I had wanted to make a post before about the way the documentary Brady posted essentially did the same thing as An Inconvenient Truth with somewhat vague graphs to imply that the information was more highly correlated, but I ended up thinking better of it.
At first glance I was taken aback by the argument for sunspots and the relatively small amount of CO2 from humans versus natural forces, but it turns out a lot of that has been embellished.
While reading an
article on slashdot one of the comments mentioned
this refutation of the BBC film. It turns out that the director is also known for misleading his interviewees and "creatively editing" a lot of their comments, which has one of the people involved, Professor Carl Wunsch, crying foul. (Comment 109 on that link).
I suppose I'm on the fence about it right now, but something sticks with me from my Professional Speaking class. My professor relayed the theory that most people don't want to be convinced. He said that when you use a narrative, however, it can act like a kind of back door, letting you into people's lives without their realizing it.
I just thought it was relevant in the midst of the "World is Ending" and "You've Been Swindled" face-off. One thing in the documentary is true: it has become a highly politicized issue.
How ya doing, buddy?
85242
35212
Skexis