re "The Great Climate Swindle" documentary

[Mandy]

On talkSPORT yesterday, there was a few callers about the "The Great Climate Swindle" documentary.

Wondering who has seen it ? http://www.spiderednews.com/Videos/72053.htm

To me, it sounds interesting enough that the content should be discussed in an open debate.

[nekokate]

I saw it when it aired and made an entry on my blog about it, so I was quite pleased that George mentioned it on his show, even if he didn't say much about it at all. He said that in the next few months he'll dedicate a show to the subject, though, so that should be very interesting when he gets round to it.

To summarise what I wrote about it, I really don't know enough about climate change to have a solid opinion either way, but I noted that Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT, who was included as one of the experts in the documentary, has said he was totally misled and misrepresented and is considering filing an official complaint. Apparently Professor Wunsch actually does believe that CO2 emissions are warming the planet, so if a scientist can be quoted out of context and selectively quoted to make it appear that he holds the opposite belief, then what else in the documentary is also dubious?

[Mandy]

Thanks Kate. I am sure that would be used as a stick to hit the show. I would love to know what part of the video does Professor Carl Wunsch actually say misrepresented HIS views ? i.e. I want to see the part which Professor Carl Wunsch speaks, and what he says he meant.

It sounds like he just disagrees with the thrust of the documentary. That puts him in the mainstream camp, but doesn't invalidate the documentary.

He may have been misled in relation to what he was told the documentary was about, but that doesn't invalidate the documentary. e.g. If you are doing a negative report on the BNP, you don't admit it when interviewing a BNP supported.

Professor Carl Wunsch should actually directly address the issues in the documentary, e.g. if he believe that CO2 emissions are warming the planet then he should address the documentary's point about it being negligible, i.e. the main issue is solar activity.


My fear is there an agenda to raise taxes, and even hinder "fair-trade"
by limiting the right of farmers to send their produce to the market.

c.f. :

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,2024957,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=29

Sometimes it's ethical to buy air-freighted goods


Cutting off fair-trade farmers from UK markets is not the right way to tackle climate change, says
Claire Melamed

[faceless]

I've not seen the programme, but there's a lot more to concern for the planet than global-warming. Even without it as a problem there would still be the massive problem of resources dwindling. The rainforest depletion, the potential start of mineral mining on Antarctica and even the low fish stocks in the North Sea all point to a massively overloaded system where people are actively encouraged to take and use more than they need.

Consumerism is the problem and until people stop buying pointless crap it will continue.

[Mandy]

Faceless, I agree .. and that is my fear .. Global warming would be used as an excuse to distract us from the issues at hand.

c.f. what someone else wrote today :

There are a few things we can expect this week from what is likely to be Gordon Brown's last Budget as Chancellor. As the man who would be PM struggles to suggest some semblance of charisma to the electorate, he'll likely boast about having met his fiscal rules - through cheating, of course, but what else would you expect? Another area of focus is likely to be green taxes - now that global warming is the new religion, Mr Brown no longer needs to rack his brains for more obscure stealth taxes. The magic words "reduce CO2 emissions" will enable him to justify just about any new assault on our wallets he cares to make.

[nekokate]

[Mandy]

Thanks Kate.

When you wrote :

"so if a scientist can be quoted out of context and selectively quoted to make it appear that he holds the opposite belief,"
and
"but the fact that his words were used out of context to make it appear that he held a belief that he does not hold."

You seemed to have made up your mind already to believe Carl. It isn't a "fact",
and in this case, I would rather believe Channel 4, and my own senses seeing what
Carl said in the documentary :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

The film, shown on Thursday, was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, he produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement.

Durkin said: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Channel 4 said: 'We feel it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the scientists featured now has concerns about his contribution, we will look into it in the normal way.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s. I am more likely to believe Carl was either "spoken to" or he realised this is going to be a big documentary and he could lose funding.

I am as likely to believe Carl's denials after he was recorded on tape, than believe that "pulling" WTC 7 meant pulling out the firemen from WTC 7 [especially since the firemen had already been evacuated]

[nekokate]

I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all unravels. Should be interesting. Perhaps even as interesting as how you're called "GG Fan" yet a great deal of your beliefs appear to be totally the opposite of GG's, lol!

I'll also add that you're right that it's not necessarily a "fact" that his words were used out of context, but it certainly is a fact that he believes they were, and he should know, having spoken them.

I have no idea who Carl Wunsch is, so I can't account for his credibility, but the guy who made this documentary sure seems to have an interest in creating sensationalist programmes, and that always has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Mandy]

I will quote faceless in his "introduction - PLEASE READ" :
"This isn't to say that I agree with everything [George] says though ..
Apart from those two niggles I really do have genuine support for his attitude towards the world"

Indeed, Kate, you opened the thread "Things you DON'T like about George".

i.e. Debate is healthy. Any differences with George's opinions are secondary to the 100% agreement on the main issues.

[til661]

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

There are a couple of sites that deal with this 'documentary' also you can check out the bad science site by ben goldacre from the guardian.

As Kate has pointed out the fact that durkin continously misrepresents his documentaries to the participants is a massive stain on his character. not to mention the fact that many of the people shown simply did not have the credentials they purported to. for instance the guy from the uni. of winnipeg left academia in 1995 and has worked for various oil company fronts since then. The university has consistently asked him to stop using the title but there you go. most of the others are in the pay of big oil. for example this from a very erudite poster on another site

"The respected Kenyan that the fictional show keeps refrencing is a free market evangelist working for a think tank called ISIL or International Society for Individual Freedom, a FAR RIGHT laisez faire capatalist group.

http://www.isil.org/

Go here to read their attitude toward enviromentalists, which are in their words "lunatics" and "wackos" bent on destroying "capatalism":

http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/california-greening.html

This shit is not even close to accurate, fair or reasonible.

This is holocaust denial for the global energy gliterati...in other words, it's offensive lies created to push back against reasonable people around the world who are fighting to save the planet."


the fact that you champion this is telling

[nekokate]

[Mandy]

[til661]

it's called an analogy. It's interesting that you don't want to actually counter any of the things that i mention but pick on a throwaway phrase at the end. I'd also like you to give an example of a peer-reviewed paper which supports any of the conclusions or even prmises of the show. the fact is that the science acadamies of the US, UK, China, India, NASA and 999 out of 1000 peer reviewed papers show this to be nothing more than snide propoganda .

oh and here is another detailed rebuttal, see archives

http://www.realclimate.org/

[Mandy]

[nekokate]