The Global Warming Swindle Swindle again

[a_llusive]

Monbiot on: 'The professional classes have the most freedom to lose and the least to gain from an attempt to restrain it. Those who are most responsible for carbon pollution are - being insulated by their money - the least likely to suffer its effects.'

Monbiot has a beef with C4 over their coverage. While I understand his frustration, C4s

Comments

[mrlloyd]

Yes, but the swindle was just packed with outright lies, fabricated graphs, misled interviewees and people with huge conflicts of interest. Sure there's a sceptic point of view to be presented, but if they can't find credible scientists to make their point then they shouldn't pretend they can.

The New Scientist response underlines just how deficient the regulators response has been http://tinyurl.com/5vw45t

[a_llusive]

I just meant that I see how non-experts at Channel 4 might have felt that the programme was the kind of coverage they normally pursue. This doens't excuse the fact that they failed to oversee or review the production process and content adequately, then fell back (as humans often do) to denial to cover up their massive error.
The programme was an egregious misrepresentation of the scientists and arguments, as the Ofcom report signally failed to state in its somewhat gelded response (the parts of the programme covering the scientific debates on the causes of global warming "were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply" so dodged judgement on those aspects; the media regulator admitted that it only regulates "misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence" (apparently misleading people where the immediate harm is not to people is OK and ignoring the harm and offence experienced by the misrepresented

[mrlloyd]

These programs aren't commissioned by non experts. If you're the commissioning expert for environmental material, or scientific documenatary, or whichever category it was comissioned this, you're supposed to have more than a passing understanding of the subject matter.

But this is an area where non-scientists (and even some scientists) are vulnerable

[a_llusive]

To confusion by the clamour and the mass of information and vitriolic counterclaim.
That said, the programme remains unacceptably biased bad journalism and those commissioning it were horribly remiss.

[juggzy]

I do so wish that Monbiot wasn't on the side of those who think that global warming is a real problem; he gets people's backs up so. Every time I read him I come away feeling that he is more concerned with proving himself right than he is with actually persuading people to do things to ameliorate global warming.

[undyingking]

even where the quality or stance of a programme is questionable

Hmm, I think there's questionable and questionable, though. If it had been presented as a polemic -- "Our investigation into why scientific orthodoxy might not always be right" -- that would be one thing. But presenting it as if it were a neutral summing-up of the debate was deeply deceitful.

One can't imagine that they'd have presented the case for eg. Holocaust denial (I know, Godwin's Law) in the same approving way.