The main issue, in case this wasn't clear enough:

The subject of the film is global warming and Kyoto, but obviously this kind of "filtering" of information could apply to a lot of things and a lot of areas. It's the TV version of the "Science" magazine flap. Whether Prof. Leahey is full of crap or not is almost beside the point.

was that the fix seems to be in as far as what subjects will be aired and which ones won't.

I have been trying to make the point that there is a certain culture that has preconceived notions about science that seems to limit the range of discussion. Anybody have a problem with that?

I notice the objections to a scientific source here often fall into several categories:

- I don't like the publication, therefore the data is false.

- I don't like where the funding came from, therefore the data is false.

- The guys I think are right don't like this study, therefore the data is false.

What's really been hilarious here and elsewhere is that a common response to the thesis that there is a clique in science publications--including reviewers--that can tilt what's presented, is "the objections are no good because they haven't been peer-reviewed."

I don't know who Leahey is, and I didn't look him up, because the point of view of the film was not the issue. The issue was that certain points of view apparently aren't going to see air time.