[See our one-page version of this whole issue.]
Thanks to Frank Brus, at least one camera is now on YouTube in full, with sound. Many thanks to other skeptics who volunteered with other helpful suggestions and ideas: to J.J., Ruth, Jim, and Raymond. Thanks to Steve for info about bit-torrent (at least we don’t have to go there this time).
An excellent talent pool out there. I didn’t even know some people had access to post Very Long Movies on Youtube (1 hour 56 mins.) Some of my favourite points are at the end. Check out the last 15 minutes.
There were two cameras recording at the same time:
View 2 (Front more distant camera)
OR (UPDATE) View 1 (Back camera view) closer.
Thanks to Barry Corke for driving hundreds of kilometers with his high tech equipment to record this for no fee at all!
The original post has all the background and information on this video: ABC Doco “UnCut”: Evans, Nova, Minchin and Rose — the full unedited video. Look for the moment when Anna is surprised we agree with CO2 being a greenhouse gas: “How can you be skeptical?” Notice when she describes David’s modeling work as “data entry”.
The videos posted there both had sound glitches after 26 minutes. Thanks to Frank, I think we have fixed it here. If a Youtube becomes available for the other view, I shall add it.
Thank you also to the many people who made a much appreciated Christmas contribution — of all sizes. No tip is too small. I am grateful.
Compare that to the final ABC-Smith&Nasht version that went to air
In the end the “Jo & David segment” was only four minutes long. If they were impartial they would not have spent so much of that four minutes on the “paranoia” and the extra camera-man. Instead they would they have spent, say, two whole minutes showing four graphs, and another minute showing that Jo and David are volunteers, that the big money is on Anna’s side of the debate? What matters more to the Australian debate about whether every family should spend something like $1,000 this year on taxes and fees to reduce the global temperature — the failure of the climate models, or the ABC’s spin on those who resist the government agenda?
Does the Australian taxpayer get value for money with this production, or did they unknowingly fund propaganda and advertising for Labor Party policies?
Would the narrator sum up with the key point that the difference between alarmists and skeptics is that skeptics want observations while the alarmists rely on models? Or that fueling the skepticism is a wealth of data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley Centre, Argo and weather balloons? Would they have spent 10 seconds explaining that while Jo and David are not climate scientists, David has six degrees in maths and stats including a Phd from Stanford, and both of them won prizes in their areas in university?
Could the doco makers have used proper images of graphs, or did it help the public understand the skeptic case by briefly showing an oblique shaded image, and not explaining the significance of the graph (including that the pre-Argo data is near worthless)?
PS: From comments on the other thread, I may not have made Nick Minchin’s role clear. He was approached to do the show as the skeptical anchor, got assurances it would not be hostile (yes, he was suspicious), and asked David and me to help him try to convince Anna Rose. He’s a well versed skeptic. I was impressed with his affable, yet well informed demeanor and patience with Anna.
Anna, on-the-other-hand, came with petty Desmog attack points and no awareness of what skeptics argued. She ignored every point we made. Look for the insightful bit where, after an hour and 38 minutes of debate, it starts to dawn on Anna that it isn’t going the way she’d imagined. Anna checks that “yes” we understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, and that “yes” we agree levels of CO2 are rising — and she simply cannot understand why that isn’t the end of the argument. Flummoxed. Completely clueless, non-quantitative, and ignorant. Yet skilfully cashing in on the government propaganda wave, doing much better than David and me in the climate money and government-approval stakes. (In her eyes, she is doubtless winning: she gets the money, accolades, the radio interviews, and the meeting with the PM. Skeptics get next to no money, plenty of bully-boy-scorn, and are shunned by anyone who’s, you know, “really important”. Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.)
Transcript of the broadcast. With a few thoughts from David, annotated.
Transcript of the interview. The dialog that made it to the finished documentary that was broadcast is highlighted in blue. Note the fancy cut and paste job they did to make David appear something he did not, so as to conceal the fact that we presented four bits of evidence, not one and the dodgy thermometers.
And GregB (who is in that same kitchen pictured above right now) says hello to Trish in NZ