The great swindle

I'm pleased to see that The Great Global Warming Swindle is still up on the website of the UK's Channel 4 television station, despite the communication regulator's critical remarks on it.

The programme was done as an antidote to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It beat up poor Al pretty mercilessly. It was hugely entertaining. Channel 4 prides itself on iconoclastic stuff and likes stirring up debate. But of course the enviro-nazis don't want debate on this issue stirred up, and around 250 folk complained. The regulator, Ofcom, has to investigate even if it only gets one complaint, so the watchdogs went through the programme with a fine-tooth comb. They concluded that it treated some of the climate-change experts unfairly and did not give them a chance to respond.

Well, they didn't need to respond because they'd got their response in at length beforehand, thanks to Big Al. It was Swindle that was the response. But the regulators ruled that the programme, while polemical, had not materially misled people. People watching it knew what they were getting.

Still, I'm sure the fuss will be enough to ensure that all the schools that are happily showing An Inconvenient Truth to their pupils (with all its own polemics, and with its demonstrated errors) do not show this cheerfully vicious rebuttal. There's something terribly one-sided about this debate, don't you think?

...
written by Steve Giess, July 24, 2008

A simple equation covers this issue:

IPCC = Rent-seekers

Sadly, the New Scientist isn't what it used to be
written by Alasdair, July 25, 2008

A friend pointed out that the New Scientist printed an opinion piece tilted in favour of the 'complaint' to the Ofcom folk ...

I can remember back to when the New Scientist was actually scientific, and confined its 'opinion' pieces to columns like Daedalus who took science-related items to entertaining extremes ... my favourite is still the combining of the 'technology' of "Pop-Rocks" candy (replacing the gas they used with pure compressed Oxygen) and Kendal Mint Cake, to give a high-caloric high-oxygen food for those climbing the higher mountains like Mount Everest ... as Daedalus commented, the only problem was that the resulting tablets were effectively high-explosive ... (grin) ...

Climate Policy
written by Dr Alister McFarquhar, July 25, 2008

One sided? sure!

Censorship rules in post modern Science

ASI seems faintly undecided on climate policy as it wrecks the economies of Rich Countries

See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4072

and evangelise

Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
Thursday, 24 July 2008
I'm pleased to see that The Great Global Warming Swindle is still up on the website of the UK's Channel 4 television station, despite the communication regulator's critical remarks on it. The programme was done as an antidote to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It beat up poor Al pretty mercilessly. It was hugely entertaining. Channel 4 prides itself on iconoclastic stuff and likes stirring up debate. But of course the enviro-nazis don't want debate on this issue stirred up, and around 250 folk complained. The regulator, Ofcom, has to investigate even if it only gets one complaint, so the watchdogs went through the programme with a fine-tooth comb. They concluded that it treated some of the climate-change experts unfairly and did not give them a chance to respond. Well, they didn't need to respond because they'd got their response in at length beforehand, thanks to Big Al. It was Swindle that was the response. But the regulators ruled that the programme, while polemical, had not materially misled people. People watching it knew what they were getting. Still, I'm sure the fuss will be enough to ensure that all the schools that are happily showing An Inconvenient Truth to their pupils (with all its own polemics, and with its demonstrated errors) do not show this cheerfully vicious rebuttal. There's something terribly one-sided about this debate, don't you think? Bookmark Comments (3) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Steve Giess, July 24, 2008 A simple equation covers this issue: IPCC = Rent-seekers Sadly, the New Scientist isn't what it used to be written by Alasdair, July 25, 2008 A friend pointed out that the New Scientist printed an opinion piece tilted in favour of the 'complaint' to the Ofcom folk ... I can remember back to when the New Scientist was actually scientific, and confined its 'opinion' pieces to columns like Daedalus who took science-related items to entertaining extremes ... my favourite is still the combining of the 'technology' of "Pop-Rocks" candy (replacing the gas they used with pure compressed Oxygen) and Kendal Mint Cake, to give a high-caloric high-oxygen food for those climbing the higher mountains like Mount Everest ... as Daedalus commented, the only problem was that the resulting tablets were effectively high-explosive ... (grin) ... Climate Policy written by Dr Alister McFarquhar, July 25, 2008 One sided? sure! Censorship rules in post modern Science ASI seems faintly undecided on climate policy as it wrecks the economies of Rich Countries See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4072 and evangelise Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!