“’Watchdog finds [Channel 4] documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers.’ Sounds like a victory for our side.” ~ Puzzleman
Exactly. And notice that one of the scientists who filed the original complaint (Carl Wunsch) is from MIT - an important point in this mix, in light of what one of his MIT collegues (Kerry Emanuel) had to say, which I am copying and pasting below this excerpted preface:
“..Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on __a separate complaint about accuracy__, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers. ..
..The IPCC, King and other scientists including __Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology__, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. ...
..After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was “masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic” and was “as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two”.
He claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.
The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, __but that his views were accurately represented within it__. ..” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange
Now here is Kerry Emanuel of MIT (who made these remarks months and months ago):
“.. “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.
“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”
“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”
“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
*
Hummmm... it looks to me as if Emanuel’s collegue, Carl Wunsch, may have been one of those “scientists on the left” who was involved in deliberately “exaggerating the science.”
And from what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton is one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in deliberately misleading people. He even admits it:
The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
He then proceeds to do just that:
” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.”
~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html
*
James Hansen of NASA is another:
Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ=
for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room.
Why was it so warm?
As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.” June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=
*
More first-hand admissions:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
*
[Therefore] “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
*
“The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)
*
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.
Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples I’ve read about, from such reckless behavior:
Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html
Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.