On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:40:17 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"A.Lee" wrote in message
. ..
Ian Jackson wrote:

In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

The view promulgated by parts 1-4 of the programme, that climate
change is not man-made, was settled as a falsehood by the time the
programme was made. In their view, because the question was settled,
it wasn't a matter of controversy.

Many people argue that the effects of global warming are not
(completely) man-made, and there is no way of proving it either way.

That they declared that it was not man-made is the failing as I see/read
it, as well as mis-representing some of the contributors.
If they had said that it may not be man made, but a natural occurence,
then it would be quite OK to broadcast it.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

I am surprised that this has caused so much furore, as neither case can
be proven, the people who say it is a man made phenonenom(sp) have yet
to totally prove their case, as have the doubters who argue the climate
has been getting hotter for centuries.
That the planet has got hotter is not in doubt. What has caused it is.

Can it be right, though, to deliberately mis-represent the science and to
argue, completely fallaciously, that volcanoes and/or the oceans are
contributing far more to the CO2 burden than anything humans can contribute?

Such a proposition is about as scientifically accurate as saying that if you
drink 8 litres of water a day it will detoxify you and make you a healthier
person. For many people the therapy works, mainly because people don't
manage to drink all that water. For the minority, it will result in
permanent brain damage.

People should have the right to make a living peddling snake oil and phoney
therapies, because if they didn't we'd miss the opportunity to discover, by
pure chance, that one of the snake oil remedies actually might cure
adenocarcinoma.

But if they misrepresent the facts then is it acceptable?

And people should be able to make daft documentaries masquerading as
responsible scientific documentaries, because that's the way to discover and
solve the problem of global warming. All the problems of the world can be
solved by pitting some talking heads against each other on TV and having a
Heated Debate.

But a lot of people will think it is science.

Anyone wanting to experience the full force of George Monbiot's attack on
the Great Global Warming Swindle can read it at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbonemissions1

Fortunately, global warming doesn't matter very much. You can say you don't
believe in it, just as you can say you don't believe in polar bears, and
life will go on for you much as it always has done, because the big
decisions are in the hands of others.

I agree that the big decisions are in the hands of others but it
doesn't mean that climate change does not matter. Tell that to those
in Ethiopia.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:20:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

snip


It seems to me perverse that C4 can escape from the duty to be
impartial or accurate _precisely_ because what they transmitted was
(in Ofcom's view) false. Or to put it another way, that false
assertions are less controversial than widely disputed ones.

I can see your point, but I think as a general principle, OFCOM are
right here.

If something is still a matter for major public debate, then the TV
companies have a duty to be impartial, and not unduly sway the debate
one way or the other.


But we would be closing the BBC down, if we enforced such a rule.

Gaz

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:40:17 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:



I agree that the big decisions are in the hands of others but it
doesn't mean that climate change does not matter. Tell that to those
in Ethiopia.

My mother was taking part in charity events at school for the starving
people of Ethiopia in the early sixties, was that due to global warming as
well?

Gaz

Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
Either one must regard creationism as nonsense and evolution as the
settled knowledge, or one must regard the question as controversial.
If the question is settled knowledge then a TV programme disputing it
would be ridiculous. In that view, why not a programme advocating the
flat earth theory ?

Well, George Monbiot is wanting to get in on the act now. I think
he may have a point. :-)

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008...ar-conspiracy/

Francis