you make good points imho.
however, i noticed the same thing about some of the graphs. it bothered me until they presented other graphs which appeared to show atmospheric CO2 levels increasing from ~350 PPM to ~400 PPM over the last few years. I am not certain it showed the PPM units of measure. However, that unit of measure is well known in the weather science community wrt atmospheric CO2 levels, apparently perhaps to the point that it is almost assumed in atmospheric CO2 level graphs.
Still, what is the intended target audience? If one wants to be precise, if one’s target is scientists or college educated people, my own belief is that one should always include quantities and units of measurement on graphs.
I think their target audience was (deliberately) the average TV viewer. I am not sure about that demographic but I think it can be presumed that it precludes a college education and also precludes any exposure to high school math above first year algebra, and no focused HS science courses (biology, physics, etc). If so, then that viewing audience would probably not even have sufficient education to know what to do with the quantities and units of measure. Then they would get bored and turn the channel.
It may not be altogether fair to the program to require that it present all data with the rigor of a high school science course.
Others have mentioned other troubling omissions which are perhaps equally if not more important.
My graph units/scale comments was simply merely an example of not actually presenting anything particularly concrete - with vague presentation the truth can get lost (I recall that years ago the basic ‘science’ class at the local jr highschool was a half week of science and the other half PE) so any ability to interpret has been dumbed down.
The CO2 increase of that one graph still needs to be looked at more critically (where do the numbers come from ...). I don’t doubt that the CO2 has gone up some, but that it may be more due to deforestation and desertification and possibly ocean pollution (algae die-offs turn into a net CO2 generator) to eliminate/hinder ALOT of the ‘would-be’ natural CO2 absorption they mentioned in the program (and not the excess burning of fossil fuels as their theory goes).
The show was the typical propaganda effort - showing a token detractor from the ‘theory’ early (to pretend to be fair) and then have 95% of the show trying to negate that contrary opinion with dubious evidence.