The Great Global Warming Swindle

[matt_xyz]

The Great Global Warming Swindle - 9:00 Channel 4. Prepare to be annoyed, very annoyed. The selectivity with which the people contributing to this programme were chosen is remarkable. Can you imagine how many scientists they had to approach to get the few needed to make the anti-climate change case?

The director is the same one who made the 'Against Nature' series for Channel 4 a few years ago in which he tried to debunk most environmental problems. Channel 4 later had to make a public apology for all the inaccuries contained within the programmes. You would have thought they'd learned their lesson.

Matt

[wyevilla]

Unfortunately apologies come cheap - sensational headlines sell programmes, sell advertising space = money

What price the truth?

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Thought it was a decent enough program myself I suppose your personal views on the subject would alter whether you thought the program was good or not though

For your anti global warming programs you are bound to get the anti global warming scientists and vise vesa for pro global warming programs. Although i suspect most find evidence to support there case mainly due to the fact it will increase the funding they get!!

[peterjclarke]

I watched the film by Al Gore called An Inconvenient Truth. Very thought provoking and also worrying. I find it a bit strange that the favourite for president (Mr Gore) somehow lost the election to someone else who has a background in the oil industry. Anyway it's well worth watching.

[James_Owen]

I came away from the programme feeling quite depressed, because it would seem there is no way for a layperson to get a decent grasp on the facts of the matter.

On the one hand, we had clearly eminent scientists giving sound evidence for their disbelief in Global Warming, on the other the programme was made by an infamous TV producer who has a track record for bending the truth and misrepresenting scientists, just not a trustworthy guy.
Whatever are we supposed to make of that?

I think overall, if the crux of the programme is correct, if man-made CO2 isn't the cause of Global Warming, we should avoid thinking we are off the hook. A changing climate still poses challenges for societies, whatever the agent of the change. And of course, air polution in our towns and cities, for example, remain problematic, as does congestion. If the Greenhouse Theory is wrong, we still have hundreds of ways in which we could alter our behaviour for the benefit of ourselves and the environment.

Finally, so far as Africa goes, it comes as no surprise that green politicians on the left are no better at helping impoverished Africans as the laissez-faire politicians on the right. They are after all, politicians.

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Originally Posted by James_Owen

I came away from the programme feeling quite depressed, because it would seem there is no way for a layperson to get a decent grasp on the facts of the matter.

On the one hand, we had clearly eminent scientists giving sound evidence for their disbelief in Global Warming, on the other the programme was made by an infamous TV producer who has a track record for bending the truth and misrepresenting scientists, just not a trustworthy guy.
Whatever are we supposed to make of that?

I think overall, if the crux of the programme is correct, if man-made CO2 isn't the cause of Global Warming, we should avoid thinking we are off the hook. A changing climate still poses challenges for societies, whatever the agent of the change. And of course, air polution in our towns and cities, for example, remain problematic, as does congestion. If the Greenhouse Theory is wrong, we still have hundreds of ways in which we could alter our behaviour for the benefit of ourselves and the environment.

Finally, so far as Africa goes, it comes as no surprise that green politicians on the left are no better at helping impoverished Africans as the laissez-faire politicians on the right. They are after all, politicians.

Summed up my feelings on the program and subject far better than i could

[StuartDH]

Just watched it and glad it was on as I always like to try and see opinions from every angle, but ultimately I thought it was very flawed. There was some food for thought and enough Dr. and Prof. titles to add weight to the arguments, but also some very odd theories, arguments and journalism.

It glossed over areas that needed greater explanation, there was sensationalism, inaccuracies and red herrings, but that could also be said of some environmentalist arguments too.

The timelines for the graphs seemed very selective and restricted, given that there's so much more data available. Then there were the bizarre moments when the documentary seemed to suggest that solar panels shouldn't be in Africa because they can't power a fridge and light bulbs at the same time? No mention that energy bulbs and other technology driven by climate change study would also benefit the poorest nations - it's easier to power an 18w energy bulb than a traditional one of 100w

Personally, I see the great climate debate driving significant change in industry to a less polluted environment, cleaner fuels, more efficient technology and processes. Western governments are encouraging less energy use in their own countries first, which could ultimately result in lower levels of productivity. The documentary said that we're trying to stop poor nations from developing, but strange how it only looked at Africa and not India or China.

At the end of the day, while scientists continue to make discoveries in this field, I'll try to keep a simple view. I'm going to go along with the argument that man is signifcantly damaging the climate. I'll change my lightbulbs, walk instead of drive and generally consume less. It's not difficult and it's not costly (in fact it saves money) and it's basically not a big deal for me to have to reduce CO2 emissions. If I'm wrong and we're not having any impact on the climate then I haven't really lost out. However, if the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary is wrong and everyone continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere with the consequences that other scientists predict then we're in big trouble.

[James_Owen]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

There was some food for thought and enough Dr. and Prof. titles to add weight to the arguments, but also some very odd theories, arguments and journalism.

Yeah, it was more bent polemic than journalism. Possibly the most telling thing about the whole documentary was that not once did it allow any scientist who believes in Global Warming to represent their own case in their own words, the only such response in the whole programme came in one brief excerpt from an IPCC press release.
The shame is that a valuable and seldom heard side of the argument has been communicated very poorly in this programme.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by James_Owen

Yeah, it was more bent polemic than journalism. Possibly the most telling thing about the whole documentary was that not once did it allow any scientist who believes in Global Warming to represent their own case in their own words, the only such response in the whole programme came in one brief excerpt from an IPCC press release.
The shame is that a valuable and seldom heard side of the argument has been communicated very poorly in this programme.

exactly. As compelling as the arguments seemed, you have to ask why then do the vast majority of the world's climate scientisits not believe these theories? The recent IPCC report, which was produced by literally thousands of the world's climate scientists said 'there was now a 90% probability than human activity is influencing climate'. So, clearly there are robust counter arguments to those presented in the programme. Yet we weren't allowed to hear them.

Like James I also found it depressing because it is impossible for the average person to determine the truth.

Some of those on the programme are credible scientists, some less so. Fred Singer has a certain notoriety and I place little emphasis on anything he says (I won't go on for fear of defamation).

But John (Lincs Yellowbelly) you shouldn't think that scientists only get funding for pro-climate change research and that this therefore biases their research. Academic funding is established before the results of any research project, so I firmly believe such biases do not arise.

Matt

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

But John (Lincs Yellowbelly) you shouldn't think that scientists only get funding for pro-climate change research and that this therefore biases their research. Academic funding is established before the results of any research project, so I firmly believe such biases do not arise.

Matt

I didn't mean it like that in particular It is in the interests of the scientist who are carrying out the research to come up with a statistic that is very shocking IMO, then they will get more money to research there claims. If they came out and said "everything is fine" how much press coverage and how much more research money would they get, that is the same for both sides

My feelings on the subject haven't changed a great deal by the program, i still believe that we aren't having such a great impact on the planet as has been reported. Thoughout the history of the world there have been spells of warming and spells of cooling, and i can't really see any see that this is any different

Don't get me wrong, i'd love to see cleaner factory emisions and clean fuels but don't particularly support the whole idea that it is those which are contributing to global warming in a huge way.