From: "Geo." 

"Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in message
news:45f91288$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> Yeah but there are a lot who've said that their views were actually
> misrepresented by the program & not by the UN.

No that's not what they said:

"But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious
challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished
scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly
distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human
pollution did warm the climate."

How about we take it straight from his posts?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-resp
onds/

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the
over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus
the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that
with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are
either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our
credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e.
see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more
immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme
claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I
regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very
sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to
be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about
the future.

[...]

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact
that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to
absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean
could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By
its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon
dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must
not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making
--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

----------------------

And yet his point is that warming the ocean increases CO2 release is
completely in line with what they were saying in that portion of the film,
that being that the Gore graphs clearly show the earth warmed and THEN CO2
levels rise thus disproving what Gore's point was that since the graphs had
similar shapes obviously CO2 was the cause and not a result of warming. He
has not denied this scientific fact, thus his complaint about them not
allowing him full expression of his views is meaningless in the point the
film was making. They did not ask him for a conclusion, they simply asked
him for known facts and then used those facts to help prove their point
about why the Gore graphs look similar.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5