This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I have posted the link.
A "Must Read" are the blogs on the channel 4 website.
Disciples of the global warming group of the "cut and paste" variety i.e. who will cut and paste everyone else's posts ad nausea and who post list of "errors" (without explanation).
Included was this declaration:
"2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over."
I looked for the explanation of this statement but didn't find it. (Can I nominate CobblyWobbly to the hall of fame? perhaps he is another of the Wikpedia peer reviewers? STill, on blog sites like this he can hide his identity and patronise all and sundry).
Not to be missed was the chance to bring out the trotskist leaning of the producer and his affiliation with the father of the RCP of the UK. Of course, the program must be all lies and Anthropogenic warming is the cause of warming.
For those that suggests that we cannot know how extensive the warm period was one site site suggests that the Mandate of Heaven passed to the Manchus as a result of the famines consequent on or coincident with the warm period. A typical link is this one:
In regard to Martin Durkin being an ex-member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), there's only one part of the documentary where I think he displays anything that could be just about construed as a Communist line of thinking.
In the segment of the film about Africa, he was arguing that some bunch of Westerners (Green-leaning charity workers, I would presume) were contributing to the holding back of African development by discouraging industrialisation and only providing the Africans with daft solar panels for electricity generation. There's a famous quote by Lenin: "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country", indicating how important Lenin thought access to electricity was. But I think most people across the political spectrum (apart from maybe the Green lobby) would agree that it would be best for Africa to industrialise and have an electricity grid.
As far as Durkin being a Communist at heart;this will not bother most of the greenies. They seem to be rather fond of Socialism and love more and stronger(more oppressive) gov't control,or control of any sort, as long as it is their control.
The Green movement certainly has a mainly socialist image nowadays, the socialists really moved in after the Greenies took up (and more or less hi-jacked) the global warming cause around 1990. But socialism/communism isn't inherently Green. Environmentalism is inherently anti-industrial whereas traditional socialism/communism is the opposite. It's better to think of the Greenie socialists as being 'eco-socialists' (also sometimes known as 'Red Greens') who have merged socialist ideas with environmentalism. THere's a fairly good Wikipedia article on eco-socialism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism ). Socialism is a transition stage to communism (or marxism) which involves nationalisation of industries and an increase in the size of the public sector.
Before the Greenies adopted the global warming cause around 1990, the Green movement wasn't particularly socialist at all. I used to work in the nuclear industry in the 1980s and at that time the Greenies were mainly seen as a kind of bunch of anti-industrial 'posh dilettantes'. I think the core of the Green movement in Britain today still consists of these posh dilettantes, and the more wealthy or privileged ones out of this bunch (like Prince Charles, the Goldsmith family, Jonathon Porritt, etc) are sometimes known as the 'eco-toffs'.
I remember reading an article many years ago by a journalist who visited the Sizewell B public inquiry (an inquiry about building a nuclear power plant in the UK that went on for about 2 or 3 years in the early 1980s) . He happened to turn up during 'Wimbledon fortnight' and observed that many of the Greenie anti-nuclear objectors were enthusiastic tennis fans and far keener on tennis than anybody else at the inquiry. Now in Britain tennis is regarded as a bit of a posh sport (which is why we're no good at it), and it doesn't have a particularly masculine, 'blokish' image. So that might provide a cultural reference point for what the typical 1980s British greenie was like.
Questions are being asked about the programme's honesty. Professor Wunsch in particular is very unhappy:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html. He described the film as being "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'"
This article claims that everything was a lie. Even the hockeystick agreed with the stuff that they are claiming has now been proven inaccurate. Temperatures were cooler from the 40's to the 70's. No one disputes this. Why are they disputing it now?
The data I found more interesting was the correlation between sunspots and temperature.
This article doesn't do a very good job of rebutting the movie.
It is amazing how effective it is to say "you're wrong" when it is coming from the "other" side, but when we say "you're wrong" we are deemed biased.
The difference I think lies in our interest to be correct. When someone tells us that we are wrong, we immediately go back and look at our data and try to present the data properly. When they are wrong, they stick to their guns and blaze through it. Conviction is often more important that truth.
Another link to see the programme is at the home page of junkscience.com
I found it to be quite reasonable, and by no means as hyped as the Al Gore mockumentary