It is almost cute to see rightworld (who normally style themselves skeptics who regard the evil MSM as completely untrrustworthy) immediately shelving their “skepticism” and responding to this steaming turd of a schlock documentary as if it were the font of all knowledge. You know that deep down they are just dying to have their paranoia validated by the MSM, and so it proves. We hear the same old voices say once more that they’ve been silenced. Odd that we’ve heard them say so before in the newspapers, blogs, TV, and now on this. In rightworld, being silenced doesn’t result in, you know, actual silence.
The content of the documentary has been rebutted:
- RealClimate » Swindled!
- Stoat: The great global warming swindle!
- In the Green: Deconstructing Channel 4’s Great Global Warming Swindle
- Nexus 6: It’s curtains for cosmic rays
- “The troposphere isn’t warming”
And much of it we’ve heard before. We’ve met some of the idiot anti-scientists and liars on the documentary before, too.
Prof Lindzen gets a lot of time in the documentary. Here he is in the Daily Mail, making statements that you do not have to be a scientist to see through. You just need to be able to read for comprehension:
Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.
But that doesn’t stop Lindzen saying a few paragraphs later:
In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as ‘The Little Ice Age’, when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.
But here’s the smoking gun. Referring to the Stern report, Lindzen says:
Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and improve his, environment.
The model used (PAGE) assumes that 90% of the impacts are adapted to in rich countries, and 50% in poor countries.
So, is Lindzen a shamless liar or hasn’t he read the report he is criticising?
You be the judge.