Look, I love astronomy far more than the average person, but live stargazing - especially in cloudy England - is just about the dullest thing I can think of to bring out what's interesting in the field.
I don't understand why think that the producers of this series of hour-long programmes wouldn't have the same concerns, and ensured that the programmes were not dull?
I watched the first programme. It was presented by well-known physicist/presenter Brian Cox and comedian Dara O'Briain (who has a degree in theoretical physics and does a great routine debunking alternative medicine). They presented a live segment from Jodrell Bank which explained how radio telescopes work and Jodrell Bank's key role in the development of that field. They had a live report from the observatories in Hawaii, explaining what made that such a great location for telescopy, and also looking at how the islands were formed, reminding us about planetary formation and make-up. They took Jonathan Ross (a geeky presenter/celeb) out into a back-yard observatory, aimed the telescope and showed him Jupiter and its four visible moons). They explained the layout of the solar system, and the rotations of the planets, and pointed out that Uranus was currently in conjunction with Jupiter, and how to see it for yourself. They also answered questions that were being texted in by viewers (including a great one: "If there are so many billions of stars, how come it's so dark at night?").
Admittedly not all of this needed to be done live, but doing so gave them a hook to build up a lot of publicity about the programme, and it meant that the energy of the programme was very high, with very appealing and natural approaches by the presenters.
I'd think that you could build a perpetual-motion machine if you could do this.
No, because it relies on the wind blowing: first to accelerate, and second to maintain whatever velocity it reaches. Once the wind stops blowing, it will slow down and stop. Here's a nice illustration of how this phenomenon works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yt4zxYuPzI&feature=related
Sigh. These are well-known anti-AGW claims that mis-represent the evidence and the understanding of that evidence by climate scientists. If you've really been looking for answers to these claims, can I ask where you've been looking?
Now that your misunderstandings have been addressed, I'm interested to see if you change your opinion on this matter.
The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."