Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

[Buddy]

Channel 4 Now Ashamed of its Experts http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-...of-its-experts

After a DeSmogBlog post yesterday complained about academic misrepresentation in the promotional material for a UK television show (The Great Global Warming Swindle), Channel 4 went back into its website and removed all reference to the "experts" that it plans to quote in the program, due to air March 8 at 9 .m.

In its promotional material, Channel 4 was advertising one of its experts, Dr. Tim Ball, as a “Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.” In fact, Dr. Ball retired from a short, unspectacular academic career in 1995. He neither earned – nor was he given – the honour of an Emeritus professorship, and the University of Winnipeg has, on at least one previous occasion, specifically requested that he stop presenting himself as such.

Far from being a working scientist or credible expert, Dr. Ball has associated himself in the last decade with a series of energy industry front groups (the Friends of Science, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project ) that fight against any policy that would address climate change.

Even the Calgary Herald, the leading newspaper in the Canadian oil capital of Calgary, has said that Ball is “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

But the locations that Channel 4 still mentions suggest that the other “experts” will include at least a cross-section of other people who are known more for taking money from the energy industry than they are for scientific research.

So who is trying to swindle who? Who is most likely to be mis-representing the truth?

[ecolodge]

Well, fudge. And here I thought this new newspaper article and upcoming TV program might provide an objective, or at least different, viewpoint. Who knows? Maybe it will. It seems that the global warming/climate change debate has become a circus. A game of "Who has the best spin"? Utterly disgusting.

[Buddy]

Concerning the supposed 'scandal': "Scientists in the documentary also say most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, followed by a 40-year temperature drop."

What a misleading statement? What does 'recent' mean? They could be referring to the period since the industrial revolution. If not, then they are considering a longer period for which 40 years is probably insignificant. Most of the warming since the industrial revolution was before 1940, about 100 years of it. And the '40 year temperature drop' was from 1940 to 1980 in which the temperature went down 0.2 deg C, it followed a more significant rise, and was followed by a rise from (it's low) of 0.8 deg C (to an anomaly +0.6 deg C in 2006):
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ure_Record_png


None of this is new to the 1000s of scientists involved with the latest IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.PDF, how many of them would wish to wreck their careers by being part of a scandle?

[* star *]

Originally Posted by ecolodge

Well, fudge. And here I thought this new newspaper article and upcoming TV program might provide an objective, or at least different, viewpoint. Who knows? Maybe it will. It seems that the global warming/climate change debate has become a circus. A game of "Who has the best spin"? Utterly disgusting.

I watched it and whilst it raised some interesting points it was far from balanced in its arguments.

[fireandrain]

The amazing thing about global warming is not that someone from Winnipeg University disagrees (if you've ever been to Winnipeg, you will know what it means to be forced by your academic qualifications to live there); it's how many people don't disagree.

[bruce]

Umm, I may be missing something here but the programme didn't dispute the fact of global warming - it just questioned the contribution of carbon emissions to the process. OK it was one sided but the vast majority of global warming features take the carbon emissions doctrine as given now that the White House endorses it too (some comfort!)

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddy

Who is most likely to be mis-representing the truth?

The people / companies who are making the biggest profits from avoiding all forms of societal lifestyle changes.

[agent orange]

don't have a telly, so didn't see the programme, but the same problem exists on radio with climate change. An amazing proportion of programmes - news and discussion, seem to bring on a climate change sceptic for balance. Once in a while that's fair enough, but the proportion of climate change sceptics on radio seems far higher than the proportion of peer reviwed climate change articles in scietific journals. So the media is giving the climate change sceptics far more weight than the scientific community does.

[August]

Originally Posted by agent orange

don't have a telly, so didn't see the programme, but the same problem exists on radio with climate change. An amazing proportion of programmes - news and discussion, seem to bring on a climate change sceptic for balance. Once in a while that's fair enough, but the proportion of climate change sceptics on radio seems far higher than the proportion of peer reviwed climate change articles in scietific journals. So the media is giving the climate change sceptics far more weight than the scientific community does.

That's because one of the prime obligations of the mainstream media is to support and defend the political-economic ruling class (and the political system / regime in general) of the sovereign state in which it operates. That's one of the basic facts of Political Science.

[Buddy]

Regarding global temperatures the program presented a totally incorrect image. It showed a rise from 1975 to what looks like 2006 of only 0.34C (measured off the snap below), whereas the graph included in the post above clearly shows about 0.6C rise which is getting on for double. Having stated the cooling period was 40 years, there are obviously only 35 years from 1940 to 1975... If they will fabricate like that what else is falsified? My snap of a paused DVD:


Regarding the programme's producer, Martin Durkin: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

- if he'll do it once, would he do it again? Or would certain people see him as a useful producer...