Los bericht bekijken
Oud 13 maart 2007, 10:19   #6
Edina
Perm. Vertegenwoordiger VN
 
Edina's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 16 mei 2006
Locatie: Spaceship Earth
Berichten: 12.669
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Edina Bekijk bericht
Misschien moet je je maar eens beter informeren over de documentaire... één van de vooraanstaande wetenschappers die naar voor werd geschoven als iemand die niet gelooft in de antropogene invloed van het klimaat, heeft ondertussen al laten weten dat dit niet zijn standpunt is en dat hij totaal werd misleid door de documentairemaker. Een documentairemaker die trouwens al berucht is voor het misinterpreteren van wetenschappers in zijn documentaires.

Zie: http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece

Citaat:
Channel 4 had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.

The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".

Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (...)

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."
Lees ook wat dezelfde wetenschapper elders schreef:

Citaat:
Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
En voor alle duidelijkheid: die wetenschapper heeft zijn mening niet aangepast na kritiek op de documentaire, maar heeft steeds dezelfde mening gehad (wat heel makkelijk te controleren is via zijn publicaties). De reportagemaker heeft gewoon heel selectief stukjes uit het interview gemonteerd zodat het lijkt alsof de man ik kwestie niet gelooft in de antropogene invloed op de klimaatwijziging... hetgeen dus pertinent onwaar is.
Edina is offline   Met citaat antwoorden