Chuck

Have a look at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/Weather&Climate.pdf

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
> Regarding the IPCC SFP; I will wait for the Technical Report.  The SFP is written by 
>   breaucrats for bureaucrats. I will read the Technical Summary when it comes out. 
>   
> BTW, why publish a SFP before the full report is published? Are they trying to establish a 
>   public mindset before the full facts come out. 
>   
> As for the BBC or Channel 4 - well excuse me for not knowing the difference. 
>   
> Regarding Dr. Wunsch's displeasure with the film - I don't know why you go to Wikipedia to 
>   get someone's opinion on Martin Durkin, the Producer of the film.  If you want to get 
>   Wunsch's opinion go directly to Wunsch's webpage (http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/). Clearly Wunsch is unhappy with the film and how his position was represented, but I can't avoid the impression that Wunsch is being a bit disingenuous.  Wunsch includes a copy of the letter he got from the production company and it is pretty clear what they intended. The letter says:
>    
> "The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is 
>   primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2.� It explores the scientific 
> evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative 
> theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly 
> inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the 
> apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, 
> especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth." 
>   
> That should have been pretty clear to anyone what the intent of the filmmaker was.  I can't see how Wunsch was misled.
>   
> BTW, why is it the responsibility of the filmmakers to be "fair and balanced" I would like 
>   anyone to direct me to a film, documentary or otherwise, or any other form of communication designed for a mass audience that makes any pretext of being "fair and balanced". 
>   
> Further on the Wikipedia article on Martin Durkin. The Wikipedia people note that the 
>   neutrality of the article is disputed. I certainly am not impressed by the article. It is 
>   nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks  and says nothing of substance.  I have no clue what the Revolutionary Communist Party is or what they stand for, but whatever that may be, does it, in and of itself, discredit Durkin's work?  And, just what is Durkin's association with the RCP? According to the Wikipedia article "He is UNDERSTOOD (emphasis mine - cd) to have once been closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party..." Understood? by whom? What is the nature of his "involvement"?  The author of the article defends that statement because it was backed up by some writer for The Independent. 
>   But the Independent article merely says "Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party." Really, well can anyone tell us the source of their information or just what the nature of Durkin's 
>   "connection" is.  I think this all comes under the heading of trying to make someone guilty by association.
>   
> As for Durkin's other projects that everyone seems to dismiss - what are his sins?
>   He produced a documentary " 'Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM', which argued in favor of genetic modification", and a "program which argued that silicone breast implants were in fact beneficial to a woman's health."
>   
> Clearly the author of the Wikipedia article is just upset that anyone dares to challenge the 
>   popular social/scientific myths of the day.  The issue and debate on genetically modified foods is a political one, pure and simple. As for breast implants, I don't know how accurate the statement is that Durkin says they are "beneficial" to women's health - but several years 
>   ago several very reputable medical institutions and medical schools concluded that there is 
>   no credible evidence to show that silicone breast implants were linked to the myriad health 
>   complaints made by women who were sueing the implant manufacturers. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E2D9163DF935A25755C0A962958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print 
> also see http://health.yahoo.com/experts/sexderogatis/5000/silicone-implants-make-a-comeback 
> So what is the problem with Durkin's documentary on silicone implants?
>    
>   Durkin's biggest sin is that he challenges the popular shibboleths. 
>   
> While you were doing your research, did you come across any other scientists who were interviewed in the show who want to disassociate themselves from the film? 
>   
> Brian is claiming that the GW Swindle film is false and invalid because one of its participants thinks his statements were taken out of context. OK, but there were scientists who were listed as contributing scientists and authors for the IPCC TAR, but who came out against the conclusions of the SFP because it did not fairly or accurately represent the science in the report itself. Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT is one who disassociated himself from the IPCC TAR SFP. Did we hear anything about those scientists? Did you question the validity of the SFP because one of the authors did not agree with the SFP? 
>    
>   Let's not attack the man, let's challenge his assertions with facts. OK, so Wunsch doesn't like how his interview was portrayed. What else?
>    
>   Chuck Dolci
>   
> Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   Chuck
> 
> Firstly, get your facts right. The documentary you mention was not 
> broadcast by the BBC but the UK Channel 4. The latter does everything to 
> appeal to public to the lowest public taste and has often been slated by 
> Ofcom, the UK regulatory TV authority. You can consider it as the UK TV 
> "National Enquirer". You may have heard of the last scandal, a few weeks 
> ago, on a so-called reality show where one of the contestants was deemed 
> racist. Martin Durkin himself has already been slated over previous 
> "scientific" documentaries (he has no scientific background):
> "However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his 
> interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that 
> he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview 
> footage in a misleading way [2]. For these reasons, Channel 4 later 
> issued a public apology on prime time TV" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29)
> 
>