Was this the same program which quoted one scientist in it's broadcast as agreeing with their theories but he then later raised severe objections and claimed that they'd cut his part down quite a bit and managed to alter his message from one of raising doubts and criticisms into one confirming their theories?
The scientist in question was Carl Wunch (based at MIT), who was one of the few people actually working on active research projects to be featured on the programme (many of the others were captioned at working at universities they retired from years ago).
See link for his open letter to Channel 4 (the broadcasters)
A nice quote, particularly in light of some of the discussions here:
In general, good scientists (unlike lawyers) are meant to keep in mind at all times that conceivably they are wrong. There is a very wide spectrum of scientific knowledge ranging from the almost certain, e.g. that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow, or that no physical object can move faster than the speed of light; to inferences that seem very plausible but for which one can more readily imagine ways in which they might prove incorrect (e.g., that melting of the Greenland ice cap means that sea level will rise); to fiercely disputed ideas (e.g., that variations in the North Atlantic circulation directly control the climate of the northern hemisphere). Most of us draw conclusions that seem to us the most compelling, but try hard to maintain an open mind about counter arguments or new observations that could prove us wrong. Reducing the extremely complicated discussion of future climate change to the cartoon level we see on both extremes is somewhat like making public policy on the basis of a Batman movie.
January has April's showers
And 2 and 2 always makes a 5
What is actually happening according to most scientists is a combination of greenhouse gas buildup and cyclical climate change.
Climate change usually occurs at a rate of millennial and it is now occurring at a centennial rate. So the changes are more noticeable and are causing more drastic weather patterns and natural disasters more frequently.
I had all sorts of quotes and scientific studies url links but when I went to post it erased everything.
So here is my proof:
Go to google and put the phrase: global warming causing earth climate cycle faster
read some of the studies done and see if it doesn't make sense.
Then go back to watching documentaries that spoon feed you what you want to hear.
When some scientist can actually prove what they actually preach then "I'm a believer".
When we have carbon particles measured in 2-3 parts per billion, I can't really emphasise with the blanket concept. When scientists can say "Hey, the bubble of pollution over china creates a convection which transfers heat" then I'll start getting interested. Carbon has a 15 year life in the atmosphere.
When you look at the earth in relation to the sun you are comparing a pea against a basketball. Then consider the differential in heat between the poles and the equator and you can see any small change with the sun will create significant heat changes.
Nup, most of this global warming is just Y2K bug in disguise, so research scientists can get their funding allocated.
Bring on global warming; the summer was crap in the UK. In fact I'm going to burn some toast right now...
I am not yet ready to sign on as a Global Warming true believer. I am still skeptical about it. Maybe in part because I can still be a skeptic about. However, it is getting to the point where it is a "you are with us or against us" kind of thing. Some people believe it is impossible to be liberal without signing on whole heartedly to the global warming theory and its attending dogma.
You are accused of not "caring" about the environment, as if simply supporting the idea of GW were the real solution to the problem. You can say that you do still care about the environment and that we should all do what we can to live more green but in the end if you don't 100% without question support the idea that GW is manmade and not a natural cycle of weather then you are accused of not being a caring person. *sigh*
I am still open to new information on the subject either way, my mind is still open about it but it raises my feelings of unease to think that a political agenda could be silencing voices that critique the man made Global Warming theory, even if they come from the political side that I am most often in sympathy with.
In opinion the left needs to watch this idea or else fall victim the hijacking of their parties in the same manner that the Christian Dominionism hijacked the right and the dogma will be used for political gain just the same as with the right. Some people absolutely cannot tolerate any questioning , just mere questions and discussion, of GW without it turning into a heated, emotional debate and that in and of itself should be a red flag about the potential nature of this growing concept.
"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT