Little Green Footballs

Loading...

Friday, April 13, 2007

Love Not Hate



Via Blue Gal

Posted by Bobby Dazzler at 08:06

Labels: , ,

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice photo!

Want to post this here as the chances of me getting registered on LGF and having it posted there are zero.

When the channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was shown in the UK (Note to Americans: Channel 4 is nothing to do with the BBC which has BBC4) LGF promoted it, linked to the youtube/google versions and the comments section
were full of comments like - I paraphrase - "I'm no climate expert but I wont let that stop me making an uniformed knee jerk reaction. This programme proves the Goracle and the Lefties are liars who will destroy us all. Rant Rant. Drivel. Drivel."

etc.

Anyway,

Here's something LGF and many other of the more extreme weblogs wont be promoting with the same enthusiasm as they promoted the GGWS documentary:

Carl Wunsch, oceanographer:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film ‘The Global Warming Swindle’. … I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a ‘critical approach’ to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, ‘critical’ does not mean a hatchet job - it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words ‘polemic’, or ‘swindle’ appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs - thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped - an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Obviously, Carl's a mad leftie hand in glove with the Goracle to destroy us all because he hates America, or something.

4/13/2007 11:45:00 AM
Anonymous said...

"It really would be flying pig-worthy if the BBC turned that critique on themselves; because they are without a doubt one of the biggest promoters of anti-Americanism in the world."

-Charles.


Well, the BBC does broadcast loads of rubbish, "Neigbours" and "Eastenders" for example.

As for being one of the biggest promototers of "Anti-Americanism" in the world?

If by "Anti-Americanism" you mean programmes that have a more balanced,nuanced and adult approach to news,current affairs,history, the environment and science - programmes for adults who expected to think for themselves - than Fox then, yeah, guilty as charged.

For some of the best Radio in the world, visit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/


I'm pretty sure Charles isn't a regular listener!

4/13/2007 12:12:00 PM
Fran / Blue Gal said...

Thanks for the linky love, honeys. I'm much better at photoshopped panties than middle east analysis, but I'm glad there's you. Keep the faith.

4/13/2007 12:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...

An LGFer sums up the Beeb:

"It really would be flying pig-worthy if the BBC turned that critique on themselves; because they are without a doubt one of the biggest promoters of anti-Americanism in the world.

The aspect of this that is rarely discussed is that organizations like the BBC and AP are so huge that it's not really possible to talk about them as "they," a single entity. The person who made this radio show has probably never met any of the people who edit the news stories and write the headlines for the BBC News department. And while, it goes without saying, there is a general lefty slant to just about everything the BBC produces, it's not a monolithic lockstep organization. other opinions can slip in between the cracks.

Same holds true for the AP, which is even more decentralized than the BBC. Both have thousands of writers, editors and producers, so somewhere in that morass you can find the occasional independent thought."


I'm sure the folks at the BEEB, and their audience will be delighted to know that - just occasionaly - someone at theBEEB dispenses with the "Anti-American","Antisemetic", Jihadist agenda and has the "occasional independent thought."

Oh! if only the BBEB could be more like FOX.

4/13/2007 12:31:00 PM

Post a Comment