I think we all do appreciate a 2nd perspective on global warming but this film appears to be a scam. The producer, "Martin Durkin" got the BBC in trouble before with one of his other works "Crimes Against Nature". Some info on that scandal can be found here "http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39" where the BBC had to apologize because because the documentary was found to distort what the scientist were actually trying to say, and it mislead the viewers to inaccurate conclusions.

I think its great to make everything "fair and balanced", so to present this feature on the same footing as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" would not do that. It's the duty of any good reporter to pass on relevant information to the public, to sort the BS from the facts, and not just pass on information unfiltered.

Anyway, thanks for the post, but this Film is definitely 1 hour and 15 minutes of pure spin ;). Sincerely,

-Mike

Bad reporting

I think we all do appreciate a 2nd perspective on global warming but this film appears to be a scam. The producer, "Martin Durkin" got the BBC in trouble before with one of his other works "Crimes Against Nature". Some info on that scandal can be found here "http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39" where the BBC had to apologize because because the documentary was found to distort what the scientist were actually trying to say, and it mislead the viewers to inaccurate conclusions.

I think its great to make everything "fair and balanced", so to present this feature on the same footing as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" would not do that. It's the duty of any good reporter to pass on relevant information to the public, to sort the BS from the facts, and not just pass on information unfiltered.

Anyway, thanks for the post, but this Film is definitely 1 hour and 15 minutes of pure spin ;). Sincerely,

-Mike

HyperActive wrote:
Anyway, thanks for the post, but this Film is definitely 1 hour and 15 minutes of pure spin ;). Sincerely,

-Mike

I recommend reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear. The books quality aside (its not one of his best) it is full of references to different conflicting scientific reports and studies.

Acidus wrote:

HyperActive wrote:
Anyway, thanks for the post, but this Film is definitely 1 hour and 15 minutes of pure spin ;). Sincerely,

-Mike

I recommend reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear. The books quality aside (its not one of his best) it is full of references to different conflicting scientific reports and studies.

You've been had. This is the same argument the "Intelligent Design" bozos toss up. "See? This guys says something, this guy says something else, this guy says something else, this guy says... There's a controversy!" He never bothers to go into what is actually said, what actually conflicts, or what it means. On the other hand, it's fiction, and makes about as much sense in the real world as anything by Dan Brown or The Day After Tomorrow which was based on the equally fictional The Coming Global Superstorm by Whitley Streiber and Art Bell.

What's the actual science? Global warming is happening. We are a contributor to it. What degree that influence is depends on who you talk to, but the reputable scientists (and James Hansen of NASA, the guy getting muted by the Bushies is probably the best in the world) all agree that is a major factor, and one which we can and should do something about beyond "study it."

The final answer is going to be given to us by reality, with its well known liberal bias. We're not killing the planet. Short of blowing up the entire global nuclear arsenal in one location simultaneously (and even that's a maybe), the planet is going to go merrily spinning on its way through the universe. It could care less about us, and at the rate we're going, it will leave us behind the same way it left trilobites and the dinosaurs.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The final answer is going to be given to us by reality, with its well known liberal bias. We're not killing the planet. Short of blowing up the entire global nuclear arsenal in one location simultaneously (and even that's a maybe), the planet is going to go merrily spinning on its way through the universe. It could care less about us, and at the rate we're going, it will leave us behind the same way it left trilobites and the dinosaurs.

Georgia Carlin has a great bit where he talks about the Earth. He goes on and on about how the Earth survived all kinds of horrible things like meteoroid strikes, the magnetic poles shifting, ice ages coming and going, continents breaking apart and slamming together, and the he says "And you think some plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to do anything?"

HyperActive wrote:
I think its great to make everything "fair and balanced", so to present this feature on the same footing as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" would not do that. It's the duty of any good reporter to pass on relevant information to the public, to sort the BS from the facts, and not just pass on information unfiltered.

I'm definitely not claiming to be a reporter, or even if I was, a particularly good one. I'm just posting links here, it's up to the reader to decide. I enjoyed A.I.C and I enjoyed this doc as well. They both gave me things to think about, introduced me to scientists and some of their ideas so that I may have an "initial vector" so to speak into the academics if I want to go that far.

This is the same thing as An Inconvenient Truth to me. The creator takes a premise and runs with it, paying little heed to trying to argue against the premise.

The "position documentary" is nothing new but has gotten very popular in recent years. So now it seems like you almost have to meld your own documentary if you want to find the middle. That's why I like watching both sides of the debate.