grufty ji wrote:
Does the programme provide any real evidence that the IPCC (or anyone else) is actively misleading the public? If not, then I suggest the word "swindle" has been put in the title for reasons of sensationalism. In tandem with the fact that at least one of the participants insists they have been misrepresented through selective editing of their contribution; it would be difficult to know what parts of the programme present fact, and what parts are edited to mislead.
The programme does come over as more than a bit sensationalist. As I said, the opening credits suggest that anyone who beleives 'all this stuff' is either a student dressed as a tomato or a dodgy 90's comedian (Rob Newman), so it's not that discursive. I wish it had been, but none of the big names who argue the other way were invited. A platform to say what you like basically, and as you've illustrated, one for others to have you say what they like.
x
|