Sunday night viewing
If you’re on the couch this Sunday evening you’ve got a great television choice; TV2’s The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or Prime’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. In other words we have a choice between two fictional fantasy myths with thinly hidden conservative agendas. You can read more at MediaLens about the Great Global Warming Swindle, whereas CS Lewis is a good enough writer that you should read the Narnia Chronicles themselves rather than any analyses.
Myself, I’ll be opting for TV1’s The Virgin Queen, which the Dominion Post describes as thriller about a feminist, nonconformist Queen Elizabeth I.
Bookmark to:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I am watching Recount on HBO, its an HBO movie about the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Anyone know who they’ve got for the panel discussion afterward? Hopefully someone who knows a little about presenting science in an understandable way, and showing willfully ignorant people for what they are.
It’s shameful how poor an advocate for reality these sorts of things usually find.
Because it really is just a matter of the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, and other problem gases, along with the way that burning fossil fuels releases prehistoric carbon stores back into the atmosphere as CO2 (in trivially calculable amounts, 2.CH2 + 3.O2 => 2.CO2 + 2.H2O, where CH2 is the basic component of hydrocarbons). An atmosphere with more CO2 must be hotter at equilibrium (though whether it can reach equilibrium without triggering catastrophic climate change along the way is another matter).
Without even getting into feedback systems (a hotter atmosphere carries more water vapor, which in turn heats the world, not to mention the hurricanes, oh, and warmer oceans hold less dissolved CO2, and the possibility of a Methane stir, …) it’s plainly the gasified carbon fossils, dummy.
And hey, the sun puts out 1% more energy every 100 million years or so, so we’ll end up warmer than the prehistoric eras when this much Carbon was in the atmosphere, by about 2 degrees per 100 million year difference.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Apparently, theres a decision coming out on the complaint(s) about ‘Swindle’ in the UK any day now http://flet.org/node/20
And someone say something about An Inconvenient Truth being ‘full of errors’ or something, I dare yuz!
May 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Why not watch it Frog, are you afraid that people might see through the climate change con?
I have see both the fictional work of Al Gore and the highly informative “Swindle”, one deals in facts the other is a figment of Al Gores imagination.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Aha!
As usual you don’t seem to have much of a basis for your opinions BB…? Anything in particular you disagree with about AIT?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
tussock: the panellists are apparently David Wratt (NIWA), Martin Manning (Climate Change Research Institute), William de Lange (Waikato Uni), Cindy Baxter (Greenpeace) and Leighton Smith (sceptic)
May 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://everyman.mu.nu/archives/179716.php
May 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Leighton Smith the radio-guy isn’t even a scientist! Though neither is Baxter, I think. Who else is a denier/sceptic/cynic? Can’t just be Smith…
May 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Willem de Lange is the other sceptic. My information is that it went as well as could be expected from a non-sceptic viewpoint.
But the showing of a debate doesn’t take away from Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here. I wonder is a Broadcast Standards complaint might eb in the offing?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I’d think the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice Standard 5 (Accuracy) may be the one you are looking for BucolicOldSirHenry.
Complaints can be made here. Let me know how it goes and I’ll ensure accurate coverage of the hearing of any complaints that are made
May 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Frog,
Would it be to much to expect people to make up their own minds?
What they should do is run the Al Gore docu and the TGWWS side by side (well one after the other) and let people make up their own minds.
What is all this talk of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards (BS for short) Authority?
What are you afraid off. No courage in your convictions?
Not like a free and democratic orientated party like the Greens to discuss banning a doco.
Mind you the compalint to the BS Authority will be good for the sceptics. Drags out the the whole thing at every level for free publicity.
The swindle is actually that if we pay pay Al Gore carbon taxes he will ensure that we can keep emitting because he has an unauditted carbon sink that will soak up those emmisions. Clipping 30% of the carbon taxes for himself.
What a load of crock.
If you are serious about climate change you would welcome this doco as a platform to inform the populate of the truth.
Instead you are like those religious folk who want to ban any freedom unless fits into their own narrow band of opinion.
Sad.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Gerrit: “…Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here .”
Means nothing?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Gerrit Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Frog,
> Would it be to much to expect people to make up their own minds?
> What they should do is run the Al Gore docu and the TGWWS side by side (well one after the other) and let people make up their own minds.
Because the ’swindle’ mockumentary has been found to base its arguments on factually incorrect claims. You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
If every “outright distortion” was challenged, One Left Wing News would never be heard from again.
Whatsamatter Frog/Henry? Scared the antidote polemic to Gores polemic might make people think?
>>mockumentary
If it’s good for the Gore gander….
Mike Moores modus operandi is polemic rant. Perhaps you should take his works to Broadcasting Standards?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
BluePeter Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
> Mike Moores modus operandi is polemic rant. Perhaps you should take his works to Broadcasting Standards?
I don’t think the broadcasting standards authority would be interested in questions of style and format like whether something is a polemic rant or nt, but if you know of factual inaccuracies in a Michael moore documentary that has been shown on NZ television, you probably should take it to the BSA.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
>>you probably should take it to the BSA
I don’t believe in shutting people up just because I don’t like what they say.
Which is what this is REALLY all about, isn’t it.
But please bring a complaint. The more media air this counter-argument receives, the better…..
May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
er, so ‘facts’ don’t matter?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
No, just that the showing of a polemic that pretends to be truthful (when it quite clearly isn’t), is against NZ/s broadcasting standards. Robust argument is one thing (and I’m very happy to support it), lying about the facts in order to make an argument is just mendacious. That’s why we have standards…
And before you mention Big Al, it’s worth noting that AIT is presented as personal opinion, but includes no outright lies. Might be a bit dramatic in places, but it gets the science just about right. In comparison, Swindle is a farrago of nonsense.
You’ll enjoy it, BP. But you won’t learn anything.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Gerrit :
Reminds me of Woody Allen’s definition of media balance : fifteen minutes for Hitler, fifteen minutes for the Jews.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
>>You’ll enjoy it, BP
I’ve seen it. The interweb, the interweb….
>>includes no outright lies
Is that another way of describing “at least eleven material falsehoods”?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
StephenR,
“Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here .â€?
Means nothing?”
Well show me and I will make up my own mind.
Or dont you trust me to make my own decisions. You want to censor what I see?
Same goes for Alistair.
Show both and I will stack up the Al Gore rethoric against the TGWWS ones.
Hey we are all grown ups here. We can make a decision. Might not be the one you want but maybe it might be the one you do want.
Let me make up my own mind thanks.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Cant let this go as it rankles me somewhat
” Because the ’swindle’ mockumentary has been found to base its arguments on factually incorrect claims. You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison.”
That is Kahikatea opinion and I guess says, we need a propaganda ministry to make sure that only the “truth” is out there.
Means whomever controls the propaganda ministry controls the “truth”.
As BOHenry says, lets have robust debate. But you cannot get that without showing both doco in the same light.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Source?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“A judge in Britain’s High Court has ruled that Gore’s apocalyptic movie on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, should come with a warning that it promotes “partisan political views” and is riddled with errors.”
tinyurl.com/2a9j45
May 28th, 2008 at 1:20 am
“5b Broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting material which is misleading or unnecessarily alarms viewers.”
So how come Parliament is allowed to be broadcast then? And the “money” market segment of the news?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:23 am
has anyone on this thread ever supported the notion that lawsuits provide an ideal way to expose the truth or falsity of global warming claims?
***
you can’t hope to simply stack up the rhetorics next to each other & judge which seems truest. the issue is about various things claimed to be facts.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
everybody here would be familiar with the case & the judge’s findings & the commentary & spin put upon them by both sides afterwards, but in case it needs saying, the judge’s wording was not as sensational as the quote here seems to imply - the quote is taken from an opinion piece btw & carries no greater weight than if bluepeter had simply said it himself
May 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Will they note that several of the scientists whose opinions are misrepresented in the piece are suing the stupid pr!ck who made it?
One can only hope.
As for Junk Science BB….
JunkScience.org is run by Steven Milloy, who believes or claims to believe:
1….that environmentalists (Rachel Carson, et al.) who pushed for a ban on DDT are responsible for the deaths of 97 million people of malaria.
The problem with this is that DDT is now and has always been legal in most areas of the world with endemic malaria. Moreover, Rachel Carson was EXACTLY correct in her indictment of its indiscriminate use on fields of produce.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8045/8045.pdf
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2007/07/malaria/fink…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
2. …the scientific link between cholofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the seasonal decrease in stratospheric ozone over the polar regions is not settled. He seems to think it is all a government plot.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ozone_asst…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
3. ,,, the risks from “second-hand smoke” (passive smoking) are so negligible that smoking should not be banned in workplaces and restaurants. The statistical basis - The relative risk of contracting cancer from passive smoking is between 1.2 and 2.0, as opposed to the relative risk of lung cancer from actually smoking, which for men is fully 23 times what it is for those who do not smoke.
… it seems negligible… except the annual deaths from this level of relative risk are 53,000 deaths just in the US, many of them children.
Steve Milloy knows but he doesn’t care. It’s just politics.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
4. Milloy has worked as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group ( the American Crop Pesticide Association), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Fort Howard Corp (paper), the National Mining Association, Monsanto, and the International Food Additives Council.
5. Milloy seldom misses an opportunity to question the science that underlies the debate, for which he was well-paid by ExxonMobil. His close ties to the petroleum industry are very well documented.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
Why should anybody take his $500,000 reward seriously? He will determine the winner at his sole discretion? ! !
Frog could easily set up a 50 million dollar reward for some proposition on the same basis. I could. YOU could. It is totally meaningless. Milloy is one of those folks who simply need to have things “explained” to them the hard way.
He doesn’t care what happens to the environment or to other people as a result of his libertarian ideological crusade, nor what happens to the institutions of science, We might have actual government regulations and that’s worse than destroying the planet. Unlike a real Libertarian his regard for OTHER people’s rights and the rights of people yet to be born, is nonexistent. He is quite happy to steal from anyone as long as they can’t prosecute his sorry butt.. He’ll be long dead… he doesn’t care.
That is NOT a Libertarian philosophy… that is pseudo-libertarianism being used as an excuse for naked greed.
(— Much shortened but with thanks to Loren Cobb in another forum)
As for airing this piece of drivel, I would be happy to allow it to be aired if it were done properly, with interruptions at every erroneous claim and scientifically misleading assertion, so that it would be corrected. The first interruption would come (I remember clearly) less than 30 seconds into the piece and the 20th would arrive within the first 3 minutes. It is an ABORTION of truth and should not be permitted without a full and clear explanation… IN REAL TIME. People forget just how bad it is and was. The fact that the guy is being sued by at least one of the scientists he quotes out of context should be a clue. Much like the Heartland foundations 500 scientists… it is a lie. It is a BLATANT lie. Broadcasting it is a mistake.
BJ
May 28th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I am happy to have people thinking. I am not happy if they are getting only one side and I am not happy if someone who is LYING BLATANTLY is getting “equal time” The media has to present enough information that the lies are exposed for what they are… and has to present it AT THE POINT of the deception… not after 23 additional lies and 4 commercial breaks.
15 minutes for Hitler and 15 minutes for the Jews…. EXACTLY.
BJ
May 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Thanks for the link, BP. Not very helpful, as others have suggested. Perhaps you should review this thread at Deltoid, and remind yourself that the judge actually said:
The contrast with Swindle could not be greater.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Hopefully it will spark a debate on the topic of AGW, after years of one-sided propaganda from the warmists.
One documentary that dares to suggest an alternate view, and you lot want it shut down? One wonders why the prospect frightens you so? Wouldn’t those confident of the warmist view just laugh it off?
BTW, unlike Gore, the GWS has corrected misinformation:
“Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme.”
Gore still refuses to ask many questions on his docudrama, let alone alter the contents.
How telling….
May 28th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Years of one-sided propaganda? You really do live in an alternate universe, don’t you?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:42 am
>>You really do live in an alternate universe, don’t you
The media always takes the warmist position. Has done for years. How can you possibly miss this fact? Each time a block of ice falls, we get a shot of said ice, and a shot of a polar bear, preferably a lone polar bear, thrown in for good measure.
There is no discussion, whatsoever, about other factors which might be causing this.
Pure propaganda…
May 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Blue Peter, do you believe in Creation Science as well?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I would agree that the media can be real knobs.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Toad
No, but I know where you’re going with it.
I think any documentary on the topic would be laughable, and perhaps of interest only to see how wacky some religious people can be, but I would fight for their right to show it.
Therein lies the difference, methinks….
May 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Would you fight for their right to present their ‘facts’ though? Plenty of creationists out there who present their views as science, and that their ‘real’ science is ‘being suppressed by secularists’.
e.g. ‘Contrary to mainstream opinion, x proves that the earth is about 6,000 years old, and the evolutionists can’t fill certain gaps in the fossil record’.
They would be able to state that as FACT, and there wouldn’t be a problem with that? Yes, most would regard them as wacky, but a number would start having doubts, despite the illegitimacy of the ’science’ that was used.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I would support the right of creationists to make and show documentaries that reach wacky conclusions, but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Kahikatea,
“but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.”
And therin lies your problem. You want a body set up (Ministry of Propaganda - MOP for short) to scrutinise every doco to make sure it is based on true date and a true representation of the contributors to the doco.
Problem will be who checks to make sure that the MOP’s have got it right.
Does every doco maker have to submit before broadcasting?
No, best bet is to let the individuals who are viewing the doco make their own conclusions.
Talk about doco’s, did anyone see that doco (Sky Doco channel) about socialist visitors from around the world on a “long march” visit to North Korea (Keith Locke was not invited?).
Pretty scary in the end where the group leader actually broke into peoples hotel room to steal their video tapes, digital cameras cards, computers hard drives, etc to make sure their “lies” about North Korea did not go home with them. And these were strong anti-capititalist, anti-american, anti-corporate, anti-globalisation activists as well!
One guy had to sign a “confession” before he was allowed to leave!!
Well I would rather have a few erronious and contentious doco’s broadcast (be it AL Gores marketing department effort or the TGWWS one) then have to live in the “workers paradise” that is North Korea.
That North Korean doco will be shown on Prime as well pretty soon (funniest scene was the visitors standing by the 38th parallel zone shouting “yankees go home”. Funniest ever.
Will all socialist also demand that this doco not be shown as it shows the North Korea “workers paradise” in a very bad light.
.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Gerrit Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am
> Kahikatea,
> “but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.�
> And therin lies your problem. You want a body set up (Ministry of Propaganda - MOP for short) to scrutinise every doco to make sure it is based on true date and a true representation of the contributors to the doco.
A more logical way of doing it s through the court system. We already rely on the justice system to determine the facts in civil and criminal law cases, and they already have the requisite statutory independence.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
kahikatea
You best have a word to Al then, because his data shows the sea level rising by 20ft, the ocean conveyor shutting down, and Hurricane Katrina being the result of AGW. Which is, of course, unsubstantiated nonsense.
But he’s fighting the good fight, eh, so we’ll give him a pass
And a Nobel Peace Prize.
I prefer to believe the truth will out, whatever that may be. Same goes with the loopy Christians….
May 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am
>>A more logical way of doing it s through the court system
You cannot be serious?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think he had 9 mistakes http://tinyurl.com/yuolen
But saying the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans (not very provable), does not make the claim that ‘Lots of CO2 = warming and there will be various unfortunate consequences depending on action taken’ wrong.
The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”. The sea level WILL rise by 20 feet if all of that melts, but certainly NOT in the near future. I don’t believe that constitutes a scientific error, but an silly use of the worst case scenario.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Kaikatea,
The court ruling would have to be made before the doco is shown .
Otherwise you are in the situation where “You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison” (your quote by the way).
So the courts will become the MOP. Able to select waht we see and what we are too dumb (we cant make a reasonable comparison!).
Sorry, we are not dumb. We do not need the courts or the MOP to tell us what to see and what conclusions we might draw.
No the best bet is to show the doco in full and then publish a full rebuttal. No doubt this has been done where the doco has been shown overseas and is fully documented (so you dont even have to do any research).
A far reaching effect of blocking doco will be to force them underground. So you will not even know what the dumb people are watching.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:47 am
best I weigh in here…
* eight of the interviewees are closely associated with no less than 30 Exxon-funded conservative think tanks. Check out my handy map:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831
* and yes, two of them complained - Carl Wunsch got his interview removed altogether, leaving us with NO real climate scientists, despite the claim at the beginning that they were “leading” climate scientists.
* The film received 246 complaints to the UK b.casting watchdog, Ofcom, which is expected to rule soon. One of those was a massive tome, peer reviewed by some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
* The Prime debate (already recorded but will look live to you) did NOT cover the inaccuracies, pretty much focussing on climate science only - it will not provide the balance needed. Whether Prime covers all of the mistakes and covers itself remains to be seen.
* for a good summary of SOME of the mistakes in it (and for pure entertainment), check out ABC’s Tony Jones interviewing the filmmaker, Wag TV’s Martin Durkin:
here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
* Durkin has a history of these sort of docos, causing Channel 4 to apologise at least once for this. Check out this week’s Listener for some great quotes from David Puttnam (Channel 4 board chair) expressing regrets that they ever ran the thing.
* for a more scientific overview of many of the mistakes, this Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Bulletin article is good: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION.pdf
May 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
>>The court ruling would have to be made before the doco is shown
And for each episode of the News.
Meanwhile, the people will be watching whatever we like. On the internet.
A useful tool which the socialists and thought police can’t control, thankfully.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
You’ve not heard of the ‘Great Firewall of China’ then, or the police who ‘patrol’ the internet there.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Seems like the only problem then is the existence of a broadcasting code (as mentioned by frog earlier).
May 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
1. Of the 10 interviewees on the Swindle, eight of them are associated with no less than 30 Exxon funded US think tanks (including Heartland, which as we all know funds our own NZCSC to fly round the world spouting climate denial).
2. Of the 13 so-called “climate scientists” interviewed, only two were actual bone fide climate scientists. One of them, Carl Wunsch, had his interview removed and the other also complained.
3. for high entertainment, and a view of some of the mistakes, it’s well worth watching the ABC’s Tony Jones interview with filmmaker Wag TV’s Martin Durkin.
Part I
Part II
4. For a good summary of SOME of the mistakes, check out the
Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. I did take part in the Prime debate (which was filmed “as live”), but, despite being told otherwise, I did not get an opportunity to talk about any of the above. Prime will have to do a hell of a lot more to achieve the balance required to meet BSA standards. Shame they don’t have a Tony Jones to do a similar Durkin interview. We shall see.
6. One wonders at the coincidence of such a doco appearing on NZ television, right in the middle of the ETS going through the House. I understand that in Australia, it was sceptics on the board of ABC who forced the programme’s airing.
7. Have a look at this week’s Listener - Sarah Barnett has done a good job in Ecologic about the problems - and has a great quote from Channel 4 chair David Puttnam regretting the day the channel aired this “juvenile” programme.
8. UK watchdog Ofcom is due to rule sometime in the next month. There were 246 complaints, one of them a huge tome, peer reviewed by some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
sorry, mistake in first para - there were about 16 interviewees, not 10.
One of them, Patrick Moore, they called a “co-founder of Greenpeace” - erm, no, he wasn’t.
He was at GP in the very early days but left about 30 years ago and is a paid lobbyist for the nuclear and forestry industries.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Cindy
Why are you so scared? If the message is garbage, then the message won’t hold up to close scrutiny.
Now, which message could I be referring to….
May 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
erm, scared?
where on earth did you get that from?
Sure of facts: yes.
Amazed that Prime is showing it: yes.
Sure it won’t stand up: yes
pretty convinced Prime will have to face the BSA: yes.
but scared? that’s just weird.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The use of state control to manage the perceptions of the people, most of whom will not be watching, is weird.
I sense fear is the root cause….
May 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
>>You’ve not heard of the ‘Great Firewall of China’ then, or the police who ‘patrol’ the internet there.
The inevitable consequence of socialism. A path that many here seem happy to walk down, starting with restricting the screening of documentaries they do not agree with, under the guise of “seeking truth”.
Nonsense. As usual, it’s the left try to shut down debate because they are scared the great unwashed would have this conversation.
They’re all a bit old fashioned, however.
youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg
May 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I dunno…socialism has been around a HELL of a lot longer than the PRC, don’t know why or how they made the leap to totalitarianism so quickly though.
The ‘left’ are also accused of trying to shut down the evolution ‘debate’…
May 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
BP: interested to know how you would describe the [failed] court case in the UK funded by a mining magnate to stop the UK distribution to schools of An Inconvenient Truth?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
>>stop the UK distribution to schools of An Inconvenient Truth
I disagree with his action.
However, when it comes to schools, I think an argument can be made to
regulate curriculum, so as children are taught to separate science from psuedo-science, especially if they have had little or no exposure to either concept. I’d be in favour of both films being shown, and in the context of a rational scientific debate. I’d be uncomfortable with either film being shown and held up as an example of objective fact.
I’m not sure the same restriction applies to adults.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yeah I think the judge ordered ‘teaching notes’ to accompany AIT, which is fair enough.
I would love to have been taught more about the scientific method when I was in school…as it stands i’ve only learned about it from reading about evolution and climate change debates. I spose peer review should be explained too…
May 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
BP:
so let’s see - you disagree with the action, but you’re happy to go round quoting the judgment (well, actually misquoting it, but that’s a differnt argument).
May 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I was making the point the documentary was riddled with errors.
The errors are there regardless, as anyone can see.
A court judge also decided it contained errors.
Lets not forget, the GWS has been altered following criticism regarding facts. Gores film has not.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I do wonder if Swindle really has gotten rid of its errors…
May 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
In his judgment, the judge talked of “errors” (ie quoting the applicant saying they were, but not necessarily agreeing).
He said of AIT: “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
He ordered teaching aids, but didn’t uphold the application to stop it from being distributed.
See Deltoid’s discussion of it.
and StephenR: no, Swindle hasn’t gotten rid of its errors. I’ve seen a copy of the version Prime will screen and, while about 6 minutes have been shaved off (Wunsch interview) and titles for some of the interviewees changed to reflect their true rather than claimed status, it’s still riddled.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
So I’m not sure what we’re arguing?
Gores error ridden, polemic docudrama can be viewed by anyone who enjoys a laugh, as can the GGWS.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The difference that you seem to be unable to appreciate is that Gore got his facts right, while Durkin deliberately eschews the use of facts in order to present his case. You seem to want to defend his right to lie to pursue his cause.
Is that correct, BP? You are defending his right to lie?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
No, Henry.
Gore didn’t get some of his facts right.
Durkin didn’t get some of his facts right.
Overall, both documentaries support their own truth. Truthiness is perhaps a more apt term….
May 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Actually I don’t see one “fact” that Durkin DID get right - apart from C02 being only 3% of global warming gases, but then he went on to say that that meant C02 couldn’t be a climate forcing agent, so that one went down the pan too.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
what close scrutiny?
that’s all we’re calling for, that the tv station airs enough close scrutiny for viewers to make informed decision
May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Durkin said THAT?! A drop of cyanide then. Christ.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Sorry BP… Gore DID get his “FACTS” right. When he said if X melts then the sea level goes up Y it is factual. When he says Katrina MAY be a result of warming that’s not a statement of fact. If he has any problems it is with the way SOME people put words in his mouth, as they have been doing since he first ran for President. I have never seen such a group of liars as has been produced by the pseudo-libertarian fringe of dittoheads that has basically turned the internet into a free-fire, truth-optional zone.
I may watch this if it is broadcast, just so I can audit it and provide detailed feedback. I only have about 100 other things to do that would be more useful to me. I will provide myself with a fresh notebook as I do expect this to run to many pages given the observed rate of error in the initial few minutes.
One of the problems with the right-wing and with the media is that they seem able to “equate” the two presentations. They aren’t comparable in terms of truth value. It is likely that neither should be regarded as a “documentary” in the usual sense. With a documentary there is a truth that is able to be documented. In this case the only truth that can be documented is the actual opinions and theories of the actual scientists who do the research.
That’s OK… but if so Gore’s should have lasted about a month or two for everyone to say their piece and Durkin had to shorten his already.
So I wouldn’t call either one a “documentary” in the usual sense.
I also wouldn’t permit any version of Durkin’s work to be presented without in-line real-time rebuttal. Could do the same thing with Gore’s piece to point out the places where the weasel words are… for the benefit of those who forget that they are there or that they are listening to a politician.
Pinning a professional pollie about something he/she says is a lot like nailing a jellyfish to a tree.
If, May, Could be…. what caused some specific event is impossible to nail down…
…but AGW is about something that is real and coming soon to a planet near you.
If you think I am “afraid” of what an idiot like Durkin says you’ve got your facts wrong.
Try harder.
respectfully
BJ
May 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Stephen: Exactly! Do check out the ABC interview I linked to above - they interview an Australian scientist using the Ebola virus in a similar example to yours with cyanide. And it’s a great interview.
This “it’s only a tiny bit of greenhouse gas” is typical of most of the arguments in the Swindle.
and whilst I’m here, I now have the Channel 4 Chairman Lord Puttnam’s quote:
“I wish [the swindle] hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the ball.”
May 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
My, my.
The GGWS must really be onto something if it produces this much of a flap! It’s like screening South Park to a bunch of Christian fundamentalists and hoping for a balanced response.
Gore’s sci-fi epic was the single event that pushed me firmly into the skeptical camp. I watched it at 30,000 feet. In Business Class. Al flies private, and who can blame him?
Not me.
Ah, the world of entertainment….
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Are you surprised that people get upset when Swindle says in its first minute words to the effect that “everything you’ve been told about climate change is a lie”?
So, BP, stop beating around the bush. Are you defending Durkin’s right to lie?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Sorry BP… If Durkin is smarter as the IPCC , NASA and the rest of the scientific community then he can be right… otherwise he is dead wrong and taking the rest of the world with him into a climate death spiral. That doesn’t even cover the risk-management end of things…
Maybe I should wait and see if he’s really that smart… ?
No.. I don’t think so.
BJ
May 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
bjchip Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
> Sorry BP… Gore DID get his “FACTS� right.
he did make one mistake that I’m aware of. He said that Tuvalu had flooded and the people of Tuvalu had to flee to New Zealand. Tuvalu has not flooded yet. It’s not fundamental to his point, but it is an error.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Yes… it only floods in the storms… and while they seem to be more numerous and worse that, like Kilimanjaro is an effect that can be variously attributed, not simply to warming. Mea Culpa… I should have remembered that. I simply focus too tightly on science instead of the side-remarks.
BJ
May 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
>>a climate death spiral
I understand that’s the title of Gore’s sequel…..
>>Are you defending Durkin’s right to lie
No. But I defend his right to tell his version of the truthiness….
May 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Truthiness, as originally defined by Stephen Colbert: “We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist.�
What you’re effectively saying that there is no truth “out there” - no objective, observed reality. You can call black white and expect us to defend your right to do so.
Sorry, BP, life’s not like that.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Without getting into a metaphysical debate about the nature of objective reality, we must remember we’re talking about media.
It’s all opinion.
The choice of camera angle is an opinion. The edit points are an opinion. The direction is opinion. It can only ever be opinion.
The opinion should, of course, be based on fact. If Gore or Durkin’s opinions stray too far from the facts, then they devalue their own arguments.
But I will decide that for myself. Not some political committee.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
It’s all opinion.
Nonsense. Durkin makes deliberate mistakes in pursuit of his argument. That is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact, as you might discover if you looked somewhere other than the echo-chamber of truthiness that comprises the sites espousing the “sceptic” viewpoint.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
>>the echo-chamber of truthiness
I come here for that….
May 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
blue peter got ripped apart and tried to retreat into metaphysics….
peter - it is ok to admit when your stance is not looking like it once did. you are not the film maker - its not a case of anyone that disagrees with al gore has to defend the swindle ‘doco’
May 28th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Trees
The Al Gore disaster flick and the Swindle Doco share much in common
Why anyone would want to silence either is beyond me. They both provide light entertainment.
Which, if you were paying attention, is what this thread is really all about. Censorship.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:17 am
So, the usual. Climate scientists think it’s the usual oilco bollocks, and people who aren’t climate scientists can be found that have heard somewhere that solving problems is easier if you pretend they don’t exist, and don’t want to listen to all those egg-heads anyway.
Marvelous. You’d think the storm-surge/tsunami guy would take offense if a marine biologist told him how wrong he was about storm surges, eh, what with them being rather unaccustomed to his particular field of knowledge.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:17 am
BP
Just as you have no right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre, you have no right to reassure everyone that all is well when the theatre is on fire. This IS about rights… just not the ones (yours) you seem to think about to the exclusion of all else.
Durkin is culpably dishonest. If I had a few bucks to spare and the time, I’d have him in court here for the lies in his film. I reckon he’d not do as well as AIT did.
BJ
May 29th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Youre not alone BP,
Because you are right it is about censorship.
My comment to Kahikatea way up the list somewhere was about this all along. First we have the EFA, now we have an attempt at censorship in what maybe shown on TV.
Mind you with a the state sponsored television advertisements on TV (dont drink, dont smoke, dont speed, etc) all we need is state censorship on anything that might be controversial and we might as well go call New Zealand “the workers paradise of the long white cloud.”
Anyone else see that doco on North Korea? Try and catch it when it is on Free to Air (probalby on Prime unless Keith Locke want to ban that doco as well)
My question remains. Who will “authorise” the showing of any doco and underwhat guidelines will they sensor the showing of any doco.
Who will sit on this erstwhile body? and wil it be a democratically elected body or a Ministry of Propoganda appointment?
I’m actually looking forward to BOHenry’s complaint to (and frogs reporting off the complaint) to the BSA. BJ are you going to complain as well? Somehow I dont think a complaint will be laid.
My understanding is that a complaint can only be generated after a show has been aired, not before. So that the great unwashed can see the doco and make up their own minds. Fantastic as that is how a democracy should work.
People making up their own minds.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Do I detect a sense of panic among the hard left as the wheels start to fall off the climate change con?
Quick..better find another reason/excuse to destroy capitalism.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Gerrit
You are right about censorship, it seems that the Greens are not willing to let anybody speak out against climate change.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
The right to lie would seem like the point of this thread, and I don’t think anyone said they want to stop it from being shown either. Show it, sure, and the debate was a good idea, but it really should have been about the film, not climate science in general.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
>>no right to reassure everyone that all is well when the theatre is on fire.
But you don’t get it, BJ. You’re convinced the theater is on fire, but what you’re smelling might be a teenager sneaking a cigarette in aisle three.
The green movement has had the floor for years, and one documentary appears opposing their one-sided view, and their knee jerk response is “how can we prevent people seeing it”?
Please spare me the nonsense about “lies” being the basis for your actions. If that were the case, why aren’t you regularly laying complaints about Sensing Murder, Sunday, and The Inconvenient Truthiness?
I’ve seen the GGWS. Like Gores film, it contains inaccuracies, but the argument is sound. There is enough doubt to suggest that AGW is a con.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
And with one simple sentence, BP exits the real world and heads off into lala land.
Have fun BP.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am
What a clever argument, Henry.
As I’ve often stated before, I am in no rush to take sides, and remain skeptical. It is you who has made a leap of faith.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
[Falls about laughing]
That’s a leap of faith based on 150 years of physics, and decades of work by thousands of scientists.
What have you got? Martin Durkin, a bunch of US libertarian thinktanks, and some ageing curmudgeons. Lala Land. I hope you have fun there.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
You started strong, but now your “arguments” are just getting pathetic
Since when does the majority rule in science?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
You planning to rewrite the laws of physics any time soon? Well, are you, punk?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Ohhhh, tough nerdy science guy!
This thread is getting rather silly. Well, more silly…..
May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
And someone say something about An Inconvenient Truth being ‘full of errors’ or something, I dare yuz!
It’s full of errors. 9, 35 or 120, depending on who you talk to. I realise the warmists have no interest in the science but, well, you asked.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Basically I was going on what that judge in the UK ruled on the lawsuit that laid out alleged ‘errors’, which there certainly were - I see it as something of a definitive case, as judicial rulings tend to be. I feel that the small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that humans have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of the earth’s climate.
Incidentally I haven’t even seen it, but it sounds snazzy.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I tend to take a look at realclimate.org for science developments, though it gets a bit dense at times. Being done by working, publishing climate scientists and all.
They had a very looooong discussion on the movie there: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
May 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I know I sound snarky, but instead of “working, publishing climate scientists” I ’spose you would substitute ‘warmists’?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
shouldn’t that be “warmingists” ?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The Warmingistas has a nice ring…
May 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
We already are the workers paradise of the long white cloud Gerrit.
I have spoken to several people who have been told by employees from TVNZ that several subjects are totally taboo, and are not to be spoken about in any way or form.
They will not be addressed or investigated and will not be televised. I put it to you that that is censure in it’s purest form.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
well spill the beans & tell us what they are already
May 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Warm Troopers…
May 29th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
>>that several subjects
Oh, do tell……
May 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yeah, let us in on the conspiracy - hopefully Paris Hilton is one of the subjects!!
May 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It will be something to do with “the people of the land” I’m sure….
And I can’t recall them ever reporting on AGW being anything other than established fact…..
May 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
This warmist would say that it’s hard to report on relevant scientific papers that don’t exist.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Heh heh, Stephen. Doesn’t help if they’ve got their eyes closed, of course.
What’s Green And Goes Pop?
“But a 15-year lull is not merely significant in political terms. It also needs to be set against the fact that the warming which caused the frenzy lasted only 25 years. From 1875 to 1975 internationally accepted records suggest that the average global temperature rose by a total of just 0.2ºC. It was only the 0.5ºC rise recorded in the fourth quarter of the last century that produced the hysteria that has sparked this gold rush among green entrepreneurs and investors.
There may well be a green business opportunity. But my advice to would-be investors is this: make sure you get out before the bubble bursts. “
May 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1808242,00.html
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Let me start by saying that after years of being a GW “believer” I have recently made the choice to return to sitting on the fence on that one.
As I have told here before I live sustainably and I will continue to do so but I get the feeling we are being told a lot and shown a little on many subjects.
Some of the things not being discussed on NZTV is the many blatant lies that led to the war in Iraq or the weapons that are used. Other than embedded journalists no real news comes from either Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nothing is mentioned about the tent camps around big American cities were people who lost their house in the sub prime market crash and job loss through outsourcing now have to live in circumstances reminiscent of third world countries.
In every country in Europe and countries like Japan there have been documentaries about the events of 911. Now whether you wholeheartedly embrace the official conspiracy theory or whether you question the official theory doesn’t it strike you as strange that employees who would like some of these documentaries have been told by the director that this will never happen. Why if the case is so clear cut then why can’t we watch these documentaries, especially since two kiwi’s died in the attacks and we are engaged in the war in Afghanistan because of these attacks. For almost 7 years young New Zealand men are away from their families and have to risk their lives to “fight terrorism”.
You lot argue that views opposed to the prevailing theories etc. should be able to be viewed on our mainstream TV senders, I subscribe to that.
Even if most of you would just watch these documentaries to have good laugh about “conspiracy nuts” let’s have out with them.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Yes, news broadcasting in NZ is a sad joke.
And with BS like the BS, and the thought police who use it, it’s hardly surprising. Who gives a $#%^ if documentaries offend people - it should be their JOB to offend all of the people, some of the time.
I prefer YouTube.
Tent Cities: youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
May 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
So you somehow missed the ‘global warming stops til 2015′ mini frenzy when that study came out BP??? ‘eyes closed’ my arse!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I’m intrigued at the apparent “need” of Global Warming deniers on frogblog to believe that “business as usual”, presumably in terms of their sought after (affluent) lifestyles, and desire for (exponential?) “growth” etc etc can continue without serious restraint.
Human history, archaeology etc shows us examples what has happened in the past to human societies on this Planet who did not ADAPT their lifestyles to suit changing conditions, at a more local level. Sometimes in such places their precious “money” is found lying around, discarded …
Will we humans leave similar evidence for the descendants of those few that survive such a catastrophe, or will we reorganize and adapt our societies to suit the changing climate on our beautiful but demonstrably finite Planet?
It really is up to you of the younger generation.
The Greens are onto it at a personal level and at a collective level (and many of us have been living so for decades now).
I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Bluepeter,
Yes, news broadcasting in NZ is a sad joke.
And with BS like the BS, and the thought police who use it, it’s hardly surprising. Who gives a $#%^ if documentaries offend people - it should be their JOB to offend all of the people, some of the time.
Was that a response to my comment?
Thanks for the link.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
>>I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.
I often wonder what it will take for the warmists to realise that the jury remains out.
“A new framework is needed - less presumptive, more inclusive, more watertight professionally, and more attuned to the huge uncertainties that remain. Where so much remains uncertain and unsettled, policies should be evolutionary and adaptive, rather than presumptive; and their evolution should be linked to a process of inquiry and review which is more thorough, balanced, open and objective than is now the case.”
tinyurl.com/5mjjdm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
>>Was that a response to my comment?
Just a more general rant on the thought police
May 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
It does - in Lala Land.
Back here in the real world every major scientific organisation, including our own Royal Society accepts we are facing a huge problem. When they change their tune, I’ll change mine.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
BP,
I think that approach to the transformation of our economy to a more efficient and environmentally benign one should be what the article recommends anyway as the current approached applied by the Greens has been if anything counterproductive as the reaction to the ETS and the Green Party’s general reputation in the business community demonstrates.
http://idealog.co.nz/magazine/january-february-2008/features/who-you-c allin-green
An adaptive, distributed, and cooperative approach would be more productive and effective as it would avoid the alienation of people whose cooperation is required to ensure that our aims are achieved.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
My prefered scenario for that transformation to take place is this and I’m hoping to start working on it soon. I’m actually in the right place to do so where I’m working.
“Hyper Green” — Distributed and Proactionary: a world in which things get weird. Distributed decisions and ad-hoc collaboration dominate, largely in the development and deployment of potentially transformative technologies and models. This world embraces experimentation and iterated design, albeit not universally; this scenario is likely to include communities and nations that see themselves as disenfranchised and angry. Micro-models and open source platforms thrive here, too, but are as likely to be micro-ecosystem engineering and open source nanotechnology as micro-finance and open source architecture. States and large corporations aren’t gone, but find it increasingly hard to keep up. One form of this scenario would end with an open source guerilla movement getting its hands on a knowledge-enabled weapon of mass destruction; another form of this scenario is the “Teaching the World to Sing” story from my Earth Day Essay.”
http://www.openthefuture.com/2007/11/green_tomorrows_the_scenarios.htm l
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“Hyper Green� — Distributed and Proactionary: a world in which things get weird. Distributed decisions and ad-hoc collaboration dominate, largely in the development and deployment of potentially transformative technologies and models. This world embraces experimentation and iterated design, albeit not universally; this scenario is likely to include communities and nations that see themselves as disenfranchised and angry. Micro-models and open source platforms thrive here, too, but are as likely to be micro-ecosystem engineering and open source nanotechnology as micro-finance and open source architecture. States and large corporations aren’t gone, but find it increasingly hard to keep up. One form of this scenario would end with an open source guerilla movement getting its hands on a knowledge-enabled weapon of mass destruction; another form of this scenario is the “Teaching the World to Sing� story from my Earth Day Essay.�
What. A load. Of horse shit.
Congratulations on including every last collectivist in-word for the past thirty years while at the same time managing to say absolutely nothing.
Surely this is a piss take. Or is this what passes for intelligence at the Environment Ministry these days?
May 30th, 2008 at 6:43 am
eredwen,
“I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.”
This will happen when warmists look at all the fact, some which conflict with their inconveneint truth.
For example I know it is getting warmer by personel recollection. 45 years ago in winter Auckland we used to walk to school and break the ice in puddles, get the milk in from the letterbox with a frozen column of milk standing up out of the glass bottle (with the silver cap on top of the column).
Now in Auckland a cold winters day is likely to just leave a light frosting on the grass. I can virtually grow tomatoes year round. We are getting sub tropical with a distinct wet and dry season.
So yes warming is happening so call me a warmist.
Due to global warming I’m told that about 20% of the greenland ice has melted causing the oceans to rise.
When I launch my boat or kayak at my local ramp (as I have done for 45 years) what do I see? The high tide mark is still at the same level it has been since I launched my first boat.
So yes, Global warming causing ocean levels to rise is a con. Call me a denier.
And that is the problem, we can see and experience some of the global climate variations, but we can also notice that other claimed changes are clearly wrong.
That is why I’m a skeptic, conflicting information.
Another reason to be highly skeptical is that the money markets are forcasting 100Billion dollar annual PROFITS for carbon trading.
This comment from
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/energy-desks-betting-big-future/ story.aspx?guid=%7BD81A7B6C-E9F7-4896-B704-75881E5D2392%7D
says it all — LONDON (MarketWatch) — The global carbon-trading market is doubling in size every year, putting it on course to become one of the biggest earners for energy desks and raising the question of whether emissions trading is environmentally effective or just another revenue stream for investment banks.
More than $40 billion of carbon-dioxide permits will be traded this year — small fry compared to oil or other energy markets. But almost everyone agrees it won’t stay that way for long.
“Conservatively, we think it’s going to be worth $3 trillion,” said Peter Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, an energy consulting group. —
Proponents (Al Gore) wishing to profit from this alarmist point of view are going to trade carbon credits.
Meaning the Kyoto protical is nothing more then a capitalistic manipulation. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emmisions.
With the Greens buying into emmision taxation and carbon credits they are actually buying into the biggest capitalistic scam going. Highly ironic for a socialist party.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
if a great many carbon credits are issued that is a sign of the success of the scheme - a great many people are cashing in on the demand for carbon sinks by providing them.
most of the warmingistas would realize that there is room for doubt, just not room for complacency
May 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Free speech only for the arguments you like, Frog? Good one.
I don’t know what you’re doing pointing to terms like “unnecessarily alarms viewers” in the legislation. Prime’s Sunday program is saying ignore the alarmists.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Very enlightening so far.
Your dog whistle about this programme reminds me of all the nutty god botherers that made a fuss about the passion.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
wikipaedia has a page devoted to Swindle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I thought “nutty god botherers” were fans of ‘Passion’…?
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society weren’t too happy with ‘Swindle’ either… http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxg.html
Didn’t see either, wish I could’ve seen the debate though!
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
From NotPC….
Swindle feedback
“Here’s scientist Vincent Gray’s assessment of The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened last night on Prime.
“First: the programme itself is much improved,” says Dr Gray of NZ’s Climate Science Coalition. “All the objections to the original programme have been cleaned up. [Crawler Carl Wunsch, for example] who claimed he was railroaded into contributing, has gone… This version [which was quite a bit shorter that the original - Ed.] should replace the one already circulated whenever possible.”
I have to pause here to note Eric Young’s simpering disclaimer at the start of the show — “Prime TV and Prime News wash our hands of this while thing” he almost said, before announcing that Swindle’s maker Martin Durkin doesn’t debate with warmists so the panel discussion later didn’t include hime [a lie, as it happens; it’s Warmist-in-Chief Al Bore who doesn’t debate]. Anyway, back to Dr Gray’s review:
Then, to the discussion. In Australia they had a fanatically biased interviewer [Tony Jones] grilling poor Martin Durkin, who had difficulty standing up to him. Here, it was almost fair. Only two scientists to our one. But we won out on the non-scientists. Leighton Smith was the most experienced broadcaster present and he made most of the telling points. His best one was when he exposed the lie that very few scientists were critical of global warming theory. The two IPCC scientists ganged up to interrupt as soon as valid points were made, and the chairman had difficulty controlling them.
Willem de Lange did an excellent job, but it tested his knowledge several times.
David Wratt [from NIWA] put over the same line that he did at his lecture last Wednesday and he honed in on the chief weakness of the Durkin programme, the reluctance to challenge the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” which was accepted as authentic even by Fred Singer. While Durkin was accused of “cherry-picking,” the MGSTAR is consistently chosen by the IPCC as the only authentic temperature guide, and all others are carefully downgraded. For example, Manning quoted the IPCC about “the warming of the last fifty years”, carefully omitting mention of the satellite and weather balloon records which do not quite make it, and failing to mention that there was cooling for the first half of the period. When the USA was mentioned somebody should have said that the corrected temperature record for the USA shows no warming [and that the warmest year in recent times is not 1998, but 1934].
Wratt even dragged out the Son of Hockey Stick which, again depends on their cherry-picked MGSTAR. Willem made a good point in saying that [in this cherrypicked factoid] the “proxy” measurements stop as soon as they do not agree with the surface readings.
It is unfortunate that Pat Michaels , in The Great Global Warming Swindle did not mention his part in the paper with Ross McKitrick , 2007 which shows that the MGSTAR is biased by “socioeconomic factors”. This paper is published in the peer-reviewed prestigious Journal of Geophysics Research.
Wratt makes great play with how the IPCC only deals with peer-reviewed publications, unless, of course, if it is a Journal they do not approve of, like Energy and Environment. He does not mention that the IPCC controls the Editors and the peer-reviewers of most of the Journals,
As far as I know, David Wratt has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the climate, and his name does not appear in any of the copious references listed in the IPCC 4th Report. Neither does the name of Martin Manning, although I do have one paper by him in my reprint collection.
Insufficient play was made by the point made in The Great Global Warming Swindle that everything written by the IPCC has to be approved by the Government Representatives. With the “Summary for Policymakers” they have to approve each line. David Wratt is a “Drafting Author” taking down dictation. They like to pretend they are independent of the politicians and they are not.
Cindy Baxter was a disaster for her supporters. She obviously did not understand a word of the film or what the others were talking about and she made a feeble attempt to accuse us all of being paid off by big oil. The reality is she is paid how to think by Greenpeace Headquarters.
Martin Manning [a ‘professor of Climate Change’ at Victoria University] has aged considerably from when I first knew him. He looks like a possible suitable candidate for the role of Count Dracula and did not come over as very convincing.
I find it difficult to believe that anybody who witnessed the programme could possibly still believe that the science behind the global warming theory is settled. I wonder how many watched, anyway?
Anyone like to answer him?”
Zing!!!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Matt
It alarms me. More to the point it raises my level of wrath to the point where if Monsieur Durkin happened to be handy there would be a bloody mess to clean up. Is that enough? Worse, I was not able to stay up to watch the debate. I have kids. The debate should have PRECEDED the show so as to set the stage. Worse still, the complexity of the argument required is going be lost on most people who will see the film. I see that notPC is lost too, but that is no change whatsoever from his usual state.
BJ
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I can barely figure out what that paper by McKitrick and Michaels says, except that ‘it really hasn’t warmed as much as we thought’ due to anthropogenic/socio-economic factors’. A fair bit of jargon.
Absract there: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008465.shtml
Is it the ol’ urban heat island effect? If so, would like to know how they explain the state of the Arctic ice these days…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Is it the ol’ urban heat island effect? If so, would like to know how they explain the state of the Arctic ice these days…”
They did….watch TGGWS with your eyes open this time…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Long post by Not PC. Libertarians hate the thought that humans may have to curtail their activities (the idea of limits) as they believe they should be able to have as much of whatever they want. Fortunately for the Human race ACT is only on about 2% .
What PC’s post demonstrates is that you could take whatever you wanted from the debate. Personally I was impressed by the scientist next to Lieghton (?). He had a calm pensive approach. He made the point that he has a young grandson he just adores and he hopes and prays (wishes) it wasn’t true.
Cindy Baxter highlighted the fact that Bush had received a memo saying that the people were convinced global warming is real so we will have to deal with it by sowing doubt about it and that this is what was happening here (on the program).
The format of swindle had all the tempo of an infomercial making a point and before you had time to dwell on it, wham, the next one (and so on).
If anything the whole show highlighted the difficulty of presenting an issue of such complexity and (perhaps) levels of subtlety where scientific “consensus” is considered. Fortunately
Despite the din from Climate Science Coalition there is stronger note from sensible scientists throughout the world which over powers that of our noisy Professor Moriarty types.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
If the Greens get their way with canceling Capitalism to “save the Planet” a whole shit load of people are going to have to die as its capitalism keeping them alive…..
So who are you going to off first guys…? I see you have started with the Blacks and the poor via biofuel etc…..whos next to disappear to appease Gaia?
Bush recived a memo…..like the slip this guy made maybe?
“”To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest.”
- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)
Hmmmm….!
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I didn’t watch it James, just read this thread is all.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Just remind you all, who have made many comments on this thread while I was otherwise occupied, of the first comment of all by turnip28.
He said: I am watching Recount on HBO, its an HBO movie about the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.
Doesn’t this sum up the whole Swindle issue as well? The neocon position is that if science, history and democracy don’t suit you - just rewrite them!
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Doesn’t this sum up the whole Swindle issue as well? The neocon position is that if science, history and democracy don’t suit you - just rewrite them!”
Seems to work for the left Toad
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
And James, I thought TGGWS said the highish observed warming of the last few decades was due to ’solar activity’? And again it seems utterly bizarre that the Arctic temperature readings could be biased by economic activity, off the top of my head. I would love to see a world correlation between urbanisation and warming somewhere, but I can’t see leprechauns anywhere either.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
world *scale* correlation that is.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
so let’s see:
the right are accusing the left of a conspiracy, and the left is saying it’s a neocon conspiracy.
which does tell us one thing: essentially, this is a political debate.
Politics disguised as a scientific debate. It’s not about science, it’s about whether you’re republican or democrat, act/national or green/labour. A recent poll in the US shows scepticism is on the rise due to an increase in republican scepticism.
Science as political football.
And notice most of the right’s scientific discussions end up talking about kyoto/economics … because that’s the real target. And given that Kyoto was science-driven, it follows that the way to stop the regulation is to go after the science.
etc.
Anyway looking forward to hysteria from the NZCSC this week as their chief conspiracist, head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri hits town and tells it like it is.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Right so the Green Party managed to get Bush to enact government subsidies for biofuels in the US, wow.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I loved the movie but i still think Al Gore’s video was better.
If global warming is caused by human activities why hasn’t anybody put 2 and 2 together and come up with population as a major cause of global warming.
It seems as the population has increased so have Co2 levels so to save the planet do what China is doing or was doing Only Have One Kid.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Cindy is simply an alarmist liar if she thinks all the skeptics receive renumeration, least of all by the oil companies. None in NZ are, and none in the GGWS. But the NIWA alarmists certainly are in NZ, by the NZ taxpayer, especially Wratt. Cindy is paid by Greenpeace, oh but that’s somehow okay, whereas skeptics are supposed to