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

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.
 
The co2 lag and evidence as to why this was the case was the single most compelling argument of the whole program.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a view that if there isn't at least a bit of scaremongering noone will do anything.
 
annR said:
I think there's a view that if there isn't at least a bit of scaremongering noone will do anything.
Click to expand...

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.
 

"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"?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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. 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.
 
michaelm said:
I know enough people with qualifications not to be overawed by such things.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
diarmuidc said:
What does "qualified to accept" mean?
Click to expand...
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.
 
"
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register