Exposed: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

[JeffMoh]

Some time ago, the Channel 4 documentary :The Great Global Warming Swindle" was quoted here as showing evidence that global warming was caused not by man but by solar activity.

Now researchers have shown conclusively that solar activity is not responsible for the recent global warming trend. It seems that the makers of the Channel 4 "documentary" deliberately omitted the data that contradicted their premise.

You can see an article on the research at:
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

It seems that people who do not accept mainstream ideas on global warming and its causes will do just about anything to attack these ideas.

Jeff

[Amarillo]

This documentary was clearly biased, but I think there was a lot of truth in what this programme had to say. There is still an element of doubt in the research and people should be able to question this issue without being shot down.

Sure, there are those who don't want to believe in "global warming" because they don't care, or don't want to make the necessary sacrifices.

But there also those like myself, who care passionately about the environment and are sceptical about man-made global warming.

My concern is that by focussing everything on "climate change" and "global warming" we might be losing sight of the real issues, which to my mind are

1)protection of habitats and species
2)sustainable use of resources/recycling
3)minimising pollution

Mostly, the steps taken will be the same whatever buzz-words are used, but particularly with the current trend for biofuels, I am concerned that we might be sacrificing the protection of habitats in an attempt to control something that may well be out of our hands completely.

[Tim Allwood]

it was bullshit and has been roundly hammered on many fronts.

perhaps the shoddiest bit of programme making in years.

Tim

[bitterntwisted]

This documentary was clearly biased, but I think there was a lot of truth in what this programme had to say. There is still an element of doubt in the research and people should be able to question this issue without being shot down.

Sure, there are those who don't want to believe in "global warming" because they don't care, or don't want to make the necessary sacrifices.

But there also those like myself, who care passionately about the environment and are sceptical about man-made global warming.

My concern is that by focussing everything on "climate change" and "global warming" we might be losing sight of the real issues, which to my mind are

1)protection of habitats and species
2)sustainable use of resources/recycling
3)minimising pollution

Mostly, the steps taken will be the same whatever buzz-words are used, but particularly with the current trend for biofuels, I am concerned that we might be sacrificing the protection of habitats in an attempt to control something that may well be out of our hands completely.

Your stance is perfectly reasonable, Amarillo, and many share your concern that focus on AGW detracts from other serious environmental problems. In fact I agree with everything you say except your first sentence. The programme was total b*ll*cks.

[JeffMoh]

I don't understand how you can still be in doubt about global warming but, hey, it takes all sorts.

I agree that it is a mistake to rush into implementing quick solutions, such as biofuels, without looking carefully at their likely environmental effects. The sudden popularity of ethanol in the USA probably has more to do with the political clout of US farmers than any environmental concerns. I suspect that the economic cost for the rest of us will be high - and that the habitat will also suffer a great deal.

Jeff

[Amarillo]

I don't understand how you can still be in doubt about global warming but, hey, it takes all sorts.


When you actually study things like climate (as I did) you understand that there is always an element of doubt.

[tizziec]

I believe that man has hastened global warming, but a simple class in global geographic histiry tells me that the cycles are inevitable. Man can make changes to slow the process to a more natural state, but regardless of our actions the cycles of global climate will go on as they always have. Does that mean I would run out a buy a hummer? No, I wish to make the changes necesary to my lifestyle so that my daughter and my grandchildren will one day be able to literaly breathe a little easier. Our existence will not phase the planet or the grand cycle of life one bit in the long run, but our actions WILL effect the lives of our decendants in a HUGE way. We as humans are not really a very adaptable species.

[JeffMoh]

Okay, but that doesn't get us very far because there's always an element of doubt in everything. Focusing on the element of doubt, however small, in any theory is often no more than a way to justify some inappropriate action or lack of action. (Look at how right-wingers in the USA have used "doubts" about the theory of evolution to push the biblical creation story into science classes.)

I think the real issue is whether there is still room for reasonable doubt about the existence of global warming. I don't think there is. Most scientists who publish reputable articles and reports agree.

[Gordon]

Read the last IPCC reports. Also, there are very few (if any) climatologists or other scientists doing related work who are doubters - at least of those who produce peer-reviewed work. The doubters often turn out not to be scientists - never mind climatologists - but rather PR men in the pay of oil companies and who have never submitted their work for peer-review by people qualified to do such reviewiing!! And - none of the IPCC or other climatologists/scientists suggest that any of their finding are 100% but the level of confidence which they are willing to apply to the statement that human activity is the main driver of climate change is VERY high. They are less confident about what might happen in the future as a result but, again, the confidence levels associated with particular scenarios is pretty high (very high).

cheers
Gordon

[emupilot]

My concern is that by focussing everything on "climate change" and "global warming" we might be losing sight of the real issues, which to my mind are

1)protection of habitats and species
2)sustainable use of resources/recycling
3)minimising pollution

It is hard to quantify how much effort we should put into combating climate change when the anticipated effects are somewhere in the continuum between manageable and catastrophic. I think the risks are high enough to act based on climate change alone. Your three items are definitely things we ought to be doing anyway. As an American, I would add ridding ourselves of dependence on oil, since that causes us to support dictatorships and start wars. If focusing on climate change (worthwhile on its own IMO) can be the impetus to get our butts in gear and live more sustainably, I'm all for it.