[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

the most respected scientist on the program, who had previously said through email that he was misled by the film crew, has now put forth a public statement which says that his views were misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film crew were deliberately misleading, and did not indicate they were actually making an anti-global-warming film.

While you're probably right in this case, I'd like to point out that misleading the interviewee might be a perfectly reasonable means of exposing new interpretations of the data that are inconsistent with the interviewee's admitted bias.

[Atomic Rooster]

So I downloaded the program and watched it. I'm not a scientist or climatologist but there are two thing that really fingered my cerebellum.

1) Does warming create carbon dioxide or does carbon dioxide cause warming?

2) Scientists will sell their soul for a grant.

I would advise people to watch both Gore's documentary and this program.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

While you're probably right in this case, I'd like to point out that misleading the interviewee might be a perfectly reasonable means of exposing new interpretations of the data that are inconsistent with the interviewee's admitted bias.

Yes. However, the specific examples Wunsch lists in his statement make it clear that no such thing happened; rather, the makers of this "documentary" went out of their way to twist and edit what he said to make it fit their sensationalist "swindle" agenda.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

So I downloaded the program and watched it. I'm not a scientist or climatologist but there are two thing that really fingered my cerebellum.

1) Does warming create carbon dioxide or does carbon dioxide cause warming?

Carbon dioxide heats up the atmosphere.

However (Wunsch's point, edited and misrepresented to "prove" the opposite), there are huge amounts of carbon dioxide trapped in oceanic water. As water temperature increases, it can hold less carbon dioxide (the same way cola will lose its CO2 as t becomes warmer).

So an increase in oceanic temperature will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn will trap more heat, raising the temperature.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yes. However, the specific examples Wunsch lists in his statement make it clear that no such thing happened;

No he didn't. He complained about their use of his endorsement (if that's what it was):
"By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected."
He said that CO2 exists in the ocean in large quantities, and that's what they showed him saying. That is not a false statement, no matter what theory it's used to support. Surely you know that two different, even opposite, explanations or theories can be supported by the same observations.

He may be right to object to their misrepresentation of his conclusion, but he has no right to complain if they draw a different conclusion from the data than he did.

rather, the makers of this "documentary" went out of their way to twist and edit what he said to make it fit their sensationalist "swindle" agenda.

And their whole point is that he and other scientists have gone out of their way to twist and edit the data to fit their own sensationalist agenda. I'm not saying either side is right (though I have little doubt that the "swindle" side is wrong; I don't think climate scientists are being intentionally deceptive), but they each deserve a chance to make their case. If they make their case based on their opponents' own words, so much the better.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

there are huge amounts of carbon dioxide trapped in oceanic water. As water temperature increases, it can hold less carbon dioxide (the same way cola will lose its CO2 as t becomes warmer).

This seems to contradict the argument that CO2 increases are acidifying the oceans leading to flora extinctions (the same way your blood is acidified by CO2 -> carbonic acid), because the oceans are a buffer absorbing much of the excess CO2. Which one is wrong?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No he didn't. He complained about their use of his endorsement (if that's what it was):
"By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected."
He said that CO2 exists in the ocean in large quantities, and that's what they showed him saying. That is not a false statement, no matter what theory it's used to support. Surely you know that two different, even opposite, explanations or theories can be supported by the same observations.

He may be right to object to their misrepresentation of his conclusion, but he has no right to complain if they draw a different conclusion from the data than he did.

Selectively quoting out of context is lying. There is no two ways about it, regardless of what you claim.

If I say:

"People have claimed Bush is like Hitler; I disagree,"

you can slice off the first three words and the last two, and claim that that is verbatim what I said, and you'd still be lying.

This exact sort of thing is done constantly by sensationalist reporters and yellow press, and occasionally results in lawsuits if personality rights are all too much violated.

That public statement by Wunsch is a kick in the nuts for the production company and Channel 4 - though the latter, of course, wanted nothing but a controversy. Which they got. Not scientific accuracy, nor even scientific merit.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This seems to contradict the argument that CO2 increases are acidifying the oceans leading to flora extinctions (the same way your blood is acidified by CO2 -> carbonic acid), because the oceans are a buffer absorbing much of the excess CO2. Which one is wrong?

Never heard of that.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And their whole point is that he and other scientists have gone out of their way to twist and edit the data to fit their own sensationalist agenda.

No. THEIR whole point is that it isn't happening.

[Troll]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago, the U.S. government agency that tracks weather reported on Thursday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since records began in 1880.

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Temperatures were above average for these months in Europe, Asia, western Africa, southeastern Brazil and the northeast half of the United States, with cooler-than-average conditions in parts of Saudi Arabia and the central United States.

Global temperature on land surface during the northern hemisphere winter was also the warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest after the winter of 1997-98.

Over the past century, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.11 degree F (0.06 degree C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976 -- around 0.32 degree F (0.18 degree C) per decade, with some of the biggest temperature rises in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

U.S.: Winter was warmest on record - CNN.com

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Troll 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago, the U.S. government agency that tracks weather reported on Thursday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since records began in 1880.

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Temperatures were above average for these months in Europe, Asia, western Africa, southeastern Brazil and the northeast half of the United States, with cooler-than-average conditions in parts of Saudi Arabia and the central United States.

Global temperature on land surface during the northern hemisphere winter was also the warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest after the winter of 1997-98.

Over the past century, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.11 degree F (0.06 degree C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976 -- around 0.32 degree F (0.18 degree C) per decade, with some of the biggest temperature rises in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

U.S.: Winter was warmest on record - CNN.com

Interesting.

Now where's the bit about this not being a normal climate change for earth? I'm pretty sure climate cycles take a teensy little bit longer then a century to complete.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This seems to contradict the argument that CO2 increases are acidifying the oceans leading to flora extinctions (the same way your blood is acidified by CO2 -> carbonic acid), because the oceans are a buffer absorbing much of the excess CO2. Which one is wrong?

This one is true. That's all I know, haven't got the time to look at whatever else you're talking about...

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just because I found this interesting: Carl Wunsch published some email replies from Durkin (the documentary's editor) after some colleagues sent him negative feedback.

I especially love the reply "you're a big daft cock." Oh, and the bit at the end where he goes on a little rant about some "problems" with the theory – problems that are either completely wrong or have perfect explanations.

Email Replies

Heh.

greg