# The great "Global Warming is Man-made" Swindle on C4 last night (8th March)



## ajapale (9 Mar 2007)

[broken link removed]

Did anyone see this programme last night? What did you think?



> *Channel 4, Thursday 8 March, 9pm*
> Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Mar 2007)

I thought it was very persuasive and compelling although I am already very sceptical of the global warming industry.


----------



## Northerngirl (9 Mar 2007)

Very informative programme. It helps if you can create mass  hysteria when competing for governement grants and corporate sponsorship, ie. AIDS which didnt affect epidemic proportions of the population which it initially projected, however got millions in expenditure to pay for the very expensive treatments.
Thought it was interesting that the people with Marxist and anti-capitalist agendas who were previously involved in crusades of the time, are now involved in the global warming campaign.


----------



## fobs (9 Mar 2007)

Though it was a facinating documentary and seemed to be able to back up its findings.


----------



## conor_mc (9 Mar 2007)

As someone who has never really given much thought to questioning the whole man-made global warming theory, I found it very compelling - bordering on conclusive actually.


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2007)

Northerngirl said:


> Very informative programme. It helps if you can create mass  hysteria when competing for governement grants and corporate sponsorship, ie. AIDS which didnt affect epidemic proportions of the population which it initially projected, however got millions in expenditure to pay for the very expensive treatments.


 40 Million people world wide is quite a few (WHO figure)


Northerngirl said:


> Thought it was interesting that the people with Marxist and anti-capitalist agendas who were previously involved in crusades of the time, are now involved in the global warming campaign.


 I thought it was a good programme and supported its arguments well but I don’t think you could call Al Gore or Margaret Thatcher “Marxist or anti-capitalist”. Both of them are supporters of the man-made global warming camp.


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Mar 2007)

Purple said:


> but I don’t think you could call Al Gore or Margaret Thatcher “Marxist or anti-capitalist”.



The programme didn't do this. It did, however, stress the success of the global warming lobby in uniting Gore, Thatcher etc on one side and left-wing environmentalists on the other. It also alleged that Thatcher's financial support for global warming theorists in the 1980s was motivated by her support for nuclear energy and her desire to crush the power of the National Union of Miners under Arthur Scargill.


----------



## gianni (9 Mar 2007)

I thought it was excellent. I was particularly impressed with the contributions of the co-founder of Greenpeace. 

One of his most striking comments was; "scientists who dispute conventional Global Warming theories are being villified and likened to people who deny the Holocaust took place."

The similarities between solar activity charts and C02 charts was very interesting too. 

I wouldn't agree though that it's conclusive. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Al Gore's documentary was conclusive before they saw this.)


----------



## pat127 (9 Mar 2007)

For me, it just reinforced my view that when scientists slug it out over such highly complex matters all the ordinary person can do is hope the winner is the one who is right and not the one who shouts the louder.

Unfortunately I missed the statistic regarding how much of the CO2 is created by our activities but could I have heard a figure of less than 1%? If so you would have to wonder what all the fuss is about. OTOH in such a complex area perhaps a change in a small element is capable of causing dramatic results. What would I know?

I also think that it's difficult to discuss global warming without considering the issue of fossil fuels. If the steps taken to reduce CO2 emissions result in increased efficiency in the use of fossil fuels or in actually substituting for them, is that not a good thing in itself?

Although it is greatly to be deplored if it be true that developing countries are being pressured into depending exclusively on wind and solar energy, the reduction in the demand they would otherwise have for fossil fuels is to be welcomed I think. Having said that it seems to me that they should not be debarred from considering more reliable means of producing electricity such as nuclear energy and the developed nations, on the basis that they benefit on the fossil fuel side, should be prepared to fund the nuclear initiatives.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Mar 2007)

It was an interesting counter view to the normal hype on this issue. Good to see a skeptical point of view for a change and for a bit of balance.


----------



## ajapale (9 Mar 2007)

Interesting sceptical views .


----------



## Glenbhoy (9 Mar 2007)

What I would really like to see is a debate between the best of both camps, where they could each put forward their arguments backed by facts, and let the others rebutt the arguments if possible.


----------



## Remix (9 Mar 2007)

Panic and emergency seems to be an intrinsic part of the way we humans organise ourselves.

e.g. Y2K, global warming, bubbles in stocks and property.

Here's four points I came across (will post link if I find source) to help avoid getting caught up in each one as they come along.

1. Resist Urgency
If someone wants you to "hurry!" and act "right now!" then resist. They know that rushing things through gives less time for thought and analysis.

2. Great disasters proclaimed in advance often don't live up to the hype
(Ice-age in the 70's, Population bomb in the 80's, Y2K in the 90's)

3. Be aware of propaganda techniques used by those in the persuasion business.
Advertisers, journalists, PR folks, certain economists  

4. Keep a firm grip on your wallet. These events usually have big spending involved and ultimately you-know-who will be footing the bill.


----------



## ajapale (9 Mar 2007)

Glenbhoy said:


> What I would really like to see is a debate between the best of both camps, where they could each put forward their arguments backed by facts, and let the others rebutt the arguments if possible.



Yes, if I was to fault the programme it would be to point out that it was a _polemic_ and only one side was presented.

I dont know how usefull a debate between campaigners, politicians, pr types, media reporters would be. I imagine that the best way forward would be for the sceptical scientists to write papers which would be peer reviewed and published to support or challenge the hypothesis.


----------



## HelloJed (9 Mar 2007)

Further comment about the programme here:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html


----------



## bankrupt (9 Mar 2007)

HelloJed said:


> Further comment about the programme here:
> 
> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html




That's an extraordinary article to be penned by the Guardian's science editor, not a jot of science or reason as far as I can tell.  The program last night was certainly convincing but as others pointed out it would have been better if both sides of the argument could have been represented.  I submit that it's well nigh impossible for anyone who is not a climate scientist to defend or refute the claims put forward in the program.


----------



## z105 (11 Mar 2007)

Surely we all want to recycle/reuse the best we can ? It's hardly good for future generations if we rape,rob & pillage the earth's resources, as is now happening, when in previous generations that has not occured, i.e. pre industrial revolution, or before indeed.

IMO - we live in a globe, it's what we do in that globe that will decide whether current mankind lives or dies - YOU DECIDE !!!!


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

You are missing the point. Nobody has said that we should not reduce/reuse/recycle or moderate energy consumption etc. However the programme in question and research mentioned elsewhere does provide food for thought for those who may be skeptical about the automatic assumption that humans are mainly/solely responsible for certain aspects of climate change and environmental pollution. Of course even if, for example, man made _CO2 _emissions are not responsible for global warming and global warming is an observable development then we still have a problem - just one that we may actually have little control over!


----------



## HelloJed (11 Mar 2007)

Another article:

[broken link removed]

Expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'


----------



## BillK (11 Mar 2007)

The Coservative Party over here in UK are proposing another tax on flights, particularly for frequent fliers. (Leave aside how it could be workable.) Because,  " air travel will contribute 25% of emissions by *2050*" !

The spokesman very carefully did not state what is the current level contributed by flights.


----------



## tyoung (11 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> You are missing the point. Nobody has said that we should not reduce/reuse/recycle or moderate energy consumption etc.



Nobody may have said it directly but the inference is clear. If Global Warming is not due to grenhouse gases there is no point in reducing their emissions.

So Clubman, What level of proof would you need to see before you would agree to actions to limit co2 emissions?


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

BillK said:


> The Coservative Party over here in UK are proposing another tax on flights, particularly for frequent fliers. (Leave aside how it could be workable.) Because,  " air travel will contribute 25% of emissions by *2050*" !


Somebody on _RTE Radio _this morning said that all air travel (including passenger and freight flights) contributed 2% to total global _CO2 _emissions. No idea if they were spoofing though.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

tyoung said:


> So Clubman, What level of proof would you need to see before you would agree to actions to limit co2 emissions?


I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their _CO2 _footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad thing. However I am skeptical about the link between man made _CO2_ emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

tyoung said:


> So Clubman, What level of proof would you need to see before you would agree to actions to limit co2 emissions?


Not sure why you want to personalise this but ... I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their _CO2 _footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad and probably a prudent thing to do and, as it happens, I try to do my own small bit to this end. However I am skeptical about the claimed links between man made _CO2_ emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues (e.g. incineration and nuclear power are "bad", biofuels are "good", organic is "better" than mass produced etc.).


----------



## RainyDay (11 Mar 2007)

Remix said:


> .
> 
> 2. Great disasters proclaimed in advance often don't live up to the hype
> (Ice-age in the 70's, Population bomb in the 80's, Y2K in the 90's)


Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem.

[From a former IT head]


----------



## Z100 (11 Mar 2007)

HelloJed said:


> Further comment about the programme here:
> 
> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html



I love the way the author of that article uses the term 'climate-change deniers', like they're on par with holocaust deniers  

As someone who wouldn't know a co2 emission from a chocolate brownie I can't make any judgement on all this stuff myself, but I'd be as wary of the agenda of the climate-change deniers as I would of the climate-change supporters. Halliburton, for example, are rather dubious about climate change....enough to make me believe in it, 100%!


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem.
> 
> [From a former IT head]


I'm pretty sure that there was an element of hype about this. I worked with several systems with no _Y2K _patches and they never failed. Admittedly the issue was real in certain circumstances but not to the extent portrayed by the popular media.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Mar 2007)

Bushfire said:


> I love the way the author of that article uses the term 'climate-change deniers', like they're on par with holocaust deniers


I was reading these articles mentioning "deniers" and all I could think of was ladies' tights!


> I'd be as wary of the agenda of the climate-change deniers


Why are you using that term if you seemingly object to it?


> Halliburton, for example, are rather dubious about climate change....enough to make me believe in it, 100%!


Hardly a sound basis for taking a personal stand on a topical issue? The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that...


----------



## Z100 (11 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I was reading these articles mentioning "deniers" and all I could think of was ladies' tights!



 



ClubMan said:


> Why are you using that term if you seemingly object to it?



Well, this is only a post on AAM, not an article in the Guardian. But from now on I'll call them Climate Change Fishnet Stockings, and you'll know what I mean.  



ClubMan said:


> Hardly a sound basis for taking a personal stand on a topical issue?



Oh, I'm not so sure, it's sound enough for me. I don't think you'll go wrong if you live by the slogan: 'If Halliburton Are For It, I'm Against It'.


----------



## ajapale (12 Mar 2007)

This show will be repeated on More4 at on Monday Night at 10:00pm.


----------



## michaelm (12 Mar 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem.
> 
> [From a former IT head]


I recall that notable examples such as Italy and China didn't spend a penny on the Y2K issue and naught happened.


----------



## pat127 (12 Mar 2007)

Sunday Times yesterday, Magazine section, Page 16 for yet another, and truly depressing view!


----------



## Seagull (12 Mar 2007)

HelloJed said:


> Further comment about the programme here:
> 
> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html


The guardian - that well known unbiased, even handed publication. Their position on this is well known. I could have summarised their position piece on this without reading it.
Rant, rant, spleen. How dare they dispute global warming!


----------



## shnaek (12 Mar 2007)

Check out also this speech from Bjorn Lomborg. He makes some interesting points on prioritizing the world's biggest problems - and he rates Global Warming quite low in his priorities. (This is an audio file BTW  -from a speech he made in Monterey)
[broken link removed]


----------



## tyoung (12 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Not sure why you want to personalise this but ... I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their _CO2 _footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad and probably a prudent thing to do and, as it happens, I try to do my own small bit to this end. However I am skeptical about the claimed links between man made _CO2_ emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues (e.g. incineration and nuclear power are "bad", biofuels are "good", organic is "better" than mass produced etc.).


   If co2 emissions do not contribute significantly to Global Warming then there is no need to limit their emissions as they are not pollutants in the ordinary sense.
    In order to show an association between two variables is causitive you would  document  the close association between the two, remove one of the variables and show a fall in the second one and finally reintroduce the second variable and show a  rise in the second one.
   Now clearly that level of proof is not possible in the co2 /Global warming debate.  So the question remains. What level of proof would satisfy your (rightly held) skeptism?


----------



## michaelm (12 Mar 2007)

This can be viewed on YouTube, split into eight segments.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Mar 2007)

michaelm said:


> I recall that notable examples such as Italy and China didn't spend a penny on the Y2K issue and naught happened.



Gross exaggeration. Do you reckon that this work was funded without spending a penny? And do you consider [broken link removed]?


----------



## michaelm (13 Mar 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Gross exaggeration. Do you reckon that this work was funded without spending a penny? And do you consider [broken link removed]?


Fair enough.  I should have said 'spent comparatively little' rather than 'didn't spend a penny';  I'm sure that lots of hours were booked , I myself wandered around putting little green 'Y2K Compliant' stickers on PCs.  And yes I consider your Naples example to be very minor, approaching naught.


----------



## homeowner (21 Mar 2007)

tyoung said:


> In order to show an association between two variables is causitive you would document the close association between the two, remove one of the variables and show a fall in the second one and finally reintroduce the second variable and show a rise in the second one.
> Now clearly that level of proof is not possible in the co2 /Global warming debate. So the question remains. What level of proof would satisfy your (rightly held) skeptism?


 
I know this question was directed at someone else, but I watched both this program on C4 and Al Gore's documentary and one thing stood out for me. 

The program discussed the point Al Gore's documentary makes about
the link between CO2 levels and earth temperate measurements going
back thousands of years.  Al Gore states that the temperate increases were caused by rising CO2 levels.  He showed charts one under the other of both CO2 levels and temperature levels, both charts were in synch more or less.  It was compelling evidence.

The scientists who refuted this on the C4 program showed the same historic temperature charts but with a difference.  Instead of showing both charts seperately one on the top of the screen, the other on the bottom, they overlayed the charts and clearly showed CO2 levels rising consistently 800 years after the rise in temperature levels demonstrating that it is rising temperature that is causing CO2 levels to rise and not the other way around.  

Now, it can't be both ways.  One group is lying.

Either the evidence supports Al Gore's version or it supports the opposite view or it is inconclusive.

I would be extremely interested in seeing someone from the Al Gore camp explaining their use of the charts in a debate with one of the refuters.  

For me this is the core of the whole debate.  Those charts are the nub of the evidence.

I dont know who is right or who is wrong but I wish someone with access to the real data would jump on this and get to the bottom of it.


----------



## michaelm (22 Mar 2007)

homeowner said:


> Al Gore states that the temperate increases were caused by rising CO2 levels.  He showed charts one under the other of both CO2 levels and temperature levels, both charts were in synch more or less.  It was compelling evidence.
> 
> The scientists who refuted this on the C4 program showed the same historic temperature charts but . . clearly showed CO2 levels rising consistently 800 years after the rise in temperature levels demonstrating that it is rising temperature that is causing CO2 levels to rise and not the other way around.
> 
> Either the evidence supports Al Gore's version or it supports the opposite view or it is inconclusive.  For me this is the core of the whole debate.  Those charts are the nub of the evidence.


Agreed.  Is there an 800 year CO2 lag or not?  Al Gore's answer seems to be 'The debate is over'.


----------



## tyoung (22 Mar 2007)

Thank you homeowner for returning us to the science involved. I don't have any answers either. I'm reluctant to take scientific facts from politicans like Al Gore or best selling fiction writers like Michael Crichton. let the scientists duke it out. 
 I am amused how people have preformed/set opinions on this issue. If you're a Green/environmentalist type you accept it all uncritically. if your politics are to the right, particularly if you have a libertarian bent, you dismiss it all as the evil workings of big government. Kevin Myers is a good example of the latter.
  Anyway hopfully it's wrong or not as bad as claimed because there is no chance of global coordinated action to reduce co2 emissions. Too many opportunities for deniers, cheaters, free riders etc. I'm sure Game Theory has a name for this. It's the ultimate Tragedy of The Commons.


----------



## sonnyikea (22 Mar 2007)

The co2 lag and evidence as to why this was the case was the single most compelling argument of the whole program.


----------



## annR (22 Mar 2007)

I haven't watched either program and don't tend to follow the figures simply because I know it's a complex issue and statistics are open to manipulation.

However I am firmly with the environmentalists in general because it is true that we are definitely destroying the planet due to greed, corruption, short term gain and lack of political will.  There is no doubt on overfishing, deforestation, pollution.  If you need me to dig out the exact figures to back that up, then you really don't know whats going on.

>>I am amused how people have preformed/set opinions on this issue. If you're a Green/environmentalist type you accept it all uncritically<<

Again I don't pay much attention to the arguments because the true science of this is beyond my understanding, but I don't think that the Kyoto agreement and the recent EU initiatives would be around if there wasn't some pretty hard evidence to suggest that we need to do something.


----------



## sonnyikea (22 Mar 2007)

I don't think there is any disputing that living in a 'greener' way is beneficial. Over use of non renewable fuels, over fishing etc is dangerous because they will run out at some point. The program is purely trying to get to the bottom of what causes global warming. The current thought, in my opinion a flawed one, is that CO2 emissions are the main cause. The program tries to explain that this is plainly incorrect. It makes some very compelling arguments to back this up.

CO2 emissions may well be damaging in other ways, asthma for example, so trying to cut them may well be a good thing but to go scaremongering that the end of the world is nigh is irresponsible. This now seems to be the accepted viewpoint which is worrying.


----------



## annR (22 Mar 2007)

I think there's a view that if there isn't at least a bit of scaremongering noone will do anything.


----------



## homeowner (22 Mar 2007)

annR said:


> I think there's a view that if there isn't at least a bit of scaremongering noone will do anything.


 
Scaremongering of the kind that man-made CO2 emmitions causes global warming - if it is not true, is diverting attention and money away from other import issues such as saving the planets resources.   If it turns out that this is the cause of it, then great.  

My problem is with the Al Gore camp who refuse to even debate it and try to discredit anyone who contradicts them.


----------



## diarmuidc (26 Mar 2007)

After reading this thread I noticed that no one has brought up the following information:
 Real Climate has responded to the claims the show put forward as to why GW is a swindle (for more info on who Real Climate are)
One of the scientists interviewed on the show claims he was misrepresented
The shows maker (Martin Durkin) seems uninterested (to put it mildly) in discussing the accuracy of his claims
Who is Martin Durkin? His documentaries seem to have laced in controversy.


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2007)

What 'Real Climate' have to say about the 800 year CO2 lag is unconvincing http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

 I don't think your other three points are relevant;  Both the C4 program and Al Gore's are polemics with various misdirections and blind leaps to conclusions.


----------



## diarmuidc (26 Mar 2007)

michaelm said:


> What 'Real Climate' have to say about the 800 year CO2 lag is unconvincing http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
> 
> I don't think your other three points are relevant;  Both the C4 program and Al Gore's are polemics with various misdirections and blind leaps to conclusions.



"Unconvincing to you", I guess it what you meant? What is your qualification in, that would make me believe you over 10 scientists with qualifications and expierence in the field in which they are commenting?

You don't think that this was a  documentary made by the a director with a history of misrepresentation and misleading documentaries (one which the BBC refused to show as he totally ignored a mountain of scientific evidence) is relevant? Then when asked by a climate scientist to justify to use of one dubious claim, replied "go f**k yourself"?


----------



## Seagull (26 Mar 2007)

Consider the amount of government money spent on research into climate change and global warming. How much of this is given to scientists not toeing the party line? That may be one of the reasons for the imbalance in the amount of research produced by the two groups. Acceptance of global warming also gives governments a nice excuse to charge "environmental" taxes (which get spent on anything but), and push through unpopular changes.

Also consider the reaction towards those scientists who do not go along with the general consensus on global warming. How keen would you be to be pilloried, and have difficulty getting funding for your research.

I'm not saying which group is right, I would just like a more balanced view of the topic.


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> "Unconvincing to you", I guess it what you meant? What is your qualification in, that would make me believe you over 10 scientists with qualifications and expierence in the field in which they are commenting?


Unconvincing to me is exactly what I meant, and also what I said.  I know enough people with qualifications not to be overawed by such things.





diarmuidc said:


> You don't think that this was a documentary made by the a director with a history of misrepresentation and misleading documentaries (one which the BBC refused to show as he totally ignored a mountain of scientific evidence) is relevant? Then when asked by a climate scientist to justify to use of one dubious claim, replied "go f**k yourself"?


Again, no.  I stated that in my view it is a polemic.  I'm not interested in the Director.  What I find interesting is that the ice-core records seem to show a cycle whereby the earth warms for 600-1000 years before increased levels of CO2  turn up and then proceeds to cool for a similar period before CO2 levels fall back.  Also, on the basis that the Irish Government get everything wrong - they have fully bought into carbon credits, CFL bulbs, etc - I'm inclined to be sceptical of the 'man causes global warming' argument.


----------



## diarmuidc (26 Mar 2007)

michaelm said:


> I know enough people with qualifications not to be overawed by such things.



No one is overawed, I just asked for your qualifications so I could balance your opinion on the matter at hand with people who have studied and qualified in the field. I am also not to interested in how many people with qualifications you know, whatever relevance that has.


----------



## Gordanus (26 Mar 2007)

Just shows that scientific findings keep being hijacked by people for political ends.

Every decade, if not 5 years, has its scare.  In my youth (70s) we worried terribly about overpopulation.  Then there was (in no particular order) AIDS, global warming, chicken flu, MRSA, what was that rotting-from the-inside-disease that was supposed to go epidemic? etc etc.   

Newpapers have to sell themselves, and politicians have to get attention.

Few people can understand the scientific complexities of most of these questions, and the simplified version tends to be a scare story.

There's a discussion on this on the Skeptics Forum, if anyone wants to look.   skeptics.ie


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> No one is overawed, I just asked for your qualifications so I could balance your opinion on the matter at hand with people who have studied and qualified in the field.  I am also not to interested in how many people with qualifications you know, whatever relevance that has.


Sorry, I left out the word 'incompetent'.  To clarify, I should have said 'I know enough *incompetent* people with qualifications not to be overawed by such things'.  The lack of a PhD in a given field does not mean that one cannot distil information relating to that field.  That I am not a Climatologist or that the Director may have a questionable track record does not make the 800 year CO2 lag disappear.


----------



## Seagull (28 Mar 2007)

Did anyone see the interview with David Milliband where he was asked whether he had watched the program? He hasn't.  His excuse - he "only got a D in physics". But he's perfectly qualified to accept global warming as fact. I don't think we can expect a balanced view from his department.

This issue is no longer a debate. It's more like a religion. As a scientist, you're either a true believer, or a heretic. How seriously are the dissenters taken? They tend to be pilloried. As a layman, you are at least allowed to be an agnostic.


----------



## diarmuidc (29 Mar 2007)

Seagull said:


> Did anyone see the interview with David Milliband where he was asked whether he had watched the program? He hasn't.  His excuse - he "only got a D in physics". But he's perfectly qualified to accept global warming as fact.



What does "qualified to accept" mean? Do we need qualifications now before we can accept something as fact (and I use that term in the colloquial sense) in the scientific debate? 

I don't have a MD qualification but I am willing to accept that AIDS is the result of HIV, (even though not all scientists agree it is) as the general scientific consensus comes to that conclusion.

Do you honestly expect the ministers running the government to have qualifications in every field that they govern in? Best of luck with that. The most you can hope for is that they take good advice and follow the general scientific consensus.  and be "agnostic" as you say.


----------



## Seagull (29 Mar 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> What does "qualified to accept" mean?


He's said that he didn't bother watching this program because he "only got a D in physics". That suggests that he feels he wouldn't understand the issue. So how is it that he can't understand the arguments against global warming, but understands the arguments in favour of it sufficiently to believe with no question. I expect someone in his position to try and get a balanced view on this issue.

The dissenters on this issue are not just a bunch of crackpots. There is some serious science being done.


----------



## gramlab (29 Mar 2007)

"





> Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise"
> -- Adolf Hitler


 


> "2 out of every 5 fatal automobile accidents was due to drinking. 33% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents had been drinking. 24% of the pedestrians involved in fatal accidents had been drinking. Therefore, alcohol intoxication is a major cause of automobile accidents, and drunk driving must be dealt with harshly."
> 
> That logic sounds impressive, but it's completely wrong. Consider the reverse logic: "3 out of every 5 fatal automobile accidents did not involve drinking. 67% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents had not been drinking. And 76% of the pedestrians involved in accidents had not been drinking. Therefore, sobriety is undoubtedly the major cause of fatal automobile accidents, and sober driving must be outlawed immediately, and punished harshly."


 
Big problem is trying to work outwho is using the best/most confusing/slanted statistics and arguements. Very few people in research do any of it without an agenda or slanted initial viewpoint - especially those that tell you up front that they are not biased either way.(If you were not bothered either way why would you do the research in the first place )


----------



## diarmuidc (29 Mar 2007)

gramlab said:


> "
> Big problem is trying to work outwho is using the best/most confusing/slanted statistics and arguements. Very few people in research do any of it without an agenda or slanted initial viewpoint - especially those that tell you up front that they are not biased either way.(If you were not bothered either way why would you do the research in the first place )


That's pretty cynical. The mark of a real scientist is admitting he was wrong when proven wrong. Stats are useful but are not the be all and end all.
Just  to nitpick  your example . You can perform a scientific study showing increased drunkenness results in poorer driving and increased sobriety results in better driving (or not but I'd doubt it). The stats just give an idea of how prevelant the problem is not the cause of the problem.


----------



## autumnleaf (19 Apr 2007)

Frankly, the shoddiness of this program has made me more convinced of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) than I was before. I've been following this for a while, from a layperson's point of view (I have a good knowledge of science in general but not of climatology). I started off as a skeptic; environmentalists don't convince me that easily, for example i disagree with them about GM crops. I gradually became convinced that the scientific knowledge pointed in the direction of AGW, but thought there must be some good arguments against the consensus that we weren't hearing due to the media bias on "doom and gloom" stories. 

A program such as this should have rooted out such contradictory views; however, it relied instead on fake graphs ([broken link removed], 
[broken link removed]), misrepresenting the views of scientists who appeared in it ([broken link removed]), and arguments that seemed logical on first blush but that anyone with a preliminary knowledge or a bit of thought could refute. (One example: "Natural processes produce far more CO2 than humans, therefore human contributions can't be making a difference." This ignores the fact that natural processes both add and subtract CO2 from the atmosphere, while humans are a net contributor. And it's a bit like arguing "the river already had a lot of water in it, so that little bit of extra rain couldn't have caused the flood".)

Is that really the best the skeptics can do?


----------

