Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

With the ready availability of An Inconvenient Truth and the lazy, very poor, one-sided journalism in the network specials and coverage of global warming by Blakemore, Bazelle, Pelley, O’Brien, Brokaw and Cullen and in the press by Borenstein, Kolbert and others, we felt it important that you hear and see some of the alternative thinking on the issue as presented in the recent UK TV4 documentary that created quite a stir called the Great Global Warming Swindle. Unfortunately after millions of people viewed it on google and then youtube, the show was pulled for copyright infringement and must now be purchased from WAGTV4 Click here to buy the show. Still free though is the five part series produced by The Friends of Science in Canada, Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

After listening to a debate on global warming, audience members confirm that global warming is not a crisis.  Read the transcript of the debate.  Or this NPR summary Intelligence-Squared Debate

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

What an amazing world we live in. Scientist Michael Mann, creator of the broken hockey stick temperature graph, informs us that “Allowing governmental delegations to ride into town at the last minute and water down conclusions, after they were painstakingly arrived at in an objective scientific assessment, does not serve society well.” (New Scientist, 8 March 2007)

What was his view just a few short years ago, when Ben Santer altered the 1966 IPCC Report, after it had been painstakingly arrived at and agreed to by the panel of scientists – to ensure that the Report would agree with the rather politicized Summary for Policy Makers, and would garner ample headlines and television news coverage. He added the famous claim that the evidence “now points to a discernable human influence on the global climate.” He deleted at least five statements that inconveniently contradicted his assertion.

I don’t recall him criticizing any of Santer’s actions. Is his concern with the act of changing one or the other document … the person doing the editing … or the direction in which the editing takes the document (more alarmist versus less alarmist)?

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there’s no need to feel bad.

To see video, “Click here to view the video”.

According to Benny Peiser on CCNET “The failure to spot a rather trivial error raises the question whether the editors of Nature rushed to publish a fatally flawed paper for political purposes.”

CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.