The Global Warming Discussion Thread, bear in mind that that thread is very in-depth.
I'm leaving this thread open for responses to the documentary.
Fair enough, although I suggest you change the thread title to something rather more descriptive - at the very least you might want to add a question mark at the end, since otherwise it is merely a statement, the veracity of which is the very point of the discussion as a whole.
As for the documentary itself, it has left some of the principal contributors very unhappy indeed, esp. Prof. Carl Wunsch who believes his comments have been used by the documentary maker(s) in an exceptionally misleading manner, and he added that he is considering making a formal complaint... (
Source)
"The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers."
The purpose of these documentaries is not quite as straight-forward as it may appear. Ask yourself what the point of it is. Why did they make it? And more importantly, who commissioned it and who broadcast it? The bottom line is that this is television, and controversy/publicity means ratings. Also, from the film-makers point of view, broaching a controversial subject in this manner can mean instant publicity and exposure... the problem is that the sober science behind the punchy headlines is usually the last thing to be treated with the respect it deserves - you only have to look at the screes of so-called 'scientists' who publish book after book of palpable nonsense about evolution to realise that their is much money to be made in the business of pseudo-science... 'Teaching the controversy' is a very dubious approach at the best of times, regardless of the subject. Show us the evidence (and the criticism of that evidence)
from both sides and let us make up our minds instead.
At the very least, this sort of television show has to be very careful about using cherry-picked science in order to support a pre-determined agenda to make it's point. That is not the way actual science operates, and therefore it should be treated as such. Sadly, the impact that programmes like this can have is much greater than it should be...
edit: In case you are wondering, I did say much the same thing about Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth" in a brief interview with The Times newspaper last year. I knew my comments would be published, so I was careful about what I said, but I felt that the lack of discussion about alternative models for climate change (and evidence that did not support Gore's conjecture) was a big drawback to that film too. My personal feeling is that these films are more about activism rather than actual science. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate.
