TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › So I'm gonna do it...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So I'm gonna do it...

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Tonight on the ABC (Australia's government-owned non-advertising television network) a documentary on global warming is being aired.

So what? you say...but wait. This is a documentary outlining all the evidence against human-caused global warming. The ABC has been slammed by all the other media for running it, but I say, good on them.

When I studied Philosophy at university, the first six months were on argument technique. I was taught and still believe that you cannot have a valid, credible argument unless you have examined ALL sides, and you have evidence to support your theory, and evidence to refute the arguments that are against your side. I don't see how it is possible to fully believe in and argue for something unless you have all the information at hand, you have examined all the sides and arguments, and you have formed your opinion after doing so.

So, I plan to watch this documentary and I plan to take it on board, learn from it, examine it - and if need be, modify my opinion because of it. Particularly with global warming, anyone who doesn't believe tends to get shot down and told they know nothing. I've certainly been guilty of that.

Now, I have to admit that I doubt it will change my mind, but I know that I will come out with a more rounded opinion afterwards. And who knows? It could change my mind. We'll have to see.

My point in posting this is, do you think that a fair and liberal media has a responsibility to run `controversial' shows such as this, in order to keep the public as informed as possible? Or do you feel that the media in general has an agenda and that is to keep us scared and pliable?
post #2 of 20
I think both sides of every story should be heard. People need to be well informed about important news. Gobal Warming (or the lack there of) is a very important issue. And there are big arguments saying there is and there isn't such a thing.
post #3 of 20
I definitely think both sides of the story should be heard, there was one on recently that talked about global cooling and while there is a lot of evidence for global warming, not so much is known about global cooling and maybe it is natures way of equalling out, as it has done in past eras.

As far as argument and technique, you must know the other side of an argument to know what questions and arguments will be used to critique your views, so it is just common sense that it does need to be heard in that respect.

I say good on ABC for airing it, but generally I have to believe that the media keep us scared. I think sometimes it is part of 'proving' freedom of the press (I also watched a documentary on that the other day and how some violent criminals have got away with their crimes because a reporter did not listen when asked to put off releasing information and the offender knew about the police knowing something about them or being in an area)
post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
My point in posting this is, do you think that a fair and liberal media has a responsibility to run `controversial' shows such as this, in order to keep the public as informed as possible? Or do you feel that the media in general has an agenda and that is to keep us scared and pliable?
Yes, and only if they really give both sides of a issue. or god forbid the truth

i think the media will do anything to get you to watch which=money for them. Like that show you watched on video games, they made all horror without giving all sides, they jsut gave you the far end.

or alike mr al movie.

yes climate change is real, WE as in humans did not cause it. WE may have made it worse. To what degree i dont know. It would be fun to see if they get into solor output how its been higher, that the ice caps on mars are melting also,hmm,

but yes i do agree with you there is climate change.
post #5 of 20
I think that both sides should be represented, and we can take a little from both. Yes Global Warming is happening, yes we can do something about it, but we should also know that some of this may be naturally occurring. However, if we can fix part of it, or make our world a better place by changing how we do things then we should. We are stewards of this great planet and we should start acting like it.
post #6 of 20
I absolutely agree that both sides should be aired, but I also think that it is up to the station to represent either sides in a way that clearly tells that the show is one side of a story. A lot of people believe what they watch and if they only see one side without understanding that there is an alternative viewpoint out there, they might take it on face value as fact. Even if this were a lead in to the program that states the controversy and offers the documentary, that would be better than just airing a show without explanation.

I watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and I will give him credit that he repeatedly brought up statements like "some people will say ......." to acknowledge the opposing point of view. Granted he did it somewhat sarcastically but he still brought it up. Although biased, it made you think of both sides of the story.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I absolutely agree that both sides should be aired, but I also think that it is up to the station to represent either sides in a way that clearly tells that the show is one side of a story. A lot of people believe what they watch and if they only see one side without understanding that there is an alternative viewpoint out there, they might take it on face value as fact. Even if this were a lead in to the program that states the controversy and offers the documentary, that would be better than just airing a show without explanation.
I agree completely with this. Unfortunately, that's one of the biggest problems with the media, at least here in the US. They don't give a fair representation but present it as gospel truth, leaving it to the viewer to extrapolate that it was really an opinion piece disguised as news. Also unfortunate is that the average person in the US has the education and reasoning skills of an 8th grader (I think that's the last stat I heard), and is incapable of making that leap that what they see or read isn't always the truth but an interpretation of the facts to support a stance.

Sarah, I'm glad you're giving that program a chance. My father taught me that the only way to effectively present a coherent argument is to understand the opposing side. (He's a very wise man ) Sometimes it's difficult not to get infuriated learning the other side but it's necessary to give a well informed and persuasive counter argument.
post #8 of 20
Is it the show referred to in this article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

Quote:
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 
Yes, it was `The Great Global Warming Swindle', which I thought presented some new and compelling evidence, until it was trashed afterwards by both believers and sceptics alike. The ABC held a one-hour debate with eight panelists, four sceptics, four believers. They universally criticised and dismissed the documentary. The journalist running the debate interviewed the maker of the film, and his pointed and clever questions made the man sweat. He had no recourse - it was almost embarrassing. His documentary has been remade four times since its original release because of all the factual `errors' (more like outright manipulation and lies).

But, I'm glad I watched it, and I'm glad I still feel the way I did before. Hopefully we'll ALL keep learning about climate change and be as informed as we possibly can.
post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
My point in posting this is, do you think that a fair and liberal media has a responsibility to run `controversial' shows such as this, in order to keep the public as informed as possible? Or do you feel that the media in general has an agenda and that is to keep us scared and pliable?
I don't know what things are like in Australia, but here the idea that global warming is real and caused by humans is the 'other' idea.

One is real science, one is pseudoscience and propaganda. I suppose it's good to know Big Oil's arguments about why they aren't causing it, just like it's good to know what tobacco companies used to claim about smoking and your health.

But, the majority of issues there really are two equally valid sides.

This one, there are only two sides because people have been grossly misinformed and for some reason insist on believing in the lies they've been told by the people with financial interest in their not understanding climate change.
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
...do you think that a fair and liberal media has a responsibility to run `controversial' shows such as this, in order to keep the public as informed as possible? Or do you feel that the media in general has an agenda and that is to keep us scared and pliable?
I agree with both. Both sides should be represented, but the media doesn't do it enough.
post #12 of 20
very well said love!!! i think you are very wise to examine the argument/evidence on both sides before making a choice as to what you do/do not agree with
post #13 of 20
That panel sounds like the panel they had following The Lost Tomb of Jesus special on Discovery. While the panel was supposed to be made up of both pro- and con-, it really was nothing more than a bash on the guys who made the show. You could tell the guys who did it were a bit dumbfounded that there was not one person in the room, especially not the moderator of the debate (Ted Koppel in that case), who was even the slightest bit open to the possibility.
post #14 of 20
Thread Starter 
Oh no Heidi it wasn't like that at all. They talked about the maker of the documentary for about ten minutes and then after that it was purely debate about the varying scientific views on global warming. One of the panellists was a man who set up the Lavoisier Group in Australia, and is one of our foremost critics of global warming. He's a bit of a fanatic, but he gave a very convincing speech that I was impressed with. One of the scientists `for' countered every single thing he said (at which I was equally impressed) and the guy who is our country's biggest naysayer literally had nothing to say. He looked like he was about to swallow his tongue.

The thing was, all the people `against' came up with all of their evidence (very much of which was not scientific but still convincing), and all the people `for' easily and earnestly refuted every, single thing they said, referring to nothing but science. Now, you would think that the `against' people would have had some comeback. But they didn't. Not once. Not one single thing to refute any of the `for' people's science. It blew me away. It was as if they had their piece to say but when their piece was questioned and examined they didn't have anything solid with which to back it up. And these weren't laypeople here, they were long-term researchers, scientists and journalists, who in the end just didn't have a leg to stand on.

It was one of the most unbiased debates I've seen - they were given every opportunity (in fact more so than the `for' side) to convince people of their argument, and they failed dismally.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
The thing was, all the people `against' came up with all of their evidence (very much of which was not scientific but still convincing), and all the people `for' easily and earnestly refuted every, single thing they said, referring to nothing but science. Now, you would think that the `against' people would have had some comeback. But they didn't. Not once. Not one single thing to refute any of the `for' people's science. It blew me away. It was as if they had their piece to say but when their piece was questioned and examined they didn't have anything solid with which to back it up. And these weren't laypeople here, they were long-term researchers, scientists and journalists, who in the end just didn't have a leg to stand on.

It was one of the most unbiased debates I've seen - they were given every opportunity (in fact more so than the `for' side) to convince people of their argument, and they failed dismally.
sounds like they should have called me for support. if they could not come up with facts to counter.
post #16 of 20
Thread Starter 
Yeah, they really couldn't! It was bizarre. You'd think the leading experts in their field would be able to support their own views on being challenged.

Afterwards they also interviewed some of the scientists who had appeared in the documentary, that have started legal action to have their footage taken out because they have said it was taken almost completely out of context and they were misrepresented. Funny what comes to light under scrutiny.

Oh, you'll like this. The maker of the documentary has also made two other features claiming that silicon breast implants are not dangerous for women at all, and that second hand smoke does not cause any adverse side effects. Yuh, he's SO credible...lol
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Oh, you'll like this. The maker of the documentary has also made two other features claiming that silicon breast implants are not dangerous for women at all, and that second hand smoke does not cause any adverse side effects. Yuh, he's SO credible...lol
oh that is just sad, sorry but i know 2 women who have had major issues with silicon implants. Even i have to admit there is problem with second hand smoke.

i wonder where did he go to learn to make documentary from ... geee
post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 
Well, the documentary itself was beautifully made, and very convincing. I was teetering on the edge until I found out it was nearly all manipulated to suit his agenda. Such as, he claimed that graphs he showed were until `now' when the latest data on the graphs was actually 1990. He deliberately left out the last 17 years of data, which were anomalous to his claims, and literally started sweating and dodging when asked why.

It's sad. Because there really are always two sides to every argument, and it just does more harm than good when you outright lie to support your view
post #19 of 20
that very true. I dont want lies, what is the saying
JUST THE FACTS JACK!!!! hehe,

hey do you know if you can order a DVD? i would like to see it.
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
I'm pretty sure you could - or perhaps you could watch it online. It was called `The Great Global Warming Swindle' and it was aired on Channel 4 in the UK.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › So I'm gonna do it...