- we might be waiting a long time for absolute facts/proof. Mean while the clock is ticking and most main-stream scientists are telling us to act, when normally they always like to just go back and check.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__.
Of course he was tricked into appearing. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ 2007/03/the_great_global_warmi ng_swind.php#comment-367476Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was __apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues__(the __producers have a history of doing this__), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed.
I've just received the following email from Carl Wunsch, which confirms that Martin Durkin has been true to type:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Wunsch"
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Just wanted to check something
I've not seen it and the __context was not at all what we had agreed on__. Was billed as a balanced discussion of the threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program,__I realized I'd been duped__. I'm wondering if there's some way I can get to see it. If you do register some kind of complaint, can you let me know what it says?