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.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Lincs Yellowbelly

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

the best way for a scientist to maximise his/her chances of getting the next research grant is to publish the findings of the previous grant in a highly prestigious, peer-reviewed, journal. That will never happen if they exaggerate or undertake poor science.

Matt

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Lincs Yellowbelly

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

My sentiments too. As you say LY, the climate of the world as changed many many times throughtout the worlds existance and 99% of the times when this occured we were n't around.

And it does seem that, if you don't agree with current thinking you are branded as an heretic.

[lol geoff]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

My sentiments too. As you say LY, the climate of the world as changed many many times throughtout the worlds existance and 99% of the times when this occured we were n't around.

And it does seem that, if you don't agree with current thinking you are branded as an heretic.

I have always thought along these lines as well. What I find interesting though is that the companies that benefit from the use of fossil fuels and therefore high Co2 emissions like airlines, motor manufacturers and power generating companies for example, are not using their scientists to push this argument much more than they do.

[James_Owen]

Upon reflection what casts the great doubt on the whole documentary was the political arguments it featured. We're bright enough to understand bits of the science, but by no means all of it, whereas politics is a little easier to get a grasp on.

Are we really meant to believe that Margaret Thatcher is responsible for a world-wide shift in the scientific consensus on Global Warming, just because she didn't trust the miners? Did she tell scientists in America, Europe, and elsewhere to skew their research too?
Also, how can global environmental policies be particularly blamed for penalising developing nations when they are the ones exempt from the Kyoto protocol?

Apparently the producer of the documentary has links to hardcore Trotskyist groups, which rather makes sense of the fanciful claim that both Thatcher and liberals (both incidently the supreme enemies of Communists) are the reason we're being lied to about the most important problem facing our generation.
It's the politics that discredits the whole documentary for me.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by lol geoff

I have always thought along these lines as well. What I find interesting though is that the companies that benefit from the use of fossil fuels and therefore high Co2 emissions like airlines, motor manufacturers and power generating companies for example, are not using their scientists to push this argument much more than they do.

in the US the oil companies pay literally billions of dollars to pseudo scientific 'think tanks' to promote the anti-climate change message. Their aim is to portray the debate as still being wide open and to dismiss any idea of scientific consensus. Hence the employees of these think tanks continually appear in the media debunking the climate change science. This isn't conspiracy theory by the way, it is well documented fact. Even the notorious US Senator Inhofe, the most outspoken member of the US senate when it comes to climate change, receives the greatest percentage of his funding from Oil companies. It's so predictable but it still leaves a nasty taste in your mouth.

As for the old chestnut 'climates have always varied so I don't believe in climate change', well no-one denies that climates can vary for natural reasons, but that doesn't preclude human activity adding to the natural variation. Plus, the rate of change of the climate in recent years is far more rapid than that previously experienced through natural causes.

Matt

[Garden Carpet]

I donk know why scientists argue the point, we will not know the reason or cause in our lifetimes. We should act as if we are the cause.

It may be we are not having the environmental impact that science and the media have hitherto claimed. I dont have the ability to say, nor do the majority of the lay population. My feeling is that we should make efforts to slow any man made warming just in case we are causing the changes. To my mind that has to be the only way to go.

It doesnt matter who, what, why or from where the problem stems, we have the ability to make it change.. slowly perhaps, but we can change it.

jaki

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

the best way for a scientist to maximise his/her chances of getting the next research grant is to publish the findings of the previous grant in a highly prestigious, peer-reviewed, journal. That will never happen if they exaggerate or undertake poor science.

Matt

true - where LY does have a point is with the journalists who are reporting the research - the average journalist has the scientific literacy of a gnat and it is their interest to search out the most extreme research they can find then report it in histrionic terms

for some reasson " The end is nigh" reporting sells papers

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by eeyore

the average journalist has the scientific literacy of a gnat

I think that's a very unfair comparison ... for the gnat

[harasseddad]

Those "eminent scientists"? Not one was actually a climate scientist. The history of science is littered with great scientists who having achieved fame in one area went blundering into another and fell flat on their face. Just because you're an expert on nuclear fission does not make you an expert in the life cycle of droneflies (and vice-versa).

The maker is a supporter of Living Marxism - an extreme trotskyist group who believe all environmental problems are a capitalist plot to distract the workers from revolution.

Global Warming can be easily proved at home. All you need is a airtight tank, a laser, a thermometer and a photometer. First fill your tank with a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen (but no carbon dioxide). In a dark room shine an infra-red light source through the tank and measure the light intensity and the temperature. Then introduce 283ppm of carbon dioxide into the tank and repeat. (283ppm is the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere in 1900 by the way). You will find that the light intensity is reduced (showing that some of the infra-red has been absorbed) and that the temperature has increased. Now increase the concentration to 385ppm (the atmospheric concentration now) and repet. You will find that more light has been absorbed and turned into heat, and that the temperature has increased even more.

That's global warming. if you are now wondering why - since it is such a simple and easily verifiable experiment, and has been known since the 19th century - there is any debate? The answer is simple - there are a lot of people who really really don't want anyone to actually do anything about it because it will cost them money.

Forget about climate and concentrate on the simple, verifiable fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation. The more co2 you have, the more radiation you absorb and the hotter the atmosphere gets. All the arguments about climate models and historic climate records are irrelivent. Co2 absorbs heat - more co2 = more heat. Anybody telling you that climate change is not a problem needs to explain where all those terrajoules of heat are going and why they are not a problem. To date, not one of these oil industry "experts" that I've heard has ever even mentioned the subject. Which suggests that either they don't have a clue, or they are dishonest.

Remember that when the link between smoking and lung cancer was first discovered, the tobacco industry produced hugh numbers of scientists to "prove" there was no such link. They actually managed to delay the introduction of warning signs on fag packets because the link "wasn't proven". Different industry, same tactics.

[Mark Tulley]

My son recorded the program on DVD for me and I just checked it plays ok. Having read the lengthy discussion above, I look forward to viewing the program with an open mind. I did see Al Gore's film and was most shocked by the CO2 graph.

My view at present is that global warming is happening. It is bad for us to be so dependent on oil and gas from a political and economic point. So let's get renewable energy sources developed and implemented ASAP.

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

.........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'.

If you'd have asked the most imminent scientists in 1400 whether the earth or the sun was the centre of our solar system, the vast majority would have said the earth.

Does it make it fact just because of the numbers that say it is?