PBS again engaged in pseudo journalism, who is surprised? I call, ‘Sour Grapes’ on them and wish to heaven that both sides had been interviewed properly with the questions that were asked being allowed answered by the ones to whom they were put.
But no, instead we were given emotionalism, camera tricks, blurring of signature of a well respected physicist on a key document, Why did PBS FRONTLINE electronically alter the signature of one of the world’s most distinguished Physicists in their report “Climate of Doubt’? and editing of responses sequences and respondents to present a tale of woe once again have played into the hands of those who would de-fund PBS. If this is their idea of quality broadcasting I believe they may have to suffer the withdrawal of support from the public purse.
The most egregious misrepresentation of the program to me is the 97 percent nonsense as this critique from http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/thoughts-on-pbs-frontlines-climate-of-doubt-program/ here, notes;
The 97 percent nonsense. Hockenberry brought it up maybe a half-dozen times. Not once did he allow the many skeptics he interviewed explain why the stat is a joke (and it would have taken 8 seconds of air time). Hockenberry should be embarrassed to have bought the bunk enviro-left has been pushing with this fake stat. Would anyone else be able to get away with claiming the answer to a loaded question by 77 hand-picked scientists equals “97 percent of all climate scientists”? Heartland would never hear the end of it if we tried that. Our credibility would be shot, and rightly so. In fact, Hockenberry did take a swipe at our credibility with a criticism of the Oregon Petition and challenging questions to Fred Singer about it. Again, no such challenge to the alarmists about their 97 percent hooey.