And for those who are interested in some fallout associated with the program.

I went back and watched the clips from Carl Wunsch (about 23 minutes into the video, also at 47, 49, and 55 minutes). The parts they dedicate to him and his research are relatively short (a total of 2-3 minutes vs. 5-10 minutes for others who are interviewed) and form only a small part of the film’s evidence. Essentially all they do with Wunsch’s research is point out that the temperatures of oceans do not necessarily reflect what is going on at the given moment, but due to their depth there are ocean temperatures today that are still being affected by what happened thousands of years ago. That is, a certain part of the ocean could be warming, but that might be because of something that happened in the earth’s atomosphere circa 1100 A.D., or 3000 B.C., or 10,000 B.C.

When Wunsch says he was “misrepresented” it appears that what he means is that he doesn’t want to appear to support a position that he disagrees with, not that what he is shown saying isn’t factually accurate. Wunsch believes in Co2-caused, man-made, global warming, and yet here he is shown in a video that is attempting to debunk the theory. Think of it as though you were being interviewed for a documentary on your religion and you were told it was going to be a show on how your religion had been mininterpreted by society, and then when the show comes out it turns out to make your religion look like a crock. Whatever you said might be what you intended to say, and even if you knew what the show was really going to be you might have said the same things, but chances are you wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed for the show in the first place.

If my take on this is accurate then what we can get from all this is that the show’s producers were rude, perhaps unprofessional, and perhaps unethical, but that this does not necessarily mean the production’s accuracy is flawed in any way.

Still, if it were me I would have told everybody being interviewed exactly what type of show it was going to be and I would have screened it by them prior to releasing it to prevent exactly this type of thing because even if it doesn’t change the quality of the presentation it certainly doesn’t help the credibility factor.

Why stop at refraining from reading Chris’s blog? Because, really, it would be better for you and me and Chris if you just didn’t express your opinions.

The world would be a much better place if everybody said only the nicest and least provocative things. By which I mean if you don’t agree with me, then shut up, because ultimately I believe in the sanctity of freedom of expression. For me.

Dave

Love you too, sunshine.

I think it would be better for you and me if you didn’t read my blog anymore.

Chris

Robert Redford is just as hypocritical with the environment at times putting his business ahead of the environment. I do believe that he does more good than harm.

I was privileged enough while working at Sundance to be in the conference room of a Global Warming Summit with world leaders including Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” presentation. Gore hadn’t released the movie yet but he gave a presentation that was an outline and basis for the movie. He showed clips of the movie. After seeing his presentation I thought to myself the same things that you are writing about here. What was Gore’s real agenda? In the past Al Gore and environmentalist didn’t really seem to go together. It seemed odd to me and to others I mentioned it to at the time. To me it seemed like it was agenda driven and I thought he is thinking about a comeback and is going to use the environment to defeat the Republicans in 2008. Fast forward a few years to now and that is what a lot of others now think also. Again not being altruistic but using the environment as a platform to gain power. See Goremovement 2008

I think there is a lot of hype and not enough hard facts and data. Mostly it is just media madness. (Anne Nicole media frenzy) Today’s media loves gloom and doom and the environmental movement is full of gloom and doom. What’s more gloomy than the end of the world and thus we have the media frenzy stirring it up. In reality the earth has survived many ice ages and thaw cycles. I am sure it will survive another.

The movie is great. I highly encourage all to watch it.

I am not familiar with the kind of eco-terrorism and big money that is claimed to surround the global warming movement. There are plenty of people with something at stake on either side (perhaps new ‘Green’ industries verses traditional energy producers?) and they will continue to lambaste each other with whatever will garner them an audience – arguing over an alleged apocalypse makes for good copy. The fact that we have bloggers being pulled off topic and asserting their positions while having nothing new or unique to add to the debate is a testament to how emotionally charged the issue is.

Like you said, any regulation (for or against) takes a tremendously long time. So why are so many bright people using second (or third) hand information to make such a big ruckus now? Is the CPM for Global Warming ads that lucrative and the topic that volatile that its a new blog tactic?