the pro GW lobby have already inflicted upon us!
