"Fifteen months later, after a 176-page complaint involving more than 20 scientists and other distinguished academics, the film's contents have now been scrutinised by the UK media regulator. "

20 scientists...and  "other" distinguished Academics......ROFL. 
What an ensemble.

Also, I would like to add that, all of the papers I read supporting this premise used the cherry picking of evidence as a tactic. Many of them recycled long discredited myths, while others used statistically flawed techniques, in an apparent attempt to massage data in order to support their desired conclusions.   I dont believe this "Global Warming myth."

A number of high profile websites devoted entirely to peddling misinformation about climate - many of them run by, and most of them funded by, lobby groups that campaign for action on climate change. Many of these lobby groups are partly funded by sections of the leftist-elite, and their allies in the Environmental wacko group.

I have a question for you Fokker:

If the polar ice caps are melting.....and the glaciers are disappearing.....
Where is all water from the melting Ice ??

ROFL ......

"Many other academics of similar standing also made huge and very time-consuming contributions, in some cases giving up several weekends in order to do so. "

"Many other Academics".....gave up "Several weekends."

LOL,   I like that.  I like.   ROFL.

Im glad to see you so passionate about that, that is passionate to you.

I am sad to see that no one really cares.
Just like no one really cares that Shockey was traded to the Saints.....

Sad sad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517444.stm

"Moreover, all of the papers I read disputing this premise used the cherry picking of evidence as a tactic. Many of them recycled long discredited myths, while others used statistically flawed techniques, in an apparent attempt to massage data in order to support their desired conclusions. "

Unlike nuclear fission, nobody is stepping forward and saying "Hey, lemme show you this model I built to demonstrate a natural process."  Global warming is NOTHING but statistical analysis.   And in any statistical model, considering which factors get measured and what methods to approximate findings are the whole ball game, not "cherry-picking".

"This also led me to find a number of high profile websites devoted entirely to peddling misinformation about climate - many of them run by, and most of them funded by, lobby groups that campaign against action on climate change. Many of these lobby groups are partly funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry. "

Totally irrelevant to the science.  This is a political argument straight out of the Third Reich or behind the Iron Curtain, aka "Jew physics". 

"Where Channel 4 claimed the film was an attempt to give a minority a voice, I saw it as a systematic attempt to deceive the public, an out and out propaganda piece masquerading as a science documentary."

So I guess the BBC will never air another science documentary.  After all, if it dared to do a life of Freud portraying him as anything but a quack, it would be deceiving the public--and scores of neurologists and psychiatrists would say so.  Now many of their professional associations would work with pharmaceutical lobbyists, so I guess that would make it ok to ignore their research.

And don't even touch anthropology with a ten-foot pole.

Here's more susbstance of what Ofcom said

>>Climate documentary 'broke rules' 
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website 

Recent evidence has almost sunk the film's contention that changes in the Sun's output are driving modern-day climate change

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

In a long-awaited judgement, Ofcom says Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues.

The film also treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead audiences "so as to cause harm or offence".

Plaintiffs say the Ofcom judgement is "inconsistent" and "lets Channel 4 off the hook on a technicality."

The film's key contentions were that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and that the modern focus on climate change is based in politics rather than science.

It is seen in some "climate sceptic" circles as a counter to Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, and credited with influencing public perception of climate science. It has reportedly been sold to 21 countries and distributed on DVD.

High definition

"It's very disappointing that Ofcom hasn't come up with a stronger statement about being misled," said Sir John Houghton, a former head of the UK Met Office and chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment.

"I know hundreds of people, literally hundreds, who were misled by it - they saw it, it was a well-produced programme and they imagined it had some truth behind it, so they were misled and it seems Ofcom didn't care about that," he told BBC News.   
I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC

Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one by which the audience is "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence", and that Swindle does not meet this "high test".

"The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality," said Bob Ward, former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film.

"The ruling noted that Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and data used in the programme, yet decided that this did not cause harm or offence to the audience."

Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set out in the complaints."

The regulator also says it is only obliged to see that news programmes meet "due accuracy".

'No balance'

The broadcaster argued that the judgement vindicated its decision to showcase the documentary.

"Ofcom's ruling explicitly recognises Channel 4's right to show the programme and the paramount importance of broadcasters being able to challenge orthodoxies and explore controversial subject matter," said Hamish Mykura, the station's head of documentaries.

"This is particularly relevant to Channel 4 with its public remit and commitment to giving airtime to alternative perspectives."

On another issue - whether contributors to the programme had been treated fairly - Ofcom mainly found against Channel 4 and the film's producer WagTV.

Former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King had been misquoted and had not been given a chance to put his case, the regulator said.

Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been invited to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but which turned out to be "an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

The film alleged that the IPCC's scientific reports were driven by politics rather than science, and Ofcom ruled the organisation had not been given adequate time to respond.

"I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC and the manner in which we function, and clearly brings out the distortion in whatever Channel 4 was trying to project," said Rajendra Pachauri, the organisation's chairman.

Science 'settled'

Ofcom's Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". 
Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges

The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not reflect a range of views, as required under the code.

But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules.

Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007".

This being so, it says, climate science was not "controversial" at the time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by broadcasting something that challenged the link.

"That's a very big inconsistency," said Sir John Houghton. "They said it's completely settled, so why worry - so they can just broadcast any old rubbish."

While some of the 265 complaints received by Ofcom were short and straightforward, one group assembled a 176-page document alleging 137 breaches of the code.

Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom ruling, but it brings no sanctions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517509.stm<<

So it failed to let people respond, and it ignored what OfCom considers "settled" science.

The standard set out here, is that if your British government and scientific authorities decided holding in a fart led to cancer, nobody could air a program challenging that view without announcing that holding in farts causes cancer and giving every authority mentioned a segment on the program to sound off on it. 

Do global-warming programs have the same "balance"?

That might be how to run a broadcast monopoly but it isn't science.

"In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" (although he did not coin the phrase),[2] in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's refutability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
in depth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

and we see this in action.  Anthropomorphic global warming is based on the paradigm of the computer models of Terran atmosphere.  That is normal science.  Anybody who challenges it must have made an error of method and is criticized on that ground.   But the anamolies are cropping up.  The IPCC models failed to describe the climate trends of the past decade, which means an error factor that carried forward obliterates the calculation of long-term warming correlated to industrial production.  For another thing, we're seeing atmospheric disturbances throughout the Solar System, and that can't be due to human industrialization.

ROFL I'm like LOL ROFL I like ROFL

yeah I make as much sense as BW.

Not only Martian polar caps shrinking, but there's a new Red Spot on Jupiter, too.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

"isolated spot on Mars"  well the ice sheets are at the poles, and polar results are considered important markers of terrestrial climate.

the theory that minute changes in the composition in terrestrial atmosphere drives terrestrial climate change can't explain why other planets have simultaeneous climate change.

"20 scientists...and  "other" distinguished Academics......ROFL.
What an ensemble."

What would make a group of educated people a bunch of morons?

I never understood BWs hate for all scientists and academics. I mean, in a science area... who are supposed to be the educated people? The scientists and the academics. So I don't understand BWs comments that they are all evil.
And his weird idea that the "leftist-elite" (I really dunno who this refers to except to academics and scientists?) is trying to fool the worls (for some reason) that we have a problem with too much CO2. I don't get the point.

Other then this I agree with Fokker that that people gotta see through that this isn't just about the global warming. Perhaps you should look outside in the ocean surrounding your continent (USA) and see the garbage floating there that is about the same size as your continent, and figure that oh shit we cant keep polluting everything.

> TheYell wrote:
> Not only Martian polar caps shrinking, but there's a new Red Spot on Jupiter, too.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html<

_This is the title of your article:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

_This is the content:
"The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said."

_And before you accuse me of being selective, yes I did read the CO2 part. I am dismissing that because, as any good nerd will tell you, Mars is so totally different to Earth that any attempt to draw parralels between the two just smack of desperation.
Mars' atmosphere is almost totally CO2, it's nowhere near the habitable zone, it's gravity is so weak that it's atmosphere is leaking away into space, and it's holiday area has a lofty average temp of -50, it's a quarter of our size... long story short: occams razor.

But if you wish you can continue believing that the axial "wobbles" should be ignored in favour of "The cooling sun is making us hotter" then feel free, just don't expect anyone to respond kindly when you post such blatantly unthought out drivel.
Seriously, did you even read that article?

"http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html"

_Funny how nobody gave two tugs about the spot formation on Jupiter untill they needed a reason to not take responsibility for their actions. I wonder if these people genuinely believe that these "storms" (the average wind speed is 200-300 mph, storm is a relative term here I think) have only just started forming? Probably, that would be most convenient, or at least more convenient than "Storm forms on stormy planet. Again".
______________

Peace.

good luck trying to overturn fanatical belief in global warming. it's an ideology, not a science.

> Elysian Thebes wrote:

> good luck trying to overturn fanatical belief in global warming. it's an ideology, not a science.<

Good luck in finding an explanation that absolves you of responsibility.

Your theories are EXACTLY like that.

You KNOW that pollution drives climate. If your proofs, computer models, fail every 10 years, that's Dell's fault.

If Jupiter's surface seems radically different it is just a fault in observation-- those storms probably pop up all the time--pfui.   Jupiter's internal heat would not CANCEL OUT external heating, it would ADD to it.

Somebody built a (valid:ten years) model of the wobble hypothesis, hooray. I could model one where it doesnt work. And you prefer one to the other because your political bias towards ecological "responsibilty" and you swallow the awesome coincidence of concurrent atmospheric turbulence throughout the Solar System.

kind of inquisitorial to insist everyone follow a single theory among a host of them, a certain theory that is relied on for large grants and such.

fokker, seriously, if you were being paid 6 figures, and you have an easy posh job, would your conclusions perhaps be biased in terms of prolonging, securing that salary?

i for one don't hold up scientists as some white shining priests of knowledge that whose ambitions/desires are totally beneath their dedication to the pursuit of truth.

you say naysaying scientists can't be believed because they're funded by oil companies. by that same token i dismiss anything produced by a scientist w/ a government grant for research.

anyways, a true scholar is open to the arguments, and examines the evidence, not the little letters after a person's name.