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

A

ajapale

Moderator
Messages
7,701
[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.


According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.


We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.


But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
Click to expand...
 
I thought it was very persuasive and compelling although I am already very sceptical of the global warming industry.
 
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.
 
Though it was a facinating documentary and seemed to be able to back up its findings.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Purple said:
but I don’t think you could call Al Gore or Margaret Thatcher “Marxist or anti-capitalist”.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Further comment about the programme here:

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


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.
 
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 !!!!
 
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!
 
Another article:

[broken link removed]

Expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top