Any documentary in which a major participant claims that he or she was misrepresented, and can justify said claims, should not be classed as a documentary. This mocumentary should be retitled: "Cultural Learnings for Make Benefit Glorious Fossil Fuel Industries"

According to Carl Wunsch's own website, he has filed a formal complaint with the UK oversight body Office of Communications, Ofcom. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/CHANNEL4.html

The strategy to involve Wunsch also is explained in some detail, including how particular footage was handled to say, "diametrically opposite to the point [he] was making---which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

This is the "evidence" that Kininmonth attempts to gloss over. No good ever comes through dishonesty or through defending dishonesty.

Hi Bushbred. No doubt about the effect of modern man mate. We wipe out X species every day don't we? And we can never go back. How do we stop this? I have no answers.

But you don't actually address the topic mate.

Global warming isn't called global warming any more. That's for the others on this thread. It's climate change. It's a political change.

Why? Well the Earth has been through this many times in the past. Before man had any modern tools or used carbon emitting equipment.

To say carbon emission is the problem and that we can reverse it if so is just insane.

We can change light bulbs, use nuclear power and walk everywhere but Mother Nature isn't going to suddenly change the climate. The ice falling into the oceans at both poles will take decades to rebuild. If they do at all.

Humans today are too busy trying to blame something or someone for what is actually nature at work. We may have added something to the climate problem but the reality is our climate changes regularly. For us regularly means every year or decade. For the Earth it means every hundred, or thousand years.

As to global warming fans. Explain the cold weather right now? Explain the sudden deluge of rain in various parts of the country. It is the switch from El Nino to La Nina. As scientists everywhere know and have said. They are just arguing about if that has happened or is just starting to happen.

Like all the other frauds (God, astrology, numerology, satanism, consumerism, Party Political honesty), if it's said often enough and widely enough eventually the bulk of people believe it.

If anyone here can prove global warming on their own please tell us how. All you are doing is spouting what some people say. That's all. And so am I. It's called OPINION. It's not fact as for every scientific theory there are others who can prove otherwise.

So many web sites quouted here and none of you actually know any of this for yourselves.

Carl Wunsch is quite categorical when he claims to have been misrepresented in the Channel 4 film and has protested.
As quoted above he believes that "climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component."
However he is also highly critical of those who make extreme claims of coming catastrophe.
He says (paraphrasing) that the science of climate change remains incomplete and stresses that at all times good scientists should admit that they may be wrong.
He asks, what I think is most important question of all, "How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions---will that guarantee protection against global warming?"
Almost daily, the ABC runs 'news' items containing predictions of an imminent AGW catastrophe - speculation presented as facts.
The Science Show, run by 'Gaiaist', Robyn William, has consistently run AGW catastrophic predictions without balance.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" may be polemics, but it provides a welcome (I won't say balance which implies equal treatment) counterpoint.

Yes DavoP, the Earth has been through climate change many times before, the glacial – interglacial periods is often a more correct turn of phrase. However, this latest climate change is due in large part (with 90 – 95% confidence) to human activity since about 1850.

The term used is anthropogenic global warming, but you are right – it has been marginalised to “climate change”. BTW, weather variations due to El Nino/La Nina are not aspects of ‘climate change’, although I can understand why the layperson can get confused.

We can do something about GHG emissions (many countries, businesses and people are) - you can choose not to do anything about it and that is your choice.

There are internet sites you could look at that explains the science (the AR4 report does indeed try to explain the science as well as answer some frequently asked questions) but many don’t bother – they rather criticise the science rather than try and understand it or what the fuss is all about.

DavoP, I am a scientist (not funded by the taxpayer in any way shape or form) and heavily involved in water resource management in Oz. I am very familiar with CSIRO studies and satellite (GRACE – google it) investigations. I can assure you the vast majority of scientists are not frauds.

Indeed, the vast majority of scientists are telling the world we have a problem, we have the technology to do something about it and the sooner the better – so why not try? It really is about sustainability.

Having an opinion is fine, but it helps if opinion is based on knowledge of a subject. I would be pleased to talk about GW but 350 word limits and post restraints make it difficult, especially if ‘off-topic’.

This is the very reason why scientists don’t generally join forums such as this – while the issues you may want to talk about appear simple and straight forward, they are often not.

Try http://www.realclimate.org/

Good for starters and you can ask as many questions as you like, without word limits.

Real Climate has 11 members:
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert
Who knows if "the vast majority of scientists are telling the world we have a problem"?

The admiral exemplifies my point; not very many climate scientists involve themselves in forums such as this. It's easier for people like us to go to their site than for them to visit all the world's forums.

RealClimate is run and organised by climate scientists working in the real world. I am a sceptic by nature (all scientists are) – this is why I had a look at their site in the first place.

Check their links.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

If you really want to get technical, you can see references to published literature in the IPCC reports like;

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Not many people do, this is why sites like RealClimate are valued.

To rephrase a previous point; some matters concerning climate change are very technical. A public forum like this does create a lot of hot air and has the propensity to confuse people who have not been trained in science.