"Tony Cox" wrote:
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their
comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK
Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php
The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
"Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
religious orthodoxy.
Religious orthodoxy? You sound very much like a creationist attacking the
theory of evolution. What are your views on Intelligent Design, BTW?
I have not made up my mind, but the more I see of this kind of crap from the
deniers, the more I am moved towards the other side.
Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
be decided by majority vote.
Durkin *is* a bozo. He has been caught lying and quote-mining before, and
Channel 4 has had to apologize publicly for running a program he produced,
remember? Of course, being Channel 4, they certainly didn't let that little
episode stop them from running another piece of sensationalized Durkin
codswollop to get some ratings buzz.
The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
(if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.
It makes them subject to obvious conflict of interest. Remember the tobacco
company "scientists?"
I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
simply a nonsense.
1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
never made.
2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).
3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.
Why is it a red flag to you? Do you buy the talk radio line that politicians
control the science behind the IPCC report? Or are you one of the conspiracy
theorists who claim that almost all the world's climatologists are in on a big
scam?
Deniers are fond of attacking the IPCC report because it is a political
document, ignoring the fact that their are two stages to the report: the
initial scientific findings and then the final report that is "tweaked" by
politicians.
In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by altering
the language:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ereport08.html
4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.
5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
"global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
dissected means, quite simply, squat..
The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
musings are being called into question.
No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.
"Hauled up?" Is that equivalent to "proven guilty?" How about a cite?
Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?
I offer the suggestion that serious thinkers should avoid twaddle like "An
Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Balanced,
rational sources are out there if that's what you're really looking for,
instead of something to stroke your prejudices.
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2326210.ece
--
Dan
"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire