Sure he hasn't.
Telling the truth as opposed to glitzy presentations of complete lies has gone really out of fashion these days.
What you fail to appreciate is that there are a lot of people who
believe - not without justification - that the "Global Warming
Swindle" made its case by being economical with the truth. This wasn't
a case of over-simplifying a complex realiy to fit it into a 90-minute
presentation, which is all the legitmate objections to "An
Inconvenient Truth" amount to, but deliberate distortions,
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
"Carl Wunsch
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally
featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely
misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he
agreed to be interviewed.[26][3] He called the film "grossly
distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World
War Two."[27] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[27]
and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.
[28] The production company denied that he had been misled and that
correspondence to Wunsch had clearly stated the programme would
'examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily
caused by industrial emissions of CO2'.[3] Filmmaker Durkin responded,
"Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the
film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are
his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the
programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."[27] Wunsch
has since said that Durkin "clearly quite deliberately understood my
point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the
film, the reverse of what I was trying to say" [4].
Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both
extremes of the global change debate distasteful [3] he wrote in a
letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real,
a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced
component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a
programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and
unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections
as to how his interview material was used:
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle 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."[3]
On March 11, 2007, The Independent covered the Carl Wunsch
controversy, and asked Channel 4 to respond to what it described as "a
serious challenge to its own credibility". A Channel 4 spokesman said:
"The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views
of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions.
This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all
sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns
about his contribution we will look into that."[26]
Wunsch has said that he has received a letter from the production
company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he
agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented
nor misled. Wunsch refused.[29]
Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from
the international and DVD versions of the film.
On December 7, 2007, reacting to what he claimed were new and further
distortions by Durkin, Wunsch stated that Durkin made a false
statement about Wunsch's reasons for demanding his material be
removed[5]:
"Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because
of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear
almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who
didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this
seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this".
During the interview, Wunsch restated and strengthened his critique of
Durkin's "Swindle" on ABC's Lateline after the channel screened the
film:
"I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating
it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a
tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could
imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on
its own to throw raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film
at all. It's a political statement."
Do let me know when Leonardo di Caprio's up for a Nobel too. Then we'll really know the process has been well and truly been prostituted to hell.
Al Gore has been actively spreading the word on anthropogenic global
warming for quite some time now - his 1992 book, "Earth in the
Balance" ISBN-10: 1594866376 ISBN-13: 978-1594866371 still reads well.
It may take a while before Leonardo di Caprio builds up a similar
reputation - as you would appreciate if knew anything about the
subject.
