Channel 4 Global Warming Documentary "completely misrepresented" MIT professor

Channel 4 Global Warming Documentary "completely misrepresented" MIT professor

news.independent.co.uk

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well I find this hardly surprising. For a polemic piece it's springing holes awfully fast.

news.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-3-2007 by sardion2000]

Here are two claims from the film people are having trouble disputing

Temperature leading Co2
The sun/temperature relationship.

As for this MIT guy saying he was misrepresented. I can't recall him ever making a comment about his opinion on man made C02. (possible I am not remembering it)
If so it's not relevant. He wasn't misrepresented, he just didn't like being on a program that disagrees with his opinions but not the ones he gave in the film.

I also find it interesting the people trying to debunk the film attacked the guy from MIT with ad hominem. And now they'll probably use the same guy they attacked the other way around

Is it really so much to ask that people talk about the science in the movie and it's strongest points? There is actual research behind it.....
But that's the kicker isn't it. To actually talk about the science you have to know what you are talking about. That means reading the 3rd IPCC report(4th isn't even out) , that means reading other research outside of the IPCC. That means being able to read..... I've read a lot on this subject from both points of view and my conclusion so far , there isn't enough information. My biggest complaint with the 3rd IPCC report is it does not look at the sun enough. Now that complaint is the Temp leading Co2.

No theory is certain. Saying the debate is over doesn't mean it is. Saying you have debunked something doesn't mean you have. Consensus doesn't prove anything except people agree. It's possible both sides are right and missing something, or that both sides are completely wrong.

But the partisans have hijacked this topic.
The people just fall in the partisan lines and throw poo at each other most of them have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

I guess this was my futile plea for some common sense and objectivity.
That will fall on deaf reactionary ears.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

I just saw that BBC thing. What exactly does he feel he was misrepresented on?
All he did was decsribe the ocean and how it can store CO2. He didnt claim anything about GW, man-made or otherwise. He didnt come off as having an opinion at all. Its like asking a vegatarian what a hamburger is. If he explains the hamburger it doesnt mean hes a meat-eating hypocrit.

I think this guy is just all whiny because of the overall message of the doc. Him saying if he had known the title of it he wouldnt have done it is indicative of this.

Controversy is good, gets the video watched, and it needs to be. The video:

Google Video Link

[edit on 3/13/2007 by TheAvenger]

The temperature leading CO2 is well understood. But of course you are not allowed to say that otherwise you are tree hugging liberal intent on destroying the economies of the world. Instead we MUST believe the skeptics! For those of you unwilling or unable to find out. CO2 is a feedback mechanism NOT a trigger. This means it lags temperature but causes it to increase until some stable point is reached. The "natural" lag is 800 years or so and there can be any number of triggers which initiate the release of CO2 from the variious natural stores, the oceans being the main store. With humans we have leapfrogged the 800 year trigger by purposely releasing the stored CO2 (locked in hydrocarbons) within a very short space of time and have initiated the feedback phase.

The sun: This is yet another study that has been done to death. However any astute observers watching that program will have asked why the chart that shows sun activity and earth temperature was missing the last few years of sun activity? Simple really, it goes in the opposite direction! The earth does indeed follow the suns activity however this does not explain the most recent changes. In fact we are presently in a cooling phase until about the year 2010. The conclusion of the study says that ironically the state of the sun has given humans a reprieve to sort out its human initiated warming before the sun gives an extra warming boost after 2010.

The IPCC reports have been watered down and there is growing evidence of government intervention into watering down the conclusions. Some of the unreported evidence is very worrying indeed.

Yes Awakeandallseeing I can read. What I don't do, which is what you seem to do, is cherry pick what I read. How you can possibly avoid the conclusons of the studies of the two mechanisms you mentioned is astonishing, if you can read. Unless.......you have read a doctored skeptic version? I did see one of these based on the sun activity study. It was an appalling misrepresentation but at least it gives you skeptics a warm cosy feeling. But don't get too cosy because our children and grandchildren are going to be exceedingly pis.ed off with the mess we have left them with if we do what you skeptics wan't us to do.

Originally posted by malcr
The temperature leading CO2 is well understood.

It's impossible to measure the temperature of the planet Earth due to it's very large size and 3 dimensional non homogeous construction and dynamic activity.

It's totally impossible.

Originally posted by malcr
.
Yes Awakeandallseeing I can read. What I don't do, which is what you seem to do, is cherry pick what I read. How you can possibly avoid the conclusons of the studies of the two mechanisms you mentioned is astonishing, if you can read. Unless.......you have read a doctored skeptic version? I did see one of these based on the sun activity study. It was an appalling misrepresentation but at least it gives you skeptics a warm cosy feeling. But don't get too cosy because our children and grandchildren are going to be exceedingly pis.ed off with the mess we have left them with if we do what you skeptics wan't us to do.

So are you saying that Al Gore's global warming documentary tells the true and totally unbiased truth?

An interesting update:

C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change

The makers of a Channel 4 documentary which claimed that global warming is a swindle have been accused of fabricating data by one of the scientists who participated in the film.

...

Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.

Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.

More...