I enjoyed watching Thin Ice, a documentary about climate science, that is freely available on the web for only a few days. The film is announced with the following introduction (bold mine):
In recent years climate science has come under increasing attack, so geologist Simon Lamb took his camera to find out what is really going on from his climate science colleagues.
This is misleading. At no point in his film Lamb tries to find out why climate science is under attack. He does mention climategate shortly (he interviewed Phil Jones before climategate) only to mention that he was cleared by four independent investigations. Not a single critic or skeptic is interviewed. A non informed observer would get away with the impression that there are no controversies in climate science at all. A better description would be:
Simon Lamb visits dozens of climate scientists to find out they are nice people and doing interesting work at extraordinary places. All these scientists are convinced that mankind is changing the planet and that we should do something about it.
Some well-known scientists are interviewed, like Myles Allen, Ray Pierrehumbert and Wally Broecker. Also lots of lesser-known scientists and technicians doing field work in the Arctic, at Antarctica or at sea. Have a look.
En de propaganda machine draait door…
Was Wally niet de uitvinder van de term “Global Warming”?
@Marcel, Ik stem voor jouw versie van de introductie, veel beter! Komt er nog een stukje over het wolkensymposium in Delft?
“Some well-known scientists are interviewed, like Myles Allen, Ray Pierrehumbert and Wally Broecker.”
OK, but what happened to “highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick)”? :)
Jokes aside, my impression is that climate scientists seem to have confused the words “criticism” and “attack”. This will get them nowhere, except that it will strenghen the impression that they are more activists than scientists.
find out what is really going on
Dat is natuurlijk precies wat er in die film gebeurt: kijken wat er gebeurt in de klimaatwetenschappers, middels gesprekken met mensen die hier hun dagelijkse werk van gemaakt hebben. Blijkbaar zijn er mensen die menen dat klimaatwetenschappers de allerlaatsten zijn waar je moet wezen als je wilt weten wat er in de klimaatwetenschap aan de hand is. Die mensen vertrouwen blijkbaar liever op blog science.
“that there are no controversies in climate science at all” There is largely no controversy when it comes to the main conclusions that: – There is a rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases due to human activity – That greenhouse gases have certain radiative properties and thus will cause the atmosphere and oceans to warm – That this in turn will cause and is already causing climate change (see the first climate dialogue) – And that the chance that these changes will cause no economic damage or claim human lives is far from zero That’s what this whole… Lees verder »
“A non informed observer would get away with the impression that there are no controversies in climate science at all.” Coincidentally I just watched this recent Youtube video by potholer54 that explains what I wrote above in a different way. An even better introduction would be: Simon Lamb visits dozens of climate scientists to find out they are nice people and doing interesting work at extraordinary places. All these scientists are convinced that mankind could very well be changing the planet and, unlike Marcel Crok, maintain that the chance that these changes will cause no economic damage or claim human… Lees verder »