Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Owen  Yeah, it was more bent polemic than journalism. Possibly the most telling thing about the whole documentary was that not once did it allow any scientist who believes in Global Warming to represent their own case in their own words, the only such response in the whole programme came in one brief excerpt from an IPCC press release.
The shame is that a valuable and seldom heard side of the argument has been communicated very poorly in this programme. |
exactly. As compelling as the arguments seemed, you have to ask why then do the vast majority of the world's climate scientisits not believe these theories? The recent IPCC report, which was produced by literally thousands of the world's climate scientists said 'there was now a 90% probability than human activity is influencing climate'. So, clearly there are robust counter arguments to those presented in the programme. Yet we weren't allowed to hear them.
Like James I also found it depressing because it is impossible for the average person to determine the truth.
Some of those on the programme are credible scientists, some less so. Fred Singer has a certain notoriety and I place little emphasis on anything he says (I won't go on for fear of defamation).
But John (Lincs Yellowbelly) you shouldn't think that scientists only get funding for pro-climate change research and that this therefore biases their research. Academic funding is established before the results of any research project, so I firmly believe such biases do not arise.
Matt