MORE 4 - NOW
Yawn. -- 'I'll be back......' Nige Subaru WRX (54) Land Rover Discovery II BMW GS1200 2007 2000 Suzuki GSX1300R Y Hayabusa
The post was for the benefit of the people that mentioned they hadn't seen it last week you twat now off to sleep with you
This program is complete and utter bollocks, mainly based on inaccurate data which has been discredited. Quite a lot of the stuff cited has been retracted by its authors who have subsequently acknowledged that their data or its analysis was faulty. Other stuff has been misrepresented in a way that the authors themselves do not support. I am all for TV exposing fraud and misrepresentation but in this case the program is the problem that needs to be exposed. Durkin, the producer, has substantial previous form for this kind of behaviour.
The pro Gore-ite representative on Newsnight admitted that CO2 does not drive climate change and indeed follows temperature rises by up to 800 years. It's been that way as far back as science can get evidence. He tried to save the situation by saying: 'What's happening now is very different. Because we are adding CO2' If the basic premise that CO2 _causes_ warming is untrue, then Gore is misrepresenting the entire situation. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm> Latest Programme about 39 minutes in.
Well the comparison of CO2 outputs of volcanic and human activity appeared to be wrong but what else was misrepresented and/or out of date?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364852.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2032570,00.html Also google for Durkin to find examples of his previous record of misleading contributors and distorting evidence, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39 He may be correct in the assertion that CO2 is not the prime reason for Global warming. Any scientist worthy of the designation would admit to this possibility. However, the issue here is the strength and quality of the evidence in support of the proposition. Much of the evidence presented by the programme in support of the argument is simply wrong - in some cases the authors have publicly admitted that they got it wrong but their papers are still cited as "evidence". Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists in the program is complaining about the way he was mislead by Durkin and the use of selective editing to distort his contribution.
"Indymedia UK stands for Indymedia United Kollektives." (lol) "Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards Capitalism's power structures..." "Indymedia UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly states its subjectivity." I'm guessing that might not be the most reliable of sources. I'm afraid I won't be relying on George Monbiot for the facts either. There's an interesting debate in the comments following the article though. The trouble is *everybody* seems to have an agenda.
Agreed - but the issue is whether or not what they say about the programme is true. Is what he says about the quality of the evidence presented in the programme right or wrong? You don't have to rely on any single person's opinion - check out the evidence and the overall balance of well-informed opinion. Everybody does have an agenda - we all have a vested interest in this issue. That is why it is so important to be well informed.
From his robust use of language in the context of reasoned argument, it seems that Durkin would fit in well here! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece
I'm going to use the phrase "you're a big daft cock" at every available opportunity until I forget. What a star! -- ogden sv650 (slow) cg125 (dead) zx7r (destroyed) buy tat here: http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZdr.daifQQhtZ-1
