'The Great Global Warming Swindle' sounds like it could be an interesting programme tonight. Channel 4, Thursday 8th March, 9pm

As suggested by the apt title, this programme - essential viewing for politicians, teachers, motorists and the entire transport sector, grass roots environmentalists and all 'True Believers' in man-made climate change - will reveal and confirm:

- how the Sun is an overwhelming influence on continuous climate change over decades and centuries
(there is no way for taxation or lifestyle fascism to alter the Sun's eruptivity and irradiance)
- how carbon dioxide levels are predominantly an effect and not a cause of climate change
(a very inconvenient truth)

- why politicians have been so enthusiastic about embracing the fallacy of human impact on global climate
(trojan horses aren't a protected species)

- what lies behind the green industry
(courtesy of a founder member and former leader of Greenpeace)

- how forecasts of warming and its impacts are grossly exaggerated, with stasis and cooling ahead

and therefore

- why the UN IPCC needs urgent fundamental reform - or abolishing completely
(The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has already given a similar verdict)

tv programmes are always based on all the available scientific evidence, and always written by people who know what they're talking about, and not just those who are trying to get good viewing figures. will this programme be providing peer-reviewed, reproducible and reliable evidence as to why global warming is a 'swindle'? i certainly hope so.

Let's wait and see.

did a search, couldn't find anything..

I'm just watching this on Channel 4, it's very interesting. (so far, especially the part about the Al Gore speech).

I know people have views on conspiracy theories...

I'll keep watching and post after it.

you beat me to it! i'm dying to see what certain people have to say about it!

i've been saying for ages that although we might be helping it along global warming is down to the planet warming up. that is what it does

LOL at the global warming mongers on here waited for this for a while

The programme supports my long held belief that we are being conned.

Offsetting carbon footprints my arse :hihi:

I'm finding the whole thing a little surreal. If only cos I am currently reading 'State of Fear' which is basically along the same lines. I'd recommend the book, if only to get you thinking about the 'facts', though the book itself is just a run of the mill thriller :o

I'm a big believer in getting both (+) sides, and all facts related to a situation and trying to understand it. Which is why I hate statements like 'salt is bad for you'. Yes, too much is, as is too little. But it is all about survival, and companies and papers only survive on money. When everything is a business, you can lose track of the 'truth'.

Global Warming? It is a theory, like a lot of things. God? Also just a theory. But that is another topic for another evening ;)

if you still wish to fear or beleive in try globle dimming thats fun too

............Global Warming? It is a theory, like a lot of things............

A very lucrative theory :suspect:

The sun is a slightly irregular variable star; it was almost certainly this irregularity that led to the Maunder Minimum in the 18th century (when the Thames Froze), for example.

But, there have been times when the climate has changed quite radically for a few years due to things like large forest fires and volcanic eruption (especially ones that generate a lot of suplhur in to the atmosphere).

The Earth does warm up and cool down; I think the problem is that we're actually releasing a lot of stuff in to the atmosphere that's been locked up for millions of years. When wood gets burned, for example, you're releasing back in to the environment carbon dioxide that was 'fixed' during the growth phase of the tree. However, when we burn oil or coal the carbon released was fixed millions of years ago.

The problem with the climate system of the planet is that it's effectively a non-linear system - in other words you can't necessarily predict what will happen when you make an incremental change. In a linear system, doubling teh amount of CO2 would have half the effect of quadrupling it, for example. But in a non-linear system you might find that you can double it with little effect, but by increasing the amount of CO2 a tiny bit further might shift the mechanisms of the climate in to a new 'phase space' that might make the climate totally different.

The 'cusp' of such a system is the point at which things are finely balanced - ushe a bit further and all bets are off and we get a brand new system - might be better, might be worse, will almost certainly NOT be what we're used to.

So, if we don't understand the mechanisms that drive the Earth's climate (except in a crude way) , it would surely make sense to not radically alter the situation in ways that might drive us towards that cusp-point.

The carbon stuff isn't the only issue - sulphur gases can have major effects as well, it's likely that warmin of the climate will start releasing methane from the Permafrost and perhaps even from 'methane ices' under the sea, and methane is another climate modifying gas. Whilst these sort of things may happen naturally, we're STILL not equipped to necessarily cope, so surely it makes sense to play safe?

If humans played it safe we would still be living in caves.

If humans played it safe we would still be living in caves.

humans ARE the worst animals on this planet

greedy, selfish, self serving, ruthless, murdering

humans ARE the worst animals on this planet

greedy, selfish, self serving, ruthless, murdering

Sack cloth and ashes for you then eh mel. :hihi:

If humans played it safe we would still be living in caves.

I agree - which is why 'educated and reasoned action' is teh order of the day.

It's risk balancing; there are two theories here that basically state that the World does this by istelf, always has done, and what we do doesn't affect it, OR that we are having a radical effect on the climate by our actions.

The impact of these climate changes is economically, socially and politically teh same whether it's Nature or Man that's driving the change.

We cannot stop it if it's primarily natural. If it's Man driven, we might be able to slow it down, if not reverse it.

And whichever the cause, we still have to deal with the consequences.

So, until we get actual copper-bottomed proof, the 'moderately safe call' for humanity is to assume that our 'driving' of the climate change machine is more important that the optimists believe, whilst maybe not as bad as the pessimists believe. This slows down our input to the problem, and gains time for further research. If the research shines definite proof one way or another you can then modify policy to suit.

But to blunder on as we currently do without knowing what we're doing and effectively hoping for the best is criminal.

humans ARE the worst animals on this planet

greedy, selfish, self serving, ruthless, murderingyou're being a tad harsh. we're no worse than any other virus;)

humans ARE the worst animals on this planet

greedy, selfish, self serving, ruthless, murdering
Agreed !!

Which is why I don't undertand it when people argue that human life is more precious than other animals, and should be treat with utmost respect and favouritism. We - well most of us - are the most evil set of lifeforms on the planet.

humans ARE the worst animals on this planet

greedy, selfish, self serving, ruthless, murdering

Yeah, you are right. Society is judged by the way it treats its poorest, least well off? Does that sound right to you? It is a nice goal, and quite admirable?

But if an animal is poorly or unable to take care of itself, how many packs try and take care of it? It is survival of the fittest in nature, yet humans don't prescribe to that. We have a bizarre sense of morals, yet we're the worst? I think this all depends on what you are arguing about, what is the basis of the judgement.

And by the way, I recycle everything I can. I try and live as 'carbon neutral' life as possible. I walk / get public transport to work every day. I rarely use my car and my heating is pretty low!! So I try and live a sensible, moderated life, but I think we (humans) might have got our priorities wrong at the moment.

It was certainly interesting to see another point of view.

The first 20 minutes gave facts and figures which seem to be the complete opposite of what people are told in the media, the rest seemed to be based on what they considered to be political interference.


p.s Thanks to Olliekitten for correcting my typo in the title

If humans played it safe we would still be living in caves.

That seems to be the object. 'First world' environmentalists have decided that the peoples of the 'third world' will have to continue living their stone-age life-style.

Wonder where I can find a report of all the dissent the IPCC deleted from their final report ? :)

So, until we get actual copper-bottomed proof, the 'moderately safe call' for humanity is to assume that our 'driving' of the climate change machine is more important that the optimists believe, whilst maybe not as bad as the pessimists believe. This slows down our input to the problem, and gains time for further research. If the research shines definite proof one way or another you can then modify policy to suit.

But to blunder on as we currently do without knowing what we're doing and effectively hoping for the best is criminal.

Can you imagine a body like the Natural Environment Research Council funding projects to disprove the assumption that GW is driven by CO2 ? :D

As the programme suggested, man-made GW is now a religion :rolleyes:

A very interesting programme. It suggested that: upper atmosphere levels are not warming in the way we might expect if warming - as experienced at the earth's surface - is a result of man-made factors; and from looking at historical data increased carbon dioxide levels appear to follow trends in increased warming (ie are an effect, not a cause). It attributes warming and cooling phases to sunspot activity on the sun.

It identified Margaret Thatcher as an early supporter of the theory of man-made global warming as it was another reason to promote nuclear energy. Then after the fall of communism a lot of anti-capitalist activists moved over to the environmental movement. Academics have got a lot of funding on the basis of investigating the threat of global warming. So today there's a vast industry of people with a vested interest in promoting the notion of the man-made factors. Energy conservation measures do, on the other hand, present a threat to development and alleviating poverty in developing countries.

why am i not shocked that none of the people who are certain GW is man made haven't commented on it?

I'm not sure anyone is 100% certain. Very complex system, the data are not definitive so it's not something one should rationally be certain about (unless they have an understanding of it that I lack, including definitive data).

The data taken as a whole do seem to me to point to a very strong probability that anthropogenic carbon (etc) emissions are influencing global climate towards a long-term warming trend. A lot of people now think this way. Look at the data and make up your own mind, is the best bet!

Even if we're not pushing the warming as such, the world is warming up and that's an eventuality that will need to be planned for - most global warming research actually goes into monitoring the warming and trying to predict future warming rather than necessarily apportioning blame to humanity or elsewhere.

It's fairly widely agreed that climate change isn't an altogether good thing and whether you believe as strongly as I do (about 90% convinced) that humans are having a strong influence on global climate or not, while there's any chance that we could be a primary driver it's surely better to take moderate steps to cut down on emissions while these steps are relatively easily attainable.

I would hope that as a byproduct of lowering CO2 emissions, other gas emissions might also drop and thus improve air quality also.

why am i not shocked that none of the people who are certain GW is man made haven't commented on it?

Ummm....I actually do believe we contribute to Global Warming.

By the way, angle20 - sunspots do not cause climate change - they're a measure OF solar activity. Higher sunspot counts are indicators of more energetic and unstable solar activity. The Maunder Minimum I mentioen din my first post was actually a period of time in which sunspt counts were low over many decades, and which coincided with a cooling of the climate.

Although teh variations in the suns brightness are unlikely to cause global warming - they're not big enough - there is a possibility that modification of the solar wind might modify the atmosphere on Earth here in some way to contribute to climatic change.

Greybeard - whether funding for such projects or not is likely is a good point. However, I'd expect that the oil companies would come up with money if they were asked nicely enough. ;) You could then have the biased studies of the 'GW Religionists' layed off against the biased studies of the 'GW Revisionists'. :)

My argument remains the same; in the last 200 or so years the human race has radically changed the Carbon Dioxide balance in the atmosphere by liberating increasing amounts of CO2 removed from circulation millions of years ago, and we don't know what the effect will be. As well as adding CO2 in to the air, we've systematically destroyed large chunks of forest and the sorts of vegetation that take CO2 out of the air and 'freeze' it as wood in growing, healthy plants.

You WILL get an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere after warming, BTW - first of all you get increased release of CO2 from things like permafrost as it thaws out. Also, water acts as a CO2 sink, but cooler water will hold more CO2 than warmer water. So as the seas warm, you would get an increasing amount of CO2 released form the water in to the atmosphere.

Also, as for vested interests - the oil business is worth 600 billion dollars a year. That's an awful lot of reasons why it's in some people's interests to prove that we're innocent of any contribution to climate change.

]<snip>[/B]Ummm....I actually do believe we contribute to Global Warming.

My argument remains the same; in the last 200 or so years the human race has radically changed the Carbon Dioxide balance in the atmosphere by liberating increasing amounts of CO2 removed from circulation millions of years ago, and we don't know what the effect will be. As well as adding CO2 in to the air, we've systematically destroyed large chunks of forest and the sorts of vegetation that take CO2 out of the air and 'freeze' it as wood in growing, healthy plants.

You WILL get an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere after warming, BTW - first of all you get increased release of CO2 from things like permafrost as it thaws out. Also, water acts as a CO2 sink, but cooler water will hold more CO2 than warmer water. So as the seas warm, you would get an increasing amount of CO2 released form the water in to the atmosphere.

Also, as for vested interests - the oil business is worth 600 billion dollars a year. That's an awful lot of reasons why it's in some people's interests to prove that we're innocent of any contribution to climate change.

I also agree that we must be contributing to GW, but this programme has put it a little more into perspective for my mind that the CO2 issue isn't as big as I thought. (if I am to believe what I saw, which for the most part, I thought makes a lot of sense).

Personally I've never been massively concerned with the GW debate, I'm more interested in the rate at which oil is being burnt unnecessarily.

................Also, as for vested interests - the oil business is worth 600 billion dollars a year. That's an awful lot of reasons why it's in some people's interests to prove that we're innocent of any contribution to climate change.

Do you not think the nuclear industry and it's proponents stand to gain from the opposing viewpoint. Surely it's also in their interests to prove we are guilty of a contribution to climate change.

Again conspiracy theories raise their head in the guise of balanced journalistic reporting. The scientific arguements were interesting but we were given talking heads on just one side of the arguement. Lets lead them down a path...

Vested economic interests pushing global warming theory is laughable. I think that you will find that a certain Mr Bush and the current US administration do not believe in global warming either. All major US corporations most notably the powerful oil (see war in Iraq), aviation, automobile, chemical industries reject global warming, period. The most powerful and richest companies in the world have more to lose from the theory of global warming than gain. These industries have the ear of the most powerful politician on earth, a certain Mr Bush.

This part of the show was sheer nonsense.....again useless conspiracy theory....9/11 inside job, Kennedy assassinated by CIA, Monroe killed by Mafia, Diana killed by Prince Philip and the world controlled by secret big lizards...yakety yak...

Then after the fall of communism a lot of anti-capitalist activists moved over to the environmental movement. Academics have got a lot of funding on the basis of investigating the threat of global warming. So today there's a vast industry of people with a vested interest in promoting the notion of the man-made factors

In the interests of balance there is also the odd billion dollars or two from the USA oil lobby going in to denying global warming.

This part of the show was sheer nonsense.....again useless conspiracy theory....9/11 inside job, Kennedy assassinated by CIA, Monroe killed by Mafia, Diana killed by Prince Philip and the world controlled by secret big lizards...yakety yak...

I wondered how long until 9/11 or Diana / lizards would be mentioned.

I found the first bit the most interesting. Facts and figures, that can quite easily be checked by anyone.

The latter part about conspiracy theories/political agendas/ etc etc was always going to be one sided, given the title of the programme.

why am i not shocked that none of the people who are certain GW is man made haven't commented on it?

An interesting programme but to believe everything that the programme presented is a little naive. Firstly this programme was made and presented by the skeptics who have long battled the believers of man made global warming so it would come as no suprise to see that no global warming believer scientist were invited on the programme to put forward their views on the skeptics findings. To point blankly accept the views of these skeptical scientists is as bad as accepting the views of the believers point blankly.
They gladly pick holes in the believers theories but there would probably be just as many holes in the skeptics theory, however as it is the skeptics who made this programme we are hardly likely to see them present holes in their own theory.
The Canadian Newspaper the Toronto star puts the skeptics arguments in a little more perspective :

http://www.thestar.com/article/175673

In conclusion the layman, which frankly most of us are when it comes to climate science, is non the wiser... the programme is telling us not to believe what we have been told.....well that's true, why should I believe what you Skeptic guys have just told me??:loopy:
What is really needed is a big televised debate between the top scientist in the fields and get them to answer each others concerns over their theories, only then will the public get a better feel for who's argument holds more water.
A programme entitled the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was never going to be a balanced programme. :suspect:

.............
What is really needed is a big televised debate between the top scientist in the fields and get them to answer each others concerns over their theories, only then will the public get better feel for who's argument holds more water.

A programme entitled the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was never going to be balanced programme. :suspect:

I totally agree with you, but the only 'theory' which is getting total backing and blanket media coverage is the pro GW lobby and it is that 'theory' which is leading to the introduction of new legislation such as the laughable new tax on flights which, dressed up as a green measure, make it acceptable to the public.

I would also point out that the BBC programme 'Climate Change - Britain under Threat’ with it's Hollywood disaster movie feel was hardly a balanced programme either.

Both sides of the argument accept the Earth is getting warmer, I want to hear both sides of the argument not just the hysterical doom mongers such as the BBC.

My argument remains the same; in the last 200 or so years the human race has radically changed the Carbon Dioxide balance in the atmosphere by liberating increasing amounts of CO2 removed from circulation millions of years ago, and we don't know what the effect will be. As well as adding CO2 in to the air, we've systematically destroyed large chunks of forest and the sorts of vegetation that take CO2 out of the air and 'freeze' it as wood in growing, healthy plants.



???? so 200 years ago we had the out put of co2???

i dont think so.. it only stated after the war

???? so 200 years ago we had the out put of co2???

i dont think so.. it only stated after the war

Try the industrial revolution, bladessufc1.

This part of the show was sheer nonsense.....again useless conspiracy theory....9/11 inside job, Kennedy assassinated by CIA, Monroe killed by Mafia, Diana killed by Prince Philip and the world controlled by secret big lizards...yakety yak...

I didn't managed to see this programme but I am sure there is a conspiracy - of sorts. I don't think there is a dark room where heads of state meet and decide to promote the idea of global warming. I do think that once a theory becomes accepted to the degree that this has then it means either have faith in it (yes faith) or you struggle in your career. If you are a scientist and just starting out in a career then you will struggle to get grants or obtain a position if you claim that global warming doesn't exist.

A programme entitled the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was never going to be balanced programme. :suspect:

Obviously :) OTOH the vast majority of media coverage over the last few years has been devoted to promoting the man-made GW theories. So much so that it is now generally accepted as fact. So it was refreshing to hear the other side of the argument.

From the article you quoted...

"People can believe what they want to believe. Most people follow the leading opinion. Very few are equipped to deal with the actual content of what's going on."

In theory the 'leading opinion' should be the IPCC but last night's programme revealed that many dissenting opinions by contributing scientists were deleted from the most recent report; and the names of these scientists were left in the report as contributors even though they asked for their names to be removed, which gives the impression that they endorse the report rather than oppose it's findings !!

So...if the IPCC feels compelled to resort to dishonesty in making the case for man-made GW; - who are we to believe ?

Meanwhile in Brazil they're replacing the tropical rain forest with vast plantations of sugar cane to produce bio-ethanol so we don't have to feel guilty about using petrol and diesel in our cars :loopy:

i dont recall dinosaurs generating much co2 or driving 4x4's.

the planet is organic and evolving. so the inevitable will happen - organic things die they have a limited lifespan, 1 day or 1million years.
evolution will create differences in species alive to cope with the inevitable. if man cannot adapt, he will go the same way as the dinosaur.

the only real difference between us and the dinosuars is that we are realisng it won't last for ever and think we can change it.perhaps in 100 years someone will say - if they hadn't used that alternate fuel source in 2001 things wouldn't be this bad,if, if if........

Obviously :)
Meanwhile in Brazil they're replacing the tropical rain forest with vast plantations of sugar cane to produce bio-ethanol so we don't have to feel guilty about using petrol and diesel in our cars :loopy:

Save the rainforests - use petrol cars! Im all for that. I dont believe GW is our fault.

I do think that once a theory becomes accepted to the degree that this has then it means either have faith in it (yes faith) or you struggle in your career. If you are a scientist and just starting out in a career then you will struggle to get grants or obtain a position if you claim that global warming doesn't exist.

Yes, the programme said something along those lines.

The dispute isn't particularly about whether global warming exists, but whether greenhouse gases are the cause, ie do have the power to do something about it, or is it a natural phenomenon which is completely out of our hands.

I do think that once a theory becomes accepted to the degree that this has then it means either have faith in it (yes faith) or you struggle in your career. If you are a scientist and just starting out in a career then you will struggle to get grants or obtain a position if you claim that global warming doesn't exist.

It seems now to be the case that your reseach just won't be funded unless it has some relevance to the promotion or proof that man-made global warming is a matter of fact.

The progrmme did highlight the fact that with many politicians and scientists man-made GW has become a religion and those who question or deny the fact are regarded as heretics.

Heaven knows how they will cope with a global temperature downturn as there was between 1940 and 1975. :suspect: :hihi:

???? so 200 years ago we had the out put of co2???

i dont think so.. it only stated after the war

Errr....no. Core samples from the Arctic and Antarctic ice indicate that CO2 levels started increasing significantly with the industrial revolution. The other peaks due to eruptions and other natural events can be seen in these samples as well, but what is seen is a gradual increase in the background level.

We REALLY got in to our stride in teh 20th Century, though.

Try the industrial revolution, bladessufc1.



what 200 years ago!!

Heaven knows how they will cope with a global temperature downturn as there was between 1940 and 1975. :suspect: :hihi:

This is why I made the comments above - our activities on the planet are almost certainly having some impact on climate patterns - we're just too big a disturbing influence NOT to.

However, the effects may not be as clear as we think.

Look at the arguments about solar influence on warming - the period 1940 to 1960 had increasing sunspot counts and sunspot areas, and culminated in the 1959 cycle - one of the highest periods of solar activity on record. At the same time we were generating a lot of CO2. Temperature fell. For supporters of BOTH teh solar hypothesis and the CO2 warming effect, temperature should have increased.

Oops. It didn't.

So - back to my theory that we're fiddling with things and we don't really know whether we're doing anything that's permanent or transitory. Even the GW theories have a range of temperature effects between an increase in just 1 degree to an increase in temperature of 11 or twelve degrees over the same time!

A good argument all around is, I'm afraid - play safe, be frugal with energy, and get some better understanding. As someone once said about the film industry - 'No body knows nowt'.

The one thing we do know is that the climate of the planet is a complex, non-linear phenomenon that is astonishingly senstivite to initial conditions. The old 'butterfly effect' of Chaos Theory was first explored using something called the Lorenz Attractor - a VERY simplified model of climate.

We've spent 200 years dumping all sorts of stuff in to the atmosphere - gasses to warm it, gasses to cool it, gasses that react with other gases in teh atmosphere to change it's chemical and physical properties, we've generade ozone holes, pached 'em up again, and on at least one recorded occasion tested nuclear weapons in the atmosphere that were powerful enough to leave long term effects on the Van Allen Belts, which may again have impact on climate.

In other words, we're seriously messing with the initial conditions of a chaotic system, and hoping that there's enough 'inertia' in it to keep it within boundaries that we can live with.

We shouldn't be surprised if our collective ass doesn't get kicked.

what 200 years ago!!

Yes, 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution started in the late 18th century.

Also, as for vested interests - the oil business is worth 600 billion dollars a year. That's an awful lot of reasons why it's in some people's interests to prove that we're innocent of any contribution to climate change.

I think we should punish the producing countries the same way we punish the countries that produce drugs. We could send in crack SAS teams to attack their oil installations and shut down production.

I think we should punish the producing countries the same way we punish the countries that produce drugs. We could send in crack SAS teams to attack their oil installations and shut down production.

I assume starting here in the UK? :rolleyes:

Hell, no. Let's attack Scotland first :hihi:

has anyone given a thought - what would the difference be if you weren't here.
if you hadn't been born would the non-effect of your life been beneficial to the planet.

so why don't all the GW "fanatics" and greenies stop having kids.they're making it worse by continuing with the species.

Obviously :)

In theory the 'leading opinion' should be the IPCC but last night's programme revealed that many dissenting opinions by contributing scientists were deleted from the most recent report; and the names of these scientists were left in the report as contributors even though they asked for their names to be removed, which gives the impression that they endorse the report rather than oppose it's findings !!



I'd have to watch that part again but I don't actually recall that any number was put on just how many names were left on. And we don't actually know what qualifies anyone to be classed as a contributor in this case, so it's a little harsh to codemn the IPCC when the details of this are as yet a bit on the patchy side.
Going back to the programme last night there are a few things that I felt needed more substancial investigation.
The correlation the programme made between temperature fluctuations and sunspot activity was based on records that went back 400 years, sounds impressive yes but they were basing that on astronomers observations that we have no idea how accurate and under what conditions these observations were made and who exactly made them and where they were observed.
There was also the case of the man who "beat" the Met office at predicting the weather purely by looking at sunspots.
Well I've lost cont of the times I too have "beaten" the Met office without looking at sunspots.:hihi: The Met office as a matter of routine say that they can't predict weather longer than a five day period so any long term predicitions of " we are in for a really severe Winter" are more likely to be Media driven rather than Met office driven as suggested in the programme.
If this guys was so confident about predicting weather by Sun spots then why didn't the programme put the guy on the spot and ask him to predict the weather on a certain future date, surely if he got it right then would not that have given the Sceptics' theory something to bragg about??
Another commentator exclaimed that man was much too small and insignificant to possibly have any impact on climate..... well if that's true then the Global Dimming theory, which it is claimed by scientists was purely due to man made pollutants in the atmosphere must also be bogus then?
Another slighty contradictory argument that the programme put forward was that there was no rise in temprature after the 1940's when man's carbon production was at it's highest, but the sceptics already made the point that temprature rises would take decades or even centuries after the event to manifest themselves, so if we follow that argument then we wouldn't expect to see temperature rises immeadiately after the 1940s.:loopy:
So far from proving that manmade Global warming is a swindle I think it is prudent to be skeptical about the claims of the skeptics.:huh:

Interesting information about last nights programme maker Martin Durkin:

" Martin Durkin, made a film for Channel 4 lambasting the environmental movement back in 1997 it resulted in his being slammed by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors and editing interviews to "distort" interviewees views." - Green Business News.

The full article on last nights programme can be found here:

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/03/what_firms_shou.html

I'm totally confused by it, I feel like my life isn't worth living anymore :(

So far from proving that manmade Global warming is a swindle I think it is prudent to be skeptical about the claims of the skeptics.:huh:

Have to generally agree with that, - but I'm equally sceptical about the arguments of people like Al Gore and others using GW for political ends. I don't see how at this stage truly independent research into the question will ever get funded. The vested interests on both sides of the argument are too entrenched in their positions.

Meanwhile if GW is primarily the result of CO2 emmissions anything we in the west can do about it will be too little too late, and we're certainly not going to be able to persuade countries like India and China to relinquish their coal and oil-fired passports to 'modernity' ....whilst Africa looks like having to remain forever the dark continent.

As JoeP points out our western lifestyle has caused immeasurable damage to the environment apart from the GW issue and we should be spending serious money on alternatives to fossil fuels before the damage is beyond recovery.

Yes, 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution started in the late 18th century.

o right, just that on the tv programme it said that after the war was when it increased the most, like a big bang

did anyone see this fascinating documentary last night. this link to the washington post (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm) highlights some of the key points made in the film.

hearing some of the key scientists rebuke the IPCC paper on the subject which they actually originall contributed to, saying that it was highly edited and had political "spin", to the degree that many named submitters have since asked (sometimes unsucceessfully) to have their names removed from the document, was a real shock. can we really trust anything the government or more importantly the UN tells us?

also how greenpeace managed to become to fundamentalised and infiltrated, words from the co-founder.

this program was an all round cracking piece.
id recomend hunting around youtube and google video the next few weeks to find this program as its well worth a watch. if i find it ill post a link.

in light of this film im now not too keen to say im an environmentalist, i would now say im a conservationist. everyone in this world has the right to use what the earth provides and to better their lives. use whats available but always make sure there are measures to preserve and replenish whats taken. place more emphasis on increasing efficiency and reusing brown land rather than building new etc.

for anyone who did see this program. ive one thing which doesnt quite make sense still. other than to stifle development in poorer parts of the world in order to retain some level of economic dominance, why would america have changed their long held denial of global worming as attributed to human C02 emmitions; what do they have to gain?

discuss :)

There's always one smug b*gger who tells you to use the search facility, isn't there? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=194418)

Have to generally agree with that, - but I'm equally sceptical about the arguments of people like Al Gore and others using GW for political ends. I don't see how at this stage truly independent research into the question will ever get funded. The vested interests on both sides of the argument are too entrenched in their positions.



You may well be right about that, which is why a televised event with the 2 camps fielding their experts in front of a mixed audience can debate various points about their various theories seems like an increasingly good idea.
The audience can then put their questions to both camps like BBC "Question time". At least that way the audience can judge for themselves who's argument holds more water without being solely lectured for 90 minutes by either Al Gore or Nigel Calder!:suspect:

Me too, cos I started one hours before that one with same title!
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=194322

Interesting information about last nights programme maker Martin Durkin:

" Martin Durkin, made a film for Channel 4 lambasting the environmental movement back in 1997 it resulted in his being slammed by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors and editing interviews to "distort" interviewees views." - Green Business News.

The full article on last nights programme can be found here:

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/03/what_firms_shou.html

When losing an argument, launch a personal attack on the person making the argument.

When losing an argument, launch a personal attack on the person making the argument.

It's not me launching an attack, it's useful information to take into account when considering the worth of the documentory as a whole.
The Independent Television Commission isn't trying to discredit Martin Durkin, he did that to himself.:loopy:

Cow flatulence
It has been estimated that 9 to 12% of the energy that a cow consumes is turned to methane that is released either through flatulence or burping (Radford, 2001). A huge number of factors affect methane emission, including diet, barn conditions and whether the cow is lactating, but an average cow in a barn produce 542 liters of methane a day, and 600 liters when out in a field (Adam, 2000).

These estimates were made using a trace gas (sulphur hexofluoride) that was released at known points within a barn containing 90 cattle. Levels of this trace gas and CO2 are then measured 30 metres downwind of the shed and thus they can estimate how much CO2 is released per cow per day. All this methane can add up to a significant amount. Australia's 140 million sheep and cattle are estimated to produce one seventh of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions, whilst America's 100 million cattle also are major contributors (Major, 2000).

Perhaps we should start a cull of cows and sheep.

It's not me launching an attack, it's useful information to take into account when considering the worth of the documentory as a whole.
The Independent Television Commission isn't trying to discredit Martin Durkin, he did that to himself.:loopy:


Having looked at the site you directed me to, it appears to be one run by loony lefty, tree-hugging, green "save the planet" vegan companies who are making an awful lot of money promoting "environmentally friendly" products.
Do you not think they might have a vested interest in promoting the global warming myth?

Me too, cos I started one hours before that one with same title!
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=194322

Well- they're all in the same place now!

3 threads merged.

Having looked at the site you directed me to, it appears to be one run by loony lefty, tree-hugging, green "save the planet" vegan companies who are making an awful lot of money promoting "environmentally friendly" products.
Do you not think they might have a vested interest in promoting the global warming myth?

If that's true then why would the author add this? :

"The next time someone wants to make a documentary on global warming how's about commissioning a fully independent film maker who allows the scientists in Durkin's film to make their points and then talks to all those other climate scientists about their rival theories"

Well- they're all in the same place now!

3 threads merged.Thanks although having started it I haven't seen the programme yet!!

If that's true then why would the author add this? :

"The next time someone wants to make a documentary on global warming how's about commissioning a fully independent film maker who allows the scientists in Durkin's film to make their points and then talks to all those other climate scientists about their rival theories"

Because he's talking hypothetically. If such a documentary ever is made, I'm certain this person would do everything he could to silence anyone disagreeing with him.

Because he's talking hypothetically. If such a documentary ever is made, I'm certain this person would do everything he could to silence anyone disagreeing with him.

And Martin Durkin and Nigel Calder, (who is coincidentally plugging his new book at the same time this programme is screened) aren't guilty of doing the exact same thing?
No one opposing their views was allowed on their programme last night I noticed!:suspect:

............... we should be spending serious money on alternatives to fossil fuels before the damage is beyond recovery.

Can you clarify your term 'beyond recovery'? It is often used but I have yet to hear what is actually meant by the term. It seems to be a 'catch all' statement.

I can tell you this, the Earth has suffered from enormous catastrophic events and recovered and will do so long after we have gone.

As an aside, does anyone else find it quite funny that our beloved PM is almost evangelical regarding his commitment to save the earths environment from GW while at the same time proposing the renewing of Trident which if used would lay waste to the very environment he trying to save. :loopy:

The Earth would still recover from this as well by the way. ;)

the truth is the planet is warming up because that is what it does. its temprature changes and fluctuates and things happen to it. we might help it along somewhat but we're by no means the major factor.

what people don't want to think about is we're just a species of aggressive, war like little monkeys running around arrogantly thinking we control it all when really the planet is due a really big natural disaster or an extinction that will shrug us off without the planet breaking a sweat.

like the late great bill hicks tells us we're nothing but "a virus with shoes"

The main thing that will screw the planet is not GW but population increase.
When I were a lad ca 1950 the world population was 2 billion,
Now it's 6 billion.
It can't go on without something drastic happening.
I'm not convinced that the increase in GW is anything to do with humanity but I am sure that it is being used to screw more taxes out of us.
However the thing that will convince me to be more energy efficient is if it saves me money...which I can then waste on other non essentials that keep the world economy turning.

doh, did a search but obviously my search skill <= poor :(

Thought it was a great programme with enough evidence to seriously challenge mainstream thinking on GW. My personal view is we should still be trying to reduce use of fossil fuels because of the impact on the local environment. Local use (e.g. cars, power stations) has tangible, measurable effects on the environment and clear impacts on health and the environment. Locally is where we should start - the global view can come later when it is proven beyond doubt that we do have a problem.

Can you clarify your term 'beyond recovery'? It is often used but I have yet to hear what is actually meant by the term. It seems to be a 'catch all' statement.

I can tell you this, the Earth has suffered from enormous catastrophic events and recovered and will do so long after we have gone.


I was thinking in terms of fossil fuels - their diminishing availability and the increasing demand for them. Eventually there will be a confrontation between the east and west over oil and gas which the east will probably win.

I appreciate that we can't damage the planet beyond recovery...apart from the extinction of a few species.

I was thinking in terms of fossil fuels - their diminishing availability and the increasing demand for them. Eventually there will be a confrontation between the east and west over oil and gas which the east will probably win..............

A point of view which may very well be the main reason for the politicising of GW.

It is far easier to persuade the population, used to easy access to gas and oil, that we need to reduce our use of them due to some impending doom rather than the fact we do not have secure supplies.

As a result it is also politically more acceptable to justify the huge sums needed to develop and introduce alternatives, for example nuclear, based on some near future disaster than the fact we may be heading for future conflict over supplies of oil or gas.

Locally is where we should start - the global view can come later when it is proven beyond doubt that we do have a problem.
Good point.

I don't normally subscribe to "conspiracy theories" but the GW one is so basic it's laughable.

The ruling classes need an Armageddon. For many centuries, God was the perfect solution. If the proles don't do what (the ruling classes say) God wants, He will end the world with some disaster or other. Has He ever done that? No, at least not in a way that singles out the proles.

For the second half of the last century (when God wasn't really in vogue), the threat of nuclear winter did the trick. Don't even think about being a little bit commie, or you will personally bring about the end of the world.

Now the cold war's finished and the two halves of the (working class) world have realised they don't really hate each others' guts after all, the despots need something new. Oh well, f**k me backwards, all of a sudden our multi-million year old planet has warmed up to dangerous levels in the space of about a decade. This has not happened because of government decisions, mind you, but because of the stupidity and selfishness of the man in the street.

Once again it's you and me, not our leaders, who are responsible for the impending end of the world.

Get real. Cars and factories and all the other ****e that's pumped into the atmosphere does about as much harm as having a p**s when you swim in the sea - not good for the person behind you that swallows it, but basically not the end of civilisation as we know it.

Although all the points raised in the programme are worthy of public examination by a cross section of climate scientists representing all sides of the argument, I suspect a lot of it is similar to what is described in the following: ''That tactic was similar to a 1998 anti-Kyoto petition signed by about 17,000 global scientists, most of whom turned out to have industry backing, weak credentials or both.

Advocates of climate-change action say the skeptics take the same loose approach to their science, frequently citing "facts" that are wrong or misrepresentations. That's one reason they'll steer clear of Cooper's conference.

"It's agenda-driven," says Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria. "I'm not interested in propaganda."

They are nervous, though, because of what happened in the United States.

The Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists says in a recent report that between 1998 and 2005, Exxon Mobil gave nearly $16 million (U.S.) to 43 advocacy organizations "that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

The chemical, tobacco and asbestos industries have all previously employed the same tactic to forestall regulation of their activities and products.''

Here is an interesting article from the Independent comparing what both
Martin Durkin (The Great Global Warming Swindle) and Al Gore (An inconvenient truth) are telling us:

Temperature

DURKIN SAYS: Studies of gases in bubbles of air in polar ice sheets reveal that in prehistoric hot periods temperatures began rising before C02 levels. So increasing concentrations of the gas are the result, not the cause of global warming.

GORE SAYS: "It's a complicated relationship, but the most important part of it is this: when there is more C02 in the atmosphere, the temperature increases." He shows two graphs of rising temperature and C02 levels over the past 600,000 years and says they "fit together".

WE SAY: Temperature and C02 are bound together. When one goes up, the other will follow. In prehistory temperatures often started rising 800 years before levels of the gas, and Gore evades this point. But it is irrelevant to what is happening now, because for the first time ever enormous amounts of extra C02 are being released.

The Arctic

DURKIN SAYS: Recent reports of how the amount of ice in the Arctic is shrinking have been exaggerated. The Arctic has always contracted and expanded over history.

GORE SAYS: The Arctic is a "canary in the coal mine". Since the 1970s ,the extent and thickness of its ice cap has "diminished precipitously". If we continue as we are, it will disappear during summers, profoundly changing the climate.

WE SAY: The amount of the ice ebbs and flows with natural warmings and coolings of the climate, and part of this shrinking is probably due to that. But this is being increased by global warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases, and these continue to go up. The Arctic is likely to be free of ice by 2050, for the first time in millions of years.

The sun

DURKIN SAYS: The sun is the main cause of global warming. The sun's activity increases from time to time, with increased solar flares, cutting down on cloud formation and raising temperatures on Earth. This activity correlates well with warmer periods over the past several hundred years.

GORE SAYS: The culprit is humanity's emissions of "huge quantities" of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which trap more of the infrared radiation of the sun that would otherwise escape out into space.

WE SAY: Variations in solar activity may have been responsible for past warm periods, though it's hard to be entirely sure because we have been taking good measurements of it only since 1978. But recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850.


The full article can be found here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

As a result it is also politically more acceptable to justify the huge sums needed to develop and introduce alternatives, for example nuclear, based on some near future disaster than the fact we may be heading for future conflict over supplies of oil or gas.

Interesting point.

And the notion of a global problem may be attractive to people whose aim is to introduce global government.

A point of view which may very well be the main reason for the politicising of GW.

It is far easier to persuade the population, used to easy access to gas and oil, that we need to reduce our use of them due to some impending doom rather than the fact we do not have secure supplies.

As a result it is also politically more acceptable to justify the huge sums needed to develop and introduce alternatives, for example nuclear, based on some near future disaster than the fact we may be heading for future conflict over supplies of oil or gas.

Interesting take, but some would already argue that we already are in a conflict over the oil supplies and the subsequent controlling of the price per barrel. At 112 billion proven barrels,Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in OPEC after Saudi Arabia. Out of 74 known oil fields in Iraq only 15 are being drillied.
Whilst Saudi Arabia is unwilling to divulge how much oil it has left, there seems an abundant supply just waiting to be pumped out of Iraq, so even though oil is a finite resource it seems the world isn't running out quite as quickly as some have previously reported.

Isn't it interesting to note that the 5 major oil companies report a tripling of profit to $89 million in 2005 compared to pre invasion 2002.
The US seems content to supress Iraqi oil supply in order to keep the price artificially high. It seems there is big money in oil, not only in it's production but in Iraq's case it's suppression.:suspect:

I see the planet as a thing with a get out clause. Billions of years ago the planet had very high levels of "greenhouse gases ", there was no way of sustaining life. Over years lifeforms developed that could absorb the greenhouse gases from the environment. As these lifeforms developed and time went on the amount of greenhouse gases fell and slowly turned into what we now know today as fossil fuels. Kinda like nature sucking in the bad stuff so more things could live on the good stuff.

Now where I think we are going wrong is this. Global warming or not we are using many fossil fuels which have billions of years worth of greenhouse gases trapped within them. What's more we are releasing Billions of years worth over what is literally a couple of centuries. This is my biggest problem with it all. Deny Global warming all you want but no one can deny that the air is not of a good quality in any city.

Maybe the planet has a contract that we're not aware of. We can use all we want to use but eventually we will just poison our air. We're not killing the earth. We're just using too much over to short a period of time. If anyone does want proof as to how bad the air quality could get. Go into your garage and close the door, then start the car engine and see how long you last.


Thanks go to JoeP for making this post possible.

Maybe the planet has a contract that we're not aware of. We can use all we want to use but eventually we will just poison our air. We're not killing the earth.

Totally agree, phrases like, "we are killing the planet" or "the planet is dying" are all too often banded about these days that people don't actually think about the real meaning of what they are saying.
The only thing likely to kill planet Earth is when our sun eventually dies or when our galaxy the Milky way collides with our neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda, which ever comes first, but don't worry niether is likely to happen for at least 5 billion years!

Planet Earth has suffered many major catastrophic events like Super Volcanoes and major asteroid impacts events which have blocked out the sun for years and created much more rapid climate change than any that is being observed right now.
The planet survived, life on Earth survived. Many species have become extinct due to these major events, but that only gave rise to new species.
Let's not forget that if the dinasours didn't get wiped out by that catastrophic event 65 million years ago, whether it was due to an asteroid impact or a super volcano, we probably wouldn't have evolved as the dominant species that we are today.
Let's get this right, Global warming won't kill the Earth or the life on it no matter how many degrees hotter the planet gets. It may well make life difficult for some of the inhabitants of Earth and may well kill those poorer populations that are less well able to cope with climate changes but in the end man will probably learn to adapt to these changes.
If the worse case scenario happens and man is wiped out, life will still go on, and perhaps the dolphins will finally have their day!:hihi:

Did anyone else see this documentary last Thurs?

Late post but only just found time to watch it.

So ........ sounds like the whole co2 issue is a load of nonsense and it's basically the sun's activity that determines our climate.

That aside, i still think it's a good idea to continue to reclycle and reduce pollution.

Discuss ....

It is probably a combination of what we do on the planet and nature playing a part.

What no one knows is what would have happened to the climate if we hadn't lived on the planet.

For me it's not a matter of whether CO2 is causing it or not. Global warming is highlighting the fact that we humans are destroying this planet with all our activity and we need to take better care. If that means moving away from petrol then great - might mean peace in the middle east. If it means we have more wind turbines then it might mean we need one less nuclear station.

We need to cut down on what we use in this world... we're killing it at this rate...

There's already a thread on this subject:

Global Warming (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=194322)

Its been moved to Entertainment for some inexplicable reason. :suspect:

I have only just seen this programme and thought it was excellent. It exploded many of the conventional wisdoms of the Global Warming zealots, using scientific evidence based on the research of distinguished academics. It demonstrated that the relationship between carbon emissions and current global warming is not scientifically proven (and indeed is probably false). It also provided valuable insights into the phenomenon of herd psychology in science (including social science) and also 'science' can serve political agendas by legitimising them. It also exploded the myth that the opponents of global warming are all cynically serving the interests of the energy corporations. Indeed, it exposed the link between the proponents of global warming within the scientific community and research funding. The global warming research industry is now so large that the climate change zealots are probably in receipt of much more largesse than their opponents.

I also liked the connection the programme made between the climate change zealots in the wider community and 'anti-capitalist' populism. Now Marxism is dead, the Citizen Smiths, teenage Trotskies and celebrity consciences everywhere have found a new cause (and governments world wide have found an additional justification for new taxes). Perhaps most tellingly of all, the global warming syndrome shows how an epistemic community, peddling a highly dubious (and probably false) theory can exert a profound influence on government policy by setting a political agenda based on scare stories dressed up as incontrovertible scientific truth.

I have just posted this on the other thread in the Entertainment section, but as I agree with FYTC that it ought to be in this section, I am posting it here as well.

I have only just seen this programme and thought it was excellent. It exploded many of the conventional wisdoms of the Global Warming zealots, using scientific evidence based on the research of distinguished academics. It demonstrated that the relationship between carbon emissions and current global warming is not scientifically proven (and indeed is probably false). It also provided valuable insights into the phenomenon of herd psychology in science (including social science) and also showed that 'science' can serve political agendas by legitimising them. It also exploded the myth that the opponents of global warming are all cynically serving the interests of the energy corporations. Indeed, it exposed the link between the proponents of global warming within the scientific community and research funding. The global warming research industry is now so large that the climate change zealots are probably in receipt of much more largesse than their opponents.

I also liked the connection the programme made between the climate change zealots in the wider community and 'anti-capitalist' populism. Now Marxism is dead, the Citizen Smiths, teenage Trotskies and celebrity consciences everywhere have found a new cause (and governments world wide have found an additional justification for new taxes). Perhaps most tellingly of all, the global warming syndrome shows how an epistemic community, peddling a highly dubious (and probably false) theory can exert a profound influence on government policy by setting a political agenda based on scare stories dressed up as incontrovertible scientific truth.

For me it's not a matter of whether CO2 is causing it or not. Global warming is highlighting the fact that we humans are destroying this planet with all our activity and we need to take better care. If that means moving away from petrol then great - might mean peace in the middle east. If it means we have more wind turbines then it might mean we need one less nuclear station.

We need to cut down on what we use in this world... we're killing it at this rate...

This sums up the arrogance of mankind in general.

The Earth has suffered far greater 'disasters' for example asteroid impact and super volcanos, and survived. True species have been wiped out but slowly, over time the planet itself has recovered. Indeed if it had not been for these 'disasters' we would highly likely not have evolved.

Whatever your standpoint on GW the use of the terms such as 'killing the planet' are tabloidesque and deserve no place in the discussion.

What we have here, as with 'The War on Terror' is the politics of fear and guilt, far easier to control and persuade the population if you convince them they are doomed unless they chnage their ways.

I also think peace in the Middle East is a little more complicated than the introduction of electric cars.

LOL - Was the documentary sponsored by Exxon-Mobil by any chance?!?

LOL - Was the documentary sponsored by Exxon-Mobil by any chance?!?

No. LOL :(

This is a film for people in denial.
Global Warming is a FACT,it's happening people. So now a small fringe is still denying that it is not a direct result of human activity.:loopy:
Since the advent of fossil fuels we have totally wrecked the planet-FACT, to say that we are not responsible for Global Warming is just ridiculous.
Its simple mathamatics even primary school children understand. More CO2 = more trapped sunlight = warmer tempratures.
Wake up pleeeease.

Global Warming is a FACT

Its simple mathamatics even primary school children understand. More CO2 = more trapped sunlight = warmer tempratures.
Wake up pleeeease.

Nobody is disputing its happening the climate has been changing for Millions of years.

Primary school children believe what they are told; thankfully adults can make informed decisions.

This is a film for people in denial.
Global Warming is a FACT,it's happening people. So now a small fringe is still denying that it is not a direct result of human activity.:loopy:
Since the advent of fossil fuels we have totally wrecked the planet-FACT, to say that we are not responsible for Global Warming is just ridiculous.
Its simple mathamatics even primary school children understand. More CO2 = more trapped sunlight = warmer tempratures.
Wake up pleeeease.


I would suggest you go back to primary school and investigate the process.

Nobody is disputing its happening the climate has been changing for Millions of years.

Primary school children believe what they are told; thankfully adults can make informed decisions.

CO2 + C02 = more CO2, simple aint it like`1+1. Like I said even primary school kids can do this simple sum.
How come a so called informed adult such a your self can't do this simple addition exercise?

I think that the spotlight on the largely acadmic argument of whether the planet is warming and why is kind of eclipsing much more important issues at the moment. For the man in the street it is difficult to know who to believe in terms of whether man made carbon emissions are warming the earth, or whether the sun is! But there are other things happening that we can all observe:

Like, why are rivers in this country so filthy that no-one swims in them any more, when they did in years gone by?

If we keep producing so much plastic, and only recycling such a small proportion of it, aren't we eventually going to run out of landfill?

Isn't it a bit worrying that when you go to london, your snot turns black?

Now these things seem to me to be obvious impacts that our activity has on the environment. That aren't going to be solved by carbon trading, or arguing about who funds what research and why.

CO2 + C02 = more CO2, simple aint it like`1+1. Like I said even primary school kids can do this simple sum.
How come a so called informed adult such a your self can't do this simple addition exercise?

Because it’s not as simple as 1+1 makes 2, the world’s climate is a little more complex than that.

In a few hundred years people will look back mockingly at the whole issue, just as we laugh at previous “known facts”, the world is flat, man will never fly etc.

In a few hundred years people will look back mockingly at the whole issue, just as we laugh at previous “known facts”, the world is flat, man will never fly etc

Good point well made. :clap:

Some people are happy to be spoon-fed information and take it all onboard unquestionably.

hi peeps,
seems to me that whether you believe in 'global warming' or are concerned about the pollution caused by co2 and petrol fumes on the body, the main cause is oil.
the major contributor (correct me if i am wronge) is cars (roadvehicles).
now the question is this - do we have a viable alternative? and by that I mean 'stable' not financial (one for the techies to answer - our potential saviours).
If so then if anyone were really bothered (and not got their fingers in the oil pie)
they would fund the production of these new vehicles financed with a 25% tax on the sale of all new petrol/deisel powered vehicles and an extra 10% on fuel.(the money going to aid the production and new infrastructure needed for fuelling etc of the new tecnology and not whitehall coffers) The country would not grind to a halt as eveyone would/could still get to work tomorrow, it wouldnt hit our manufacturing as we dont build any (to speak of) any more,(but could actually start a new industry as when other countries follow suit we would be ahead in the game) but we would have to seriously think of how to deal with the situation, and the equalisation of the pricing between the new technology and the petrol powered technology would allow a choice on conscience and personal evaluation. (whereas at the moment the new technology is having to fight the might of the oil industry, which all it has to do is pump the stuff out of the ground and charge us what it wants, and which will do all it can to keep its money power & dominance and us as its slaves).
But seeing as the US has 'aquired' Iraq and they & UK gov & oil companies are negotiating with the new figurehead 'government' of said land mass for the rights to this oil, they can pull the same stunt with Iraq oil as they did with native american land several years ago, - we have no choice as it is their interest to keep us running on oil.
read em and weep.
the only other choice would be to offer your services to the green party and then all vote for them at the next election.(just voting wont work as they dont have enough members in each constitancy to have enough seats to win a parliament in this election system even if the majority of the population voted for them. They would need people like you to stand for them (we dont live in a democracy only an elected republic - regarless of what they tell you in school)
The problem of petrol polution is a serious one (I run at 6am because by 8am you can taste the pollution in the air even here in sheffield) and will only get worse as more high rise buildings go up - in hong kong and china for example it is rare to see the sky in the cities - because the wind cant get in to blow the pollution away (my opinion from personal observation as I have just come back from hong kong)
As for global warming - it is irrelavent whether true or not and isnt affecting you today like the fumes, but correct one and you go a long way to potentially correcting the other.

.............Like, why are rivers in this country so filthy that no-one swims in them any more, when they did in years gone by?

Can you explain your reasoning behind this point.:confused:

Most of our rivers are the cleanest they have been since the start of the industrial revolution.

I can assure you that a dip in the River Don 'in years gone by' would probably have led to you dying of dysentry or cholera.

One hundred and fifty years ago, rivers passing through industrialised cities were just open sewers.. Today they are supporting a wide variety of life.

Yes there is more work to be done but your point has no basis whatsoever in reality and is an example of the type of doomsday language used to support the theory that man is the sole cause of global warming.

...........the major contributor (correct me if i am wronge) is cars (roadvehicles).............

Ok your wrong.

In 2005 emmissions totalled 556 million tonnes of this 120 million tonnes was from road transport.

This includes lorries and buses not just cars.

The biggest contributor is industry (including the energy industry) with emmissions of 307 million tonnes.

These are UK figures.

it's a fact humans are unable to think beyond their own needs and will wipe themselfs out.

its all b0ll0cks tbh

even if you DONT believe in global warning, shouldnt you try to change things just for comfort and making the planet an easier place to live anyway?

like recycling bottles and cans and paper?
not throwing litter on the floor
trying to use the car less
buying less pre packaged fruit and veg and stuff

it may or may not help towards stopping global warming but at least its less selfish than **** you all.
we have to show a bit of respect to the planet

This is a film for people in denial.
Global Warming is a FACT,it's happening people. So now a small fringe is still denying that it is not a direct result of human activity.:loopy:
Since the advent of fossil fuels we have totally wrecked the planet-FACT, to say that we are not responsible for Global Warming is just ridiculous.
Its simple mathamatics even primary school children understand. More CO2 = more trapped sunlight = warmer tempratures.
Wake up pleeeease.the ridiculous thing is our CO2 emissions account for a single figure sum of the total percentage. the rest is made up from the oceans (the biggest percentage) animal flatulence and decomposition of plants.

so if you can find a way to stop cows expelling methane, the oceans to dry up and can preserve vegetation forever then we're home and dry...

the ridiculous thing is our CO2 emissions account for a single figure sum of the total percentage. the rest is made up from the oceans (the biggest percentage) animal flatulence and decomposition of plants.

so if you can find a way to stop cows expelling methane, the oceans to dry up and can preserve vegetation forever then we're home and dry...

last weeks nuts (the one with the celebs in the bath) errrrrrrm featured some new pants that are gas...leak proof :)
fit every animal with a pair...sorted :D

its all b0ll0cks tbh

even if you DONT believe in global warning, shouldnt you try to change things just for comfort and making the planet an easier place to live anyway?

like recycling bottles and cans and paper?
not throwing litter on the floor
trying to use the car less
buying less pre packaged fruit and veg and stuff

it may or may not help towards stopping global warming but at least its less selfish than **** you all.
we have to show a bit of respect to the planet

I'm not arguing against those points mel, but why can't it be addressed as such instead of the patronising, guilt and fear led campaign that is emerging.

last weeks nuts (the one with the celebs in the bath) errrrrrrm featured some new pants that are gas...leak proof :)
fit every animal with a pair...sorted :Dsend me a pair!

I'm not arguing against those points mel, but why can't it be addressed as such instead of the patronising, guilt and fear led campaign that is emerging.
cos some people have come to a conclusion we are affecting global warming and some dont believe it?

me, im not sure either way tbh :P
i just believe in doing a small bit in "respecting" the earth, instead of just raping it

send me a pair!

hey i dint say i had any, just id seen a bit about em

they look stupid and sound uncomortable anyway, no matter how much fart they keep in

I have just posted this on the other thread in the Entertainment section, but as I agree with FYTC that it ought to be in this section, I am posting it here as well.

I have only just seen this programme and thought it was excellent. It exploded many of the conventional wisdoms of the Global Warming zealots, using scientific evidence based on the research of distinguished academics. It demonstrated that the relationship between carbon emissions and current global warming is not scientifically proven (and indeed is probably false). It also provided valuable insights into the phenomenon of herd psychology in science (including social science) and also showed that 'science' can serve political agendas by legitimising them.

Lord Chaverly don't fall into the trap of believing everything that was presented in the programme is solid proof that the Solar activity theory is the correct one. There are mainy holes in the films' presentation and some of the claims made by Martin Durkin and Nigel Caldwell have been looked at scientifically and already debunked.
You also need to look at the film maker, Martin Durkins' film making background, he has been in trouble with the Independent Television Commission for bad and dishonest practices when he distorted what some of his interviees said in his previous agenda driven programmes.
Please read for yourself about this man.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/equinox.htm

The Independent also has an interesting article which compares both Durkins'
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" with "Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth"

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

BBC Four aired a documenatry some time ago called 'The Price of Prawns' it highlighted the dubious tactics that an environmentalist group went to to forward its views.

Of course both sides in any debate can use such tactics but usually the green groups take the moral high ground. In this instance that ground was very shaky.

This link goes into more detail:

The Price of Prawns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/price-of-prawns.shtml)

hey i dint say i had any, just id seen a bit about em

they look stupid and sound uncomortable anyway, no matter how much fart they keep indon't tell lies, you've got them on now haven't you?!:P :suspect:

*farts*

errrrm nope

*sniffs, can't smell anything*

you lie!

BBC Four aired a documenatry some time ago called 'The Price of Prawns' it highlighted the dubious tactics that an environmentalist group went to to forward its views.

Of course both sides in any debate can use such tactics but usually the green groups take the moral high ground. In this instance that ground was very shaky.

This link goes into more detail:

The Price of Prawns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/price-of-prawns.shtml)

Point taken but If you read Martin Durkin's profile you probably wouldn't want to buy a second hand car from him.:suspect:

Point taken but If you read Martin Durkin's profile you probably wouldn't want to buy a second hand car from him.:suspect:

:hihi: :hihi: Not even an electric second hand car. :D

:hihi: :hihi: Not even an electric second hand car. :D

Durkin would probably try and tell you that his car ran off Solar power and that the more sunspots there are the faster it goes!:hihi: :hihi:

so wiping out 20% of the pollution thats pumped into the air isnt the main cause - its the second - it's still one we can achieve as an individual collective - whereas the 40% industry throws out needs a little more thought and persuasion. Positive thought. I know this isnt about global warming per say but as I said before Its harder to argue that the pollution isnt messing up our bodies than to argue whether its responsible for climate change or not -which is as has been said before an excellent way of collecting more taxes for no outlay.

................ Its harder to argue that the pollution isnt messing up our bodies than to argue whether its responsible for climate change or not...............

:confused:

Average life expectancy in 1901 was 48 years old.

Average life expectancy for men in 2002 was 76.0 years and for women 80.5 years.

Go figure. :suspect:

:confused:

Average life expectancy in 1901 was 48 years old.

Average life expectancy for men in 2002 was 76.0 years and for women 80.5 years.

Go figure. :suspect:

But drugs and advancements in medical technology, as well as better health awareness particuarly in the work place and the more widespread distribution of foods and drugs as well as improvements in sanitation and general infrastructures has helped push up life expectancy.
Imagine if we weren't poisoning our bodies, we'd all live to 150!:hihi:

:confused:

Average life expectancy in 1901 was 48 years old.

Average life expectancy for men in 2002 was 76.0 years and for women 80.5 years.

Go figure. :suspect:

But drugs and advancements in medical technology, as well as better health awareness particuarly in the work place, and the more widespread distribution of foods and drugs, as well as improvements in sanitation and general infrastructures has helped push up life expectancy.
Imagine if we weren't poisoning our bodies, we'd all live to 150!:hihi:

But drugs and advancements in medical technology, as well as better health awareness particuarly in the work place and the more widespread distribution of foods and drugs as well as improvements in sanitation and general infrastructures has helped push up life expectancy.
Imagine if we weren't poisoning our bodies, we'd all live to 150!:hihi:

All benefits gained directly attributable to the industrial age which according to the environmentalists is the single most heinous event in history.

A girl born today in Sierra Leone could expect only to live to 36, in contrast to Japan, where today's newborn girl might reach 85.

A return to a peasant lifestyle doesn't sound so appealing.

All benefits gained directly attributable to the industrial age which according to the environmentalists is the single most heinous event in history.

A girl born today in Sierra Leone could expect only to live to 36, in contrast to Japan, where today's newborn girl might reach 85.

A return to a peasant lifestyle doesn't sound so appealing.

you cant compare third world countries with 1st world

thats like comparing a dog with a cat :loopy:

you cant compare third world countries with 1st world

thats like comparing a dog with a cat :loopy:

Mel, rather than trying to be clever read the post and you may become clever. :loopy:

The analogy I have used is to reinforce my view and the previous posts that the benefits of our industrialised (first) world far outweigh a peasant existence in the un-indutrialised (third) world as far as life-span is concerned. So yes, you can compare. :rolleyes:

Mel, rather than trying to be clever read the post and you may become clever. :loopy:

The analogy I have used is to reinforce my view and the previous posts that the benefits of our industrialised (first) world far outweigh a peasant existence in the un-indutrialised (third) world as far as life-span is concerned. So yes, you can compare. :rolleyes:

you mean were healthier and better off in a civilised industrial part of the world cos weve raped and ****ed over the rest of the world, in turn making them poorer and unable to look after themselves...hoora us

ps dont be so patronising

you mean were healthier and better off in a civilised industrial part of the world cos weve raped and ****ed over the rest of the world, in turn making them poorer and unable to look after themselves...hoora us

ps dont be so patronising


We certainly live longer and from certain viewpoints are better off.

Not sure of your use of the word civilised though, by that do you mean they are not civilised.:confused:

As for 'raping' the rest of the world, can you be a little less dramatic.

Isn't it ironic that the Global Warming issue is probably going to stop the very people you say we have 'raped' from enjoying the
benefits of modernity of which you are so bitterly opposed.

PS. If you wish not to be patronised I suggest limiting the inclusion of :loopy: smilies in your replies. ;)

We certainly live longer and from certain viewpoints are better off.

Not sure of your use of the word civilised though, by that do you mean they are not civilised.:confused:

As for 'raping' the rest of the world, can you be a little less dramatic.

PS. If you wish not to be patronised I suggest limiting the inclusion of :loopy: smilies in your replies. ;)

but it is rape, theres no other word for it
we take what we want for our own selfish greed, no matter the cost, we kill the native peoples, we destroy the land, kill the animals, rip out the goodness



and as for the ps bit HAHAHAHAHAHA

but it is rape, theres no other word for it
we take what we want for our own selfish greed, no matter the cost, we kill the native peoples, we destroy the land, kill the animals, rip out the goodness



and as for the ps bit HAHAHAHAHAHA

I take it you are selling up and moving to the third world to live the simple life and help the 'raped' forthwith.

No?

Thought not. But you have bought a Red Nose.

I take it you are selling up and moving to the third world to live the simple life and help the 'raped' forthwith.

No?

Thought not. But you have bought a Red Nose.

no

but i know theres a problem with our way of life, i try and do my bit, and i dont wax lyrical about how great our stolen way of life is to all and sundry cos it stinks :)

no

but i know theres a problem with our way of life, i try and do my bit, and i dont wax lyrical about how great our stolen way of life is to all and sundry cos it stinks :)

Roughly translated, you mean your a hypocrite.

Roughly translated, you mean your a hypocrite.

you mean for being born where i am

im sorry, next time ill choose more carefully

you mean for being born where i am

im sorry, next time ill choose more carefully

Well you moved from sunny Sheffield to Whitby.

Whitby to Africa can't be that hard. You could even go by boat and save all that CO2. :P

it's a fact humans are unable to think beyond their own needs and will wipe themselfs out.

Its called evolution, survival of the fittest.

Quite rightly, the expected life span has increased, somewhat because we have recognised the harm that the 'positive' industry also produces eg, we stop sending people up chimneys, get rid of aspestos and (untill recently) imunise against tb etc.
What I'm saying is that the emmissions from road vehicles are not a health promoting inhalant - (which if I can tie you down, I think you would agree) and therefor we would bennefit from their removal from the pollution equasion. (At no real detriment other than to those with a stake in the oil industry).
the developing counties like china have leapfroged the 70's and 80's technology and are embracing todays ipods et al without having to go through cassettes and walkmans wastage etc - why not lead the way with 'electric/alternative' transport and let them embrace that before we have another (how many) billion cars pumping pollutants into that atmosphere and an even harder job of converting everyone.
This wont be done by the government saying watch out for global warming recycle your carrierbags, and pay me a pollution tax. (whilst actually promoting the continuation of the problem for the benefit of profit - but then again thats what our system is build upon isnt it - profit from consumerism)
ps. keep up the good work - a clear headed discussion - cool

As clear as organic mud that. Well done. :D

I would suggest you go back to primary school and investigate the process.

Investigate what? The destruction of the planet?
Beleive it or not some humans are intelligent,they understand the negative impact humans are having on the planet.

We have been clever enough to move up from whale oil, to carbon based fossil fuels. It is how we use them is the key to being sustainable and being inteligent,caring human beings.

Whale oil could not have fueld the industrial revolution and produced the technology we have today.
Crude oil has given human kind the greatest energy source in the history of our planet.

How we have used this energy is to greatly improve the quality of life.
Instead of manpower ,we now have machines that can harvest the abundance of the earth alot quicker,giving us unprecedented wealth,and therefore the impact on the planet has been speeded up and alot more severe.

Carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millenia under the ground due to the breaking down of dead trees plants and animals, is in the oil,gas and coal, so ingeiniously obtained and burnt to give us unprecedented energy sources.
The way us lucky folks in the first world have such a great standard of living, is directly dependant on this energy source which is been possible by thousands of years of sunlight transformed into life via photosynthesis, into carbon that decayed in a manner without oxygen, that produced these carbon based fuels we all know.

No scientist out there disputes that carbon dioxide (C02) is released when this fuel is burnt.
C02 is like a blanket (like other atmospheric gasses) that keeps the earth warm by trapping heat.
Before we realised this incredible energy source of carbon based fossil fuels our planet had the eqivalent of (lets say in laymans terms),two blankets. Since we have been burning carbon based fuels we have released extra C02 that amounts to pulling on an extra blanket.

At the same time we are harvesting the bounty of the planet at a ever increasing rate and creating massive amounts of waste,to the point where we have compromised the planets abilty to function in the way it once did.

All the extra anicient CO2 that was trapped under the ground,cannot be absorbed back into the carbon cycle because the earth has been so badly damaged. This is adding to the Global Warming problem.

The atmosphere has been so delicatly balanced for so long,it is fragile.
The extra activity due to this amazing energy source is having profound effects on the planets biosphere. No one can dispute that in the relativley short time we have had using carbon based fuels, huge damage has occured.

So now intelligent people are suggesting that we use this valueable (finite) energy source in a way that is sustainable,not wastefully and at the detriment of the planet (that gave us it all in the first place).

Look at all the problems that our stupid use of this energy source has caused to the planet,you can't argue with that.

Why is it you draw the line at the atmosphere, when we have pretty much destroyed already the forests,soils,rivers, seas etc, why not the atmosphere??

For those that still live close to nature and can observe what is happening, they don't need a science degree or be able to read graphs.they can see it with there own eyes,intuition, life expeirience and common sense.
Our way of life is destroying the planet.We have to change, accept our mistakes and start thinking a bit further than what we want as a individual and start taking some responsibilty.

We can use this valuable finite energy source in a way that heals the planet,we have to educate our selves or else I fear we will end up back in the stone age and it won't be a pleasent transition,for us or our kids.:help:

We can use this valuable finite energy source in a way that heals the planet,we have to educate our selves or else I fear we will end up back in the stone age and it won't be a pleasent transition,for us or our kids.:help:

A little dramatic. I wont be living in a stone age and i doubt my kids will either.

A little dramatic. I wont be living in a stone age and i doubt my kids will either.

so long as its not you or your kids right? what about your kids kids,or your kids kids kids? Can you think that far?
Dramatic??!!!:loopy:

Beleive it or not some humans are intelligent,they understand the negative impact humans are having on the planet.

We have been clever enough to move up from whale oil, to carbon based fossil fuels. It is how we use them is the key to being sustainable and being inteligent,caring human beings.

Whale oil could not have fueld the industrial revolution and produced the technology we have today.
Crude oil has given human kind the greatest energy source in the history of our planet.

How we have used this energy is to greatly improve the quality of life.
Instead of manpower ,we now have machines that can harvest the abundance of the earth alot quicker,giving us unprecedented wealth,and therefore the impact on the planet has been speeded up and alot more severe.

Carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millenia under the ground due to the breaking down of dead trees plants and animals, is in the oil,gas and coal, so ingeiniously obtained and burnt to give us unprecedented energy sources.
The way us lucky folks in the first world have such a great standard of living, is directly dependant on this energy source which is been possible by thousands of years of sunlight transformed into life via photosynthesis, into carbon that decayed in a manner without oxygen, that produced these carbon based fuels we all know.

No scientist out there disputes that carbon dioxide (C02) is released when this fuel is burnt.
C02 is like a blanket (like other atmospheric gasses) that keeps the earth warm by trapping heat.
Before we realised this incredible energy source of carbon based fossil fuels our planet had the eqivalent of (lets say in laymans terms),two blankets. Since we have been burning carbon based fuels we have released extra C02 that amounts to pulling on an extra blanket.

At the same time we are harvesting the bounty of the planet at a ever increasing rate and creating massive amounts of waste,to the point where we have compromised the planets abilty to function in the way it once did.

All the extra anicient CO2 that was trapped under the ground,cannot be absorbed back into the carbon cycle because the earth has been so badly damaged. This is adding to the Global Warming problem.

The atmosphere has been so delicatly balanced for so long,it is fragile.
The extra activity due to this amazing energy source is having profound effects on the planets biosphere. No one can dispute that in the relativley short time we have had using carbon based fuels, huge damage has occured.

So now intelligent people are suggesting that we use this valueable (finite) energy source in a way that is sustainable,not wastefully and at the detriment of the planet (that gave us it all in the first place).

Look at all the problems that our stupid use of this energy source has caused to the planet,you can't argue with that.

Why is it you draw the line at the atmosphere, when we have pretty much destroyed already the forests,soils,rivers, seas etc, why not the atmosphere??

For those that still live close to nature and can observe what is happening, they don't need a science degree or be able to read graphs.they can see it with there own eyes,intuition, life expeirience and common sense.
Our way of life is destroying the planet.We have to change, accept our mistakes and start thinking a bit further than what we want as a individual and start taking some responsibilty.

We can use this valuable finite energy source in a way that heals the planet,we have to educate our selves or else I fear we will end up back in the stone age and it won't be a pleasent transition,for us or our kids.

Investigate what? The destruction of the planet?
Beleive it or not some humans are intelligent,they understand the negative impact humans are having on the planet.

We have been clever enough to move up from whale oil, to carbon based fossil fuels. It is how we use them is the key to being sustainable and being inteligent,caring human beings.

Whale oil could not have fueld the industrial revolution and produced the technology we have today.
Crude oil has given human kind the greatest energy source in the history of our planet.

How we have used this energy is to greatly improve the quality of life.
Instead of manpower ,we now have machines that can harvest the abundance of the earth alot quicker,giving us unprecedented wealth,and therefore the impact on the planet has been speeded up and alot more severe.

Carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millenia under the ground due to the breaking down of dead trees plants and animals, is in the oil,gas and coal, so ingeiniously obtained and burnt to give us unprecedented energy sources.
The way us lucky folks in the first world have such a great standard of living, is directly dependant on this energy source which is been possible by thousands of years of sunlight transformed into life via photosynthesis, into carbon that decayed in a manner without oxygen, that produced these carbon based fuels we all know.

No scientist out there disputes that carbon dioxide (C02) is released when this fuel is burnt.
C02 is like a blanket (like other atmospheric gasses) that keeps the earth warm by trapping heat.
Before we realised this incredible energy source of carbon based fossil fuels our planet had the eqivalent of (lets say in laymans terms),two blankets. Since we have been burning carbon based fuels we have released extra C02 that amounts to pulling on an extra blanket.

At the same time we are harvesting the bounty of the planet at a ever increasing rate and creating massive amounts of waste,to the point where we have compromised the planets abilty to function in the way it once did.

All the extra anicient CO2 that was trapped under the ground,cannot be absorbed back into the carbon cycle because the earth has been so badly damaged. This is adding to the Global Warming problem.

The atmosphere has been so delicatly balanced for so long,it is fragile.
The extra activity due to this amazing energy source is having profound effects on the planets biosphere. No one can dispute that in the relativley short time we have had using carbon based fuels, huge damage has occured.

So now intelligent people are suggesting that we use this valueable (finite) energy source in a way that is sustainable,not wastefully and at the detriment of the planet (that gave us it all in the first place).

Look at all the problems that our stupid use of this energy source has caused to the planet,you can't argue with that.

Why is it you draw the line at the atmosphere, when we have pretty much destroyed already the forests,soils,rivers, seas etc, why not the atmosphere??

For those that still live close to nature and can observe what is happening, they don't need a science degree or be able to read graphs.they can see it with there own eyes,intuition, life expeirience and common sense.
Our way of life is destroying the planet.We have to change, accept our mistakes and start thinking a bit further than what we want as a individual and start taking some responsibilty.

We can use this valuable finite energy source in a way that heals the planet,we have to educate our selves or else I fear we will end up back in the stone age and it won't be a pleasent transition,for us or our kids.:help:

Well done, good effort the primary school did a good job I see.

The subject is Co2 emmissions and whether Global Warming is man made. Nowhere have I stated that energy conservation is a bad idea. :rolleyes:

Did anyone else here read the Sunday Times Supplement article yesterday on the possible effects of a 6' Centigrade temperature rise over the next 50 years or so?

Nobody was blaming anyone, just a few suggestions as to what it might mean.

Most sobering. :|

Did anyone else here read the Sunday Times Supplement article yesterday on the possible effects of a 6' Centigrade temperature rise over the next 50 years or so?

Nobody was blaming anyone, just a few suggestions as to what it might mean.

Most sobering. :|

No I did'nt read it Joe, but I'm well aware 6c will be disaterous.
I dont think it helps 'blaming' anyone as we are all responsible for this planet.
I feel its better to activley change our behaviour patterns.

No I did'nt read it Joe, but I'm well aware 6c will be disaterous.
I dont think it helps 'blaming' anyone as we are all responsible for this planet.
I feel its better to activley change our behaviour patterns.

I agree totally - I've just started reading James Lovelock's latest, 'The Revenge of Gaia'.

Equally scarey if a little less apocalyptic.

I agree totally - I've just started reading James Lovelock's latest, 'The Revenge of Gaia'.

Equally scarey if a little less apocalyptic.

James Lovelock is a legend.
I'll be trying to get hold of a copy.
Good on yer bro! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Well done, good effort the primary school did a good job I see.

The subject is Co2 emmissions and whether Global Warming is man made. Nowhere have I stated that energy conservation is a bad idea. :rolleyes:

Why is it you draw the line at the atmosphere, when we have pretty much destroyed already the forests,soils,rivers, seas etc, why not the atmosphere??
Do you see any corelation? (spelling,primary school ed.)

Did anyone else here read the Sunday Times Supplement article yesterday on the possible effects of a 6' Centigrade temperature rise over the next 50 years or so?

Nobody was blaming anyone, just a few suggestions as to what it might mean.

Most sobering. :|

I would assume an article on the effects of the Yellowstone Park caldera erupting or an asteroid strike on Earth would have the same sobering effect.

Even the proponents of Global Warming cannot agree on the temeparature rise figures.

Articles of this nature are nothing more than 'what ifs'.

...............Do you see any corelation? (spelling,primary school ed.)

Glass houses, stones etc etc etc. :hihi:

Investigate what? The destruction of the planet?
Beleive it or not some humans are intelligent,they understand the negative impact humans are having on the planet.

We have been clever enough to move up from whale oil, to carbon based fossil fuels. It is how we use them is the key to being sustainable and being inteligent,caring human beings.

Whale oil could not have fueld the industrial revolution and produced the technology we have today.
.........................

:rolleyes:

Glass houses, stones etc etc etc. :hihi:



:rolleyes:

What ARE you on about? I was talking about my spelling dum dum.
Is that the best you can do?
Your not funny and your not clever.
Tell us why you think human behaviour is not responsible for global warming.

Again you are getting confused. My stand point is our contribution is negligible and has no significant bearing on Global Warming.

I also believe we should conserve our energy resources and seek alternatives based on the fact that our current energy resources are not infinite.

Your frothing at the mouth at anyone who happens to question your standpoint and that of the Global Warming doommongers blinds you to the fact we do agree on some, quite important, matters such as pollution.


1.

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

2.


Global warming started long before the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.


3.

In the 70s environmentalists feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling.
Sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

I could go on citing examples of why I believe the simplistic, politicised GW issue does not have me convinced but I fear I would be wasting my breath.

Our way of life is destroying the planet.We have to change, accept our mistakes and start thinking a bit further than what we want as a individual and start taking some responsibilty.

We can use this valuable finite energy source in a way that heals the planet,we have to educate our selves or else I fear we will end up back in the stone age and it won't be a pleasant transition,for us or our kids.

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I still take issue with your description "Our way of life is destroying the planet" it simply isn't the case,sure we may be harming ourselves by creating conditions that would may it more uncomfortable to live in but planet Earth will still be here and so will life on Earth. As I stated above Earth has experienced much more dramatic and devastating catastrophies such as Super Volcanos, when the power of the eruptions would have blocked out the sun for years causing dramatic climatic change in a very short period of time similarly big asteroid impacts would have the same effect.
The planet survived and so did life through out all this, not just once but several times. To think that man can even match the devastation and fall out that these Super volcanos or asteroid impacts have done is folly, even if all the nuclear weapons were exploded it would be less harmful than those 2 forces of nature.
The only time when the planet is in any danger of being destroyed is either when the sun dies or the milky way collides with our neighbouring galaxy Andromeda, but that still gives planet Earth at least another 5 billion years.

You just repeating the same disinformation from the film.
I'm afraid you are wasting your breath.
It is now the worlds scientific consensus, published in peer journals that humans are destroying the atmosphere by our activities on this planet.
Try getting some information from people who are real scientists who are not funded by oil companies as they have been bought to spread doubt.

You just repeating the same disinformation from the film.
I'm afraid you are wasting your breath.
It is now the worlds scientific consensus, published in peer journals that humans are destroying the atmosphere by our activities on this planet.
Try getting some information from people who are real scientists who are not funded by oil companies as they have been bought to spread doubt.


Point 1. Is accepted even by the pro GW crowd. :rolleyes:

Point 2. I take it you think the Ice Age is a recent animated movie. :hihi:

Point 3. Again all historical events. :rolleyes:

Can you provide proof of your last point or even name the 'scientists' of which you speak.

Can you name the 'peer journals'.

I would assume an article on the effects of the Yellowstone Park caldera erupting or an asteroid strike on Earth would have the same sobering effect.

Even the proponents of Global Warming cannot agree on the temeparature rise figures.

Articles of this nature are nothing more than 'what ifs'.

Yes, you're right - but the likelihood of asteroid strikes is pretty low - lower than Global Warming, for example.

However, the 6' rise is in the centre of the predicted range, and again, without blaming any particular mechanism, the situation is such that it's a positive feedback system after a 3 or 4 degree rise of temperature.

Whilst we may be puting 'only' 6 billion tons in to the atmosphere, don't forget that the Earth's been happily handling the 180 billion tons for millenia in a delicately balanced system. As I mentioned above, the climate of the planet is a 'non-deterministic' system - that means that you cannot necessarily predict future behaviour from past behaviour.

In other words, you can't necessarily say that because it's handled excesses in the past it will happily handle what we contribute.

As you say, you have your beliefs and the facts rto support it, and the GW 'supporters' have their facts.

The planet is warming - the issue for most people seems to be the mechanism. Just because it's not totally man-made doesn't mean we're not contributing to it.

Message to admin, can you please merge this thread with the main one that is now in the "entertainment section" a lot of the arguments are being repeated in the 2 threads!

Point 1. Is accepted even by the pro GW crowd. :rolleyes:

Point 2. I take it you think the Ice Age is a recent animated movie. :hihi:

Point 3. Again all historical events. :rolleyes:

Can you provide proof of your last point or even name the 'scientists' of which you speak.

Can you name the 'peer journals'.

No are you thick? Don't you know how to Google something.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I still take issue with your description "Our way of life is destroying the planet" it simply isn't the case,sure we may be harming ourselves by creating conditions that would may it more uncomfortable to live in but planet Earth will still be here and so will life on Earth. As I stated above Earth has experienced much more dramatic and devastating catastrophies such as Super Volcanos, when the power of the eruptions would have blocked out the sun for years causing dramatic climatic change in a very short period of time similarly big asteroid impacts would have the same effect.
The planet survived and so did life through out all this, not just once but several times. To think that man can even match the devastation and fall out that these Super volcanos or asteroid impacts have done is folly, even if all the nuclear weapons were exploded it would be less harmful than those 2 forces of nature.
The only time when the planet is in any danger of being destroyed is either when the sun dies or the milky way collides with our neighbouring galaxy Andromeda, but that still gives planet Earth at least another 5 billion years.


The planet IS being destroyed by human activity though, and not by some freak natural event that cant be avoided.
Sure life will go on,its just in what capacity.
Will that be our excuse to the next generation then;
"oh it doesent matter what we've done, an asteroid hit would have been much worse".

No are you thick? Don't you know how to Google something.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

:hihi: :hihi:

An article by Ross Gelbspan, not a scientist by the way, for Harpers Magazine, not a scientific peer journal, written in 1995. Nice to see you keep up to date.

:hihi:

Message to admin, can you please merge this thread with the main one that is now in the "entertainment section" a lot of the arguments are being repeated in the 2 threads!

It needs to be in General Chat not Entertainment.

:hihi: :hihi:

An article by Ross Gelbspan, not a scientist by the way, for Harpers Magazine, not a scientific peer journal, written in 1995. Nice to see you keep up to date.

:hihi:

Find a more recent one then if that is not good enough :mad:

Yes, you're right - but the likelihood of asteroid strikes is pretty low - lower than Global Warming, for example............

I hope your right. Oh dear (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russian_Scientists_Warn_Of_Asteroid_Impact_Hazard_ In_2035_999.html). :(

Find a more recent one then if that is not good enough :mad:

Whats wrong, Google crashed. :hihi: :hihi:

Deny Global warming all you want but no one can deny that the air is not of a good quality in any city.


That is spot on. I must admit I saw enough in the swindle programme to really start questioning what the GW lobby are arguing. Having said that I'm never going to say we shouldn't cut down on use of fossil fuels because they're bad for our environment - we see (breath, smell) tangible effects of our car use every day without having to worry about some abstract notion of global effects of our actions. To me it seems really simple - individuals and industry start by tackling the real and very visible effects of our actions and, if GW because of us turns out to be real, then we are tackling that too. I think it is possible to deny the idea that GW is because of us and still have a consistent argument that we should cut fossil fuel usage. If anything what I'm arguing makes a strong case for tackling the behaviour of individuals. It makes it right to penalise a 4x4 user who drives into a city centre everyday form a clean, outlying suburb - the person that does that should be paying for the immediate damage they do to the environment, not the damage they may or may not be causing possibly at some point in the future according to the GW lobby.

The planet IS being destroyed by human activity though, and not by some freak natural event that cant be avoided.
Sure life will go on,its just in what capacity.
Will that be our excuse to the next generation then;
"oh it doesent matter what we've done, an asteroid hit would have been much worse".

Chip, I'm not actually arguing that man hasn't polluted the atmosphere I'm sure he has but what I'm really saying is that planet Earth and life on it will not be destroyed by man's activities.
Bigger events like Super volcanoes and major asteroid impacts are testament to the fact that Earth and life survive, there may be a reordering of the species but ultimately life will evolve.
If we poison ourselves then we will might die out and take several other species with us, however new species will emerge and become dominant.
Don't forget we probably wouldn't be here today if an asteroid or super volcano hadn't wiped out the dinasours.
Man can hurt the comfortable environment in which he lives in, but he can't really hurt the planet that much.

It needs to be in General Chat not Entertainment.

I agree on that, the original thread was made in the general thread and got moved I think Saturday night for some reason.
Now there are 2 threads going on!
Well if the threads aren't going to be merged then I guess I'll have to keep switching between the 2.:suspect:

Chip, I'm not actually arguing that man hasn't polluted the atmosphere I'm sure he has but what I'm really saying is that planet Earth and life on it will not be destroyed by man's activities.
Bigger events like Super volcanoes and major asteroid impacts are testament to the fact that Earth and life survive, there may be a reordering of the species but ultimately life will evolve.
If we poison ourselves then we will might die out and take several other species with us however new species will emerge and become dominant.
Don't forget we probably wouldn't be here today if an asteroid or super volcano hadn't wiped out the dinasours.
Man can hurt the comfortable environment in which he lives in but he can't really hurt the planet that much.

But why can't Pomme Frites Sandwich get his noggin round this concept. :D

Yes, you're right - but the likelihood of asteroid strikes is pretty low - lower than Global Warming, for example.


Go tell that to the dinasaurs! Don't forget our (man's) spieces dominace is probably the result of a major asteroid impact in the Yukatan.

Smaller but netherless climate changing asteroids hit Earth about every 100,000 years but a major impact could hit the Earth at anytime. We had a very close shade in 1998:

"At midnight GMT on August 10th 1998, asteroid ML14 crossed the orbit of the Earth at the exact point the latter had occupied only 18 hours earlier. Had ML14 reached that point at 06.00 the previous morning, an area the size of France would have been totally devastated by 06.05. By 08.00 most of the world's vegetation would have been in flames. By late October 30-40% of the human race would be dead or dying. ML14 has a diameter of 2 kilometres." :gag:

As for the Yellow Stone super volcano, it is supposed to erupt every 600,000 years or so, and the last time it erupted..... about 600,000 years ago! :gag:

Just like the Asian boxing day Tsunami in 2004 mother nature has a habit or reminding man who's really boss without giving us any forewarning.:gag:

Go tell that to the dinasaurs! Don't forget our (man's) spieces dominace is probably the result of a major asteroid impact in the Yukatan.

Smaller but netherless climate changing asteroids hit Earth about every 100,000 years but a major impact could hit the Earth at anytime. We had a very close shade in 1998:

"At midnight GMT on August 10th 1998, asteroid ML14 crossed the orbit of the Earth at the exact point the latter had occupied only 18 hours earlier. Had ML14 reached that point at 06.00 the previous morning, an area the size of France would have been totally devastated by 06.05. By 08.00 most of the world's vegetation would have been in flames. By late October 30-40% of the human race would be dead or dying. ML14 has a diameter of 2 kilometres." :gag:

As for the Yellow Stone super volcano, it is supposed to erupt every 600,000 years or so, and the last time it erupted..... about 600,000 years ago! :gag:

Just like the Asian boxing day Tsunami in 2004 mother nature has a habit or reminding man who's really boss without giving us any forewarning.:gag:if its anything that gets us it'll be something like that!

The planet IS being destroyed by human activity though

Is it? Where is the proof because I can't see any. I can see damage to our immediate environment and we need to take action on that but where is the proof that we have so much influence on the planet? To put this in perspective the Krakatoa eruption in the 1880s was equal to tens of thousands of Hiroshima bombs, caused the planet to cool by 1-2C in one year and messed up weather patterns for a decade. If we think we'll ever have that effect on the environment we're dreaming. Man is insignificant, nothing.

Is it? Where is the proof because I can't see any. I can see damage to our immediate environment and we need to take action on that but where is the proof that we have so much influence on the planet? To put this in perspective the Krakatoa eruption in the 1880s was equal to tens of thousands of Hiroshima bombs, caused the planet to cool by 1-2C in one year and messed up weather patterns for a decade. If we think we'll ever have that effect on the environment we're dreaming. Man is insignificant, nothing.

That is the very point I'm also trying to make, after the eruption of the super volcano Krakatoa, the climate changed, species became extinct, there is even evidence that man's global population went down to as low as mere thousands but ultimatley Earth and life on it survived. I think people tend to get the 2 things mixed up, the survival of man and the survival of the planet.
The planet will survive any global warming even if man doesn't.

if its anything that gets us it'll be something like that!

If the Yellowstone caldera erupted. there would be large earthquakes in the region. The ground would swell further with most of the area being uplifted. One earthquake would finally break the layer of rock that holds the magma in - and all the pressure the Earth can build up in 640,000 years would be unleashed in a cataclysmic event.


Magma would be hurled more than 50 kilometres into the atmosphere. Within a thousand kilometres virtually all life would be killed by falling ash, lava flows and the sheer explosive force of the eruption. Volcanic ash would cover places thousands of miles away. One thousand cubic kilometres of lava would pour out of the volcano itself, enough to coat the whole of the USA with a layer a few inches thick. The explosion would have a force 1000-2500 times that of Mount St. Helens. It would be the loudest noise heard by man for more than 75,000 years, the time of the last super volcano eruption. Within minutes of the eruption tens of thousands could be dead.

The long-term effects would be even more devastating. The thousands of cubic kilometres of ash that would shoot into the atmosphere could block out light from the sun, making global temperatures fall dramatically. A large percentage of the world's plant life would be killed by the ash and severe drop in temperature. Effects world wide would cause massive food shortages. If the temperatures decline by the 21 degrees they did after the Sumatra eruption the Yellowstone super volcano eruption could truly be an extinction level event.

Humans could be pushed to the edge of extinction. Anthropologists suggest it won't be the first time.

That is the very point I'm also trying to make, after the eruption of the super volcano Krakatoa, the climate changed, species became extinct, there is even evidence that man's global population went down to as low as mere thousands but ultimatley Earth and life on it survived. I think people tend to get the 2 things mixed up, the survival of man and the survival of the planet.
The planet will survive any global warming even if man doesn't.

I think you mean the supervolcano Toba, 75,000 years ago.

If the Yellowstone caldera erupted. there would be large earthquakes in the region. The ground would swell further with most of the area being uplifted. One earthquake would finally break the layer of rock that holds the magma in - and all the pressure the Earth can build up in 640,000 years would be unleashed in a cataclysmic event.


Magma would be hurled more than 50 kilometres into the atmosphere. Within a thousand kilometres virtually all life would be killed by falling ash, lava flows and the sheer explosive force of the eruption. Volcanic ash would cover places thousands of miles away. One thousand cubic kilometres of lava would pour out of the volcano itself, enough to coat the whole of the USA with a layer a few inches thick. The explosion would have a force 1000-2500 times that of Mount St. Helens. It would be the loudest noise heard by man for more than 75,000 years, the time of the last super volcano eruption. Within minutes of the eruption tens of thousands could be dead.

The long-term effects would be even more devastating. The thousands of cubic kilometres of ash that would shoot into the atmosphere could block out light from the sun, making global temperatures fall dramatically. A large percentage of the world's plant life would be killed by the ash and severe drop in temperature. Effects world wide would cause massive food shortages. If the temperatures decline by the 21 degrees they did after the Sumatra eruption the Yellowstone super volcano eruption could truly be an extinction level event.

Humans could be pushed to the edge of extinction. Anthropologists suggest it won't be the first time.

So what do you guys think will snubb out man?

a)A super volanic eruption

b) A asteroid or comet

c) Global warming (Manmade or otherwise)

d) a drug resistent killer virus

e) Nuclear warfare/ terrorism

I'd favour b) closely followed by a) myself.

I think you mean the supervolcano Toba, 75,000 years ago.

You might be right although both resulted in major climatic upheaval.

So what do you guys think will snubb out man?

a)A super volanic eruption

b) A asteroid or comet

c) Global warming (Manmade or otherwise)

d) a drug resistent killer virus

e) Nuclear warfare/ terrorism

I'd favour b) closely followed by a) myself.

It would be good to start a poll, I would bet that due to the vast media coverage of Global Warming that would be top, which just proves that the propoganda is working.

For my twopenneth I would agree with your observation but would add d).

You might be right although both resulted in major climatic upheaval.

The bottleneck theory of man being reduced to as few as 1000 individuals is attributed to Toba in Indonesia.

You are correct though that they both caused major climate events with worldwide temperatures falling ironically despite, as is believed, the vast amounts of Co2 released.

It would be good to start a poll, I would bet that due to the vast media coverage of Global Warming that would be top, which just proves that the propoganda is working.

For my twopenneth I would agree with your observation but would add d).

You have a point, people tend to focus on whatever the media decide to cover. If a Tunguska size asteroid impacted the planet tommorrow, particuarly if it hit a populated area, then you can bet your bottom dollar that extinction size asteroid impacts will be all that the media will focus on and global warming will be relegated to the lesser pages.
A Tunguska size impact is suppose to happen about every 100 years but in December 9,1997 Iceland was struck by a similar size object.
Had that Iceland impact occurred either in Europe or The Americas then the news would have been huge.

I have started a Poll in General chat.

Poll (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=195566)

I see the threads have been merged now but I'm confused as to why it's in Entertainment section. :confused:

I have started a Poll in General chat.

Poll (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=195566)

I see the threads have been merged now but I'm confused as to why it's in Entertainment section. :confused:

It's because it was a TV programme most likely, perhaps it was the admin/mods secret code to suggest they thought the programme was more entertainment than serious science!:hihi:

Don't think we have to worry about it much longer. Tomorrow David Miliband launches his Climate Change Bill which will presumably put a stop to global warming once it's on the statute book.

Amazing what these politicians can do once they get their finger out :hihi:

'In Nulabour we trust'

Don't think we have to worry about it much longer. Tomorrow David Miliband launches his Climate Change Bill which will presumably put a stop to global warming once it's on the statute book.

Amazing what these politicians can do once they get their finger out :hihi:

'In Nulabour we trust'

Greybeard have you voted yet in the Great Ammagedon poll?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=195566

Don't think we have to worry about it much longer. Tomorrow David Miliband launches his Climate Change Bill which will presumably put a stop to global warming once it's on the statute book.

Amazing what these politicians can do once they get their finger out :hihi:

'In Nulabour we trust'

Miliband launching his leadership bid...sorry climate bill

Well, well, well this latest news on the programme comes as no real suprise that Martin Durkin once again has been up to his old tricks!

" The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

- The Independent

Full article here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

Good on yer Kingmaker!! I was just about to post this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
The Global Warming debate has been raging on for years.
Its sad that now most of the world agrees we now see all these disinformation agents funded my the oil industries,still raising doubt by dragging up the same old tired disproved arguments.

Good on yer Kingmaker!! I was just about to post this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
The Global Warming debate has been raging on for years.
Its sad that now most of the world agrees we now see all these disinformation agents funded my the oil industries,still raising doubt by dragging up the same old tired disproved arguments.

He says the planet will warm. I agree with him. The issue is by how much it will warm due to man and how significant man's input is. Like it says in the link solar activity is seen as the key driver for climate change. It just so happens our warming patterns closely follow patterns of solar activity for the past 300 years. So we're probably not helping but we're not exactly the cause of the problem either and on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of our impact we're probably a 1.

There has always been a element of man vs nature. Every few decades man believes he has achieved a level of technology that allows him to control or influence nature. We just so happen to be in one of those phases now but some cataclysmic natural event always steps in to remind us just how insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

See post below like

So we're probably not helping



Understatement of the year...

Understatement of the year...

Not really. Can you quantify our impact? None of the scientists on either side of the fence really can. You're just brainwashed.

Not really. Can you quantify our impact? None of the scientists on either side of the fence really can. You're just brainwashed.

Nope just observant, to say humans are not having an negative impact on the biosphere is just ignorant.:loopy:
So you want to argue about the quantity? Where do you want to start?
The forests,the soils,the water,the atmosphere?
C'mon wake up please.

Nope just observant, to say humans are not having an negative impact on the biosphere is just ignorant.:loopy:
So you want to argue about the quantity? Where do you want to start?
The forests,the soils,the water,the atmosphere?
C'mon wake up please.

Stay on topic. Global warming. Can you quantify the impact? I'm not saying it isn't happening. I've just got an open mind although I tend towards the view that we don't impact the planet as much as we think we do.

I've just got an open mind although I tend towards the view that we don't impact the planet as much as we think we do.

Does that help you sleep at night?
Try and get out of the house a bit more,talk to old people,see if they remember things like chubbies in the streams around sheffield.
Go for a swim in the River Don,swallow some water,go for a blood test,then let me know what you think.
As for staying on topic, I feel I am as all the worlds problems are related, and one paticular problem cannot be solved without considering the others.

Does that help you sleep at night?
Try and get out of the house a bit more,talk to old people,see if they remember things like chubbies in the streams around sheffield.
Go for a swim in the River Don,swallow some water,go for a blood test,then let me know what you think.
As for staying on topic, I feel I am as all the worlds problems are related, and one paticular problem cannot be solved without considering the others.

Yes it does because I've got my own opinion, not somebody elses. I do all the right things with recycling, energy use, limiting car journeys, making my home energy efficient, walking instead of using the bus etc... etc... etc... because I believe we should all be doing those things. My position on GW is not incompatible with that. I have the right to remain unconvinced by the GW lobby and have a more sophisticated viewpoint than what we're constantly told to have.

He says the planet will warm. I agree with him. The issue is by how much it will warm due to man and how significant man's input is. Like it says in the link solar activity is seen as the key driver for climate change. It just so happens our warming patterns closely follow patterns of solar activity for the past 300 years. So we're probably not helping but we're not exactly the cause of the problem either and on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of our impact we're probably a 1.

There has always been a element of man vs nature. Every few decades man believes he has achieved a level of technology that allows him to control or influence nature. We just so happen to be in one of those phases now but some cataclysmic natural event always steps in to remind us just how insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

The trouble with actual programme the Great Global Warming Swindle was the way it presented it's findings. It was quick to pick holes in other theories without giving the right to reply to the charges. Also some of it's observations were based on loose science. Take the example of the guy they featured that beat the Met office, with his whether predictions by looking at sunspots, well hello... I've beaten the Met office many times without the necessity to look for sun spots!:hihi:
Also they claim a correllation between temprature rises and sunspot observations over 400 years, well since solar observation with regarding sunspots have only been monitored with any routine and under specific conditions for the last 20 years or so, this observed correllation holds little real weight. :huh:
Martin Durkin had a previous history of controversy and interviewees had lodge complaints of being misrepresented in his previous programmes, so much so that the Independent Television Commission got Channel 4 to public apologise for screening Durkin's film "Against Nature".
Now Durkin is at it again, in his " The Great Global Warming Swindle" programme.
I guess if the Global warming skeptics definitley picked the wrong man to make their film if they really wanted more credibilty amongst the public.:loopy:

I wonder whether it would effect the views of some posters if these programmes didn't reveal who made them as it is possible that ones views could be biased before it even started due to the makers previous reputation.

The trouble with actual programme the Great Global Warming Swindle was the way it presented it's findings. It was quick to pick holes in other theories without giving the right to reply to the charges. Also some of it's observations were based on loose science.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. There was a lot of information in a short film. However all it was doing was using loose science to counter the loose science of the GW lobby. You must remember that a lot of the evidence we hear about GW is presented in a lightweight, populist way and usually conveyed as truth rather than theory. As for a right to reply are you serious? The GW lobby has a stranglehold on the media - they can say what they want whenever they want. People who question the GW theories have very limited opportunity to do so - whether the programme was right or wrong it redressed the balance somewhat.

The GW lobby has a stranglehold on the media - they can say what they want whenever they want. People who question the GW theories have very limited opportunity to do so - whether the programme was right or wrong it redressed the balance somewhat.

That maybe but in a programme that was supposed to present another view, spent more time attacking other theories. If the Global warming skeptics were so confident in their theories would win out then should have allowed right to reply and let the viewers to make up their minds on whch argument was strongest.

That maybe but in a programme that was supposed to present another view, spent more time attacking other theories. If the Global warming skeptics were so confident in their theories would win out then should have allowed right to reply and let the viewers to make up their minds on whch argument was strongest.

I think the problem with your argument is that the program did spend time outlining the GW view. Also keep in mind that we hear so much about it the GW theory is like imprinted in everybodies heads. I thought the program was well-balanced in that respect.

I wonder whether it would effect the views of some posters if these programmes didn't reveal who made them as it is possible that ones views could be biased before it even started due to the makers previous reputation.

Not really in my case, I didn't know of Martin Durkin's bad reputation before I saw The Great Global Warming Swindle. But I did certainly have doubts about how the film was presented and narrated at the time of viewing. The film really didn't show too much scientific detail and was pretty vague in how it came to it's conclusions.
But all that is slightly academic now that Martin Durkin has specifically had one of his programme contibutors, Carl Wunsch Professor of Physical OceanographyMassachusetts Institute of Technology) charge him for misrepresenting his views in The Great Global Conspiracy Swindle programme.

Here's a quote from Professor Carl Wunsch:

"An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest."

Certainly devalues it somewhat.

I think the problem with your argument is that the program did spend time outlining the GW view. Also keep in mind that we hear so much about it the GW theory is like imprinted in everybodies heads. I thought the program was well-balanced in that respect.

Not really the point I'm trying to make.
Outlining the GW view and then attacking it doesn't really give the programme any balance. Durkin could have made a perfectly good program explaining the solar activity theory without attacking other theories with no recourse to defense.

Surely the subject is that the globe is warming and there are a number of theories put forward to say why that is. Therefore all he has to do is to disprove those theories, not come up with any separate theory that says it isn't warming.

Not really the point I'm trying to make.
Outlining the GW view and then attacking it doesn't really give the programme any balance. Durkin could have made a perfectly good program explaining the solar activity theory without attacking other theories with no recourse to defense.


nice idea, but in order to attract audiences television documentaries need to have a "shock horror!"-style title. Would you have watched a documentary called "Interesting Theories About Solar Activity"?

nice idea, but in order to attract audiences television documentaries need to have a "shock horror!"-style title. Would you have watched a documentary called "Interesting Theories About Solar Activity"?

Yes, it's true the title pulled in many more viewers than it might have otherwise. However a major part of Martin Durkins argument was based on the oceans capacity to emmit CO2 into the atmosphere. Now the contibutor to that part of the programme, Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

Kinda says it all really.... perhaps they should retitle the programme
"The Great Global Warming Swindle...Swindle!:hihi: :hihi: "

Not really the point I'm trying to make.
Outlining the GW view and then attacking it doesn't really give the programme any balance. Durkin could have made a perfectly good program explaining the solar activity theory without attacking other theories with no recourse to defense.

If you want a detailed discussion of all the theories and counter-theories it would take months to read all the material. As a primer for people about the alternative views of GW the programme was perfect. How many people knew about the solar activity angle - the GW community like to keep that one quiet dont they ;)

Yes, it's true the title pulled in many more viewers than it might have otherwise. However a major part of Martin Durkins argument was based on the oceans capacity to emmit CO2 into the atmosphere. Now the contibutor to that part of the programme, Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

Kinda says it all really.... perhaps they should retitle the programme
"The Great Global Warming Swindle...Swindle!:hihi: :hihi: "

What about the other scientists on the programme. Are they upset as well ;)

What about the other scientists on the programme. Are they upset as well ;)

If there were more it wouldn't suprise me if more came to the fore.

Read what other previous Durkin participant's have said:

"I feel completely betrayed and misled" . "They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."- Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist

"It's not a joke to walk away from four or five months' work, but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it." - Najma Kazi, TV researcher previously a research biochemist.

If there were more it wouldn't suprise me if more came to the fore.


We shall see. The operative word there being 'if'. Many people have been involved in his programmes and the vast majority are happy with the way they've been portrayed. Remember the programmes are not on safe ground - they're challenging the accepted views so this kind of fallout is predictable as people scramble to protect their reputations.

We shall see. The operative word there being 'if'. Many people have been involved in his programmes and the vast majority are happy with the way they've been portrayed. Remember the programmes are not on safe ground - they're challenging the accepted views so this kind of fallout is predictable as people scramble to protect their reputations.

Oh and here's another previous Durkin contributor:

"Any fair-minded person, I am sure, will draw his/her conclusion that the Equinox programme was not only unfair to me but also that they rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly." - Dr Arpad Pusztai

The Idependent Television Commission wasn't scrambling to protect it's reputation when it ruled on the Durkin film Against Nature saying:

the views of the interviewees were "distorted by selective editing", and that they were "misled about the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part":suspect:

Oh and here's another previous Durkin contributor:

"Any fair-minded person, I am sure, will draw his/her conclusion that the Equinox programme was not only unfair to me but also that they rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly." - Dr Arpad Pusztai

The Idependent Television Commission wasn't scrambling to protect it's reputation when it ruled on the Durkin film Against Nature saying:

the views of the interviewees were "distorted by selective editing", and that they were "misled about the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part":suspect:

Well, we're still waiting for any of the other scientists on the swindle prog to speak out. Come back when they do and try and stay on topic.

Oh and here's another previous Durkin contributor:

"Any fair-minded person, I am sure, will draw his/her conclusion that the Equinox programme was not only unfair to me but also that they rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly." - Dr Arpad Pusztai

The Idependent Television Commission wasn't scrambling to protect it's reputation when it ruled on the Durkin film Against Nature saying:

the views of the interviewees were "distorted by selective editing", and that they were "misled about the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part":suspect:


I think if you subject any documentary to close scrutiny you'll find people who've been interviewed in it who are unhappy with the way it's been presented. Were you to take the same approach to a pro-GW documentary, I'm sure there'd be someone saying their comments had been 'taken out of context'.
The green/ vegan/ save the planet lobby have put an awful lot of effort into brainwashing us into accepting that global warming is manmade; little wonder they're attacking this documentary with such ferocity.

Well, we're still waiting for any of the other scientists on the swindle prog to speak out. Come back when they do and try and stay on topic.

Well i'm not, because i already know it was all bull****.I aint no apathetic dum dum in denial.

Well i'm not, because i already know it was all bull****.I aint no apathetic dum dum in denial.

Time to get rid of the car then :hihi:

Well, we're still waiting for any of the other scientists on the swindle prog to speak out. Come back when they do and try and stay on topic.

Correction: you are still waiting!
It's not how many that matters, it's the role the contributor speaking out played in the film that's important.
The Ocean was core to the argument about debunking the Man made Global Warming Hypothesis. If that contributor turns round and says his comments as potrayed in the context of the film is nothing less than fraud then that surely discredits one of the films central arguments.
I am staying on track, even though you may not like where that track is taking you.

Correction: you are still waiting!
It's not how many that matters, it's the role the contributor speaking out played in the film that's important.
The Ocean was core to the argument about debunking the Man made Global Warming Hypothesis. If that contributor turns round and says his comments as potrayed in the context of the film is nothing less than fraud then that surely discredits one of the films central arguments.
I am staying on track, even though you may not like where that track is taking you.

Don't be daft. Of course it's important how many contributors have spoken out. And we are still waiting for more than one to do that. I don't know what you position is, whether you strongly believe man-made GW is a reality or not. If that is the case you need to remove your blinkers, perhaps look beyond what YOU have interpreted as the core argument (the ocean stuff was just one theory of many) in the program. There was enough in the program to challenge convential views on GW and that is important.

BTW have you got rid of your car yet? :hihi:

Don't be daft. Of course it's important how many contributors have spoken out. And we are still waiting for more than one to do that. I don't know what you position is, whether you strongly believe man-made GW is a reality or not. If that is the case you need to remove your blinkers, perhaps look beyond what YOU have interpreted as the core argument (the ocean stuff was just one theory of many) in the program. There was enough in the program to challenge convential views on GW and that is important.



Err... have you not heard of quality over quantity?:loopy:
Tell me which of the other of the many other theories do you consider to be core?

.....................
Try and get out of the house a bit more,talk to old people,see if they remember things like chubbies in the streams around sheffield.
Go for a swim in the River Don,swallow some water,go for a blood test,then let me know what you think.
As for staying on topic, I feel I am as all the worlds problems are related, and one paticular problem cannot be solved without considering the others.


What's a 'chubbie' :confused:

The River Don was once famous as one of the most productive salmon fisheries in the land. In more recent times the river was famous for very different reasons as being one of the most polluted rivers in England and was once described thus:

“ The River Don enters the City of Sheffield a clean and sparkling moorland stream and leaves it as a black gurgling mass of pollution”.


Thankfully the river is now clean again and in its upper reaches it is an excellent “small stream” trout and grayling fishery.

In urban centres such as Rotherham and Doncaster, the Don valley still bears traces of industry. But the Don of today is a clean and healthy river, which salmon, trout and grayling are happy to call home.


In August 2006 the Environment Agency had further positive proof that salmon are beginning to return to the River Don after a fisheries survey team captured an 11lb salmon below Sprotborough Weir.

The salmon was captured in a routine fish survey and scales from the fish were then sent to our laboratory at Brampton. These scale samples identified this salmon as a ‘1 sea winter fish’, meaning it had been away at sea for only one year.

Despite several reported observations of salmon trying to ascend the river each Autumn during the last few years, this is the first specimen to be accurately recorded since a salmon was caught by a local angler in Doncaster in 2002. This was the first River Don rod and line caught salmon for over 150 years.

Thay are facts my doom laden chum. Try and do a little research, other than typing into Google 'River Don polution', and take your own advice and 'get out a bit more' before spouting your hysteria. ;)

Yes, it's true the title pulled in many more viewers than it might have otherwise. However a major part of Martin Durkins argument was based on the oceans capacity to emmit CO2 into the atmosphere. Now the contibutor to that part of the programme, Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

Kinda says it all really.... perhaps they should retitle the programme
"The Great Global Warming Swindle...Swindle!:hihi: :hihi: "


Interesting, but he is still not saying that man is the sole reason for GW.

See this article he wrote. Article. (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1)

Interesting, but he is still not saying that man is the sole reason for GW.

See this article he wrote. Article. (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1)

Thanks for that link, a good read.
My point about Durkins film was that he presented Professor Wunsch contribution as a view that discredits the standard global warming theory, when in fact Professor Wunsch himself wasn't certain either way.
Wunsch closing quotes in the article you directed me to sums it up nicely:

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence.

Err... have you not heard of quality over quantity?:loopy:
Tell me which of the other of the many other theories do you consider to be core?

None particularly. I'm not an expert. Neither are you. My position is that I neither believe or disbelieve the global warming theories. I do have a problem with theory being presented as fact and that is what is happening with global warming theories. That is why I welcomed a program that challenges the GW position. Simple as that. Having said that I neither believe or disbelieve the anti-GW lobby either. As for the environment, if you read my other posts, you'll see that I'm a firm believer in taking care of the local environment (which incidentally is 100% compatible with what we are encouraged to do in the misguided belief we're saving the Earth) it's just that when I recycle, leave the car in the drive, walk, make my home more energy efficient I do it because the benefits are tangible and make sense - I'm not doing any of it because I'm scared we're heating up the planet. I do more than my fair share, probably a lot more than most people who moralise about GW

the views of the interviewees were "distorted by selective editing", and that they were "misled about the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part":suspect:

Now they now how the contests on Big Brother feel and a certain Michael Jackson dint come out to well from a bit of "distorted by selective editing”, thats how TV works.

The trouble with actual programme the Great Global Warming Swindle was the way it presented it's findings. It was quick to pick holes in other theories without giving the right to reply to the charges. Also some of it's observations were based on loose science

Whereas the great majority of media comment on GW is that it is a 'fact' which is never challenged, and moreover is lazily blamed for all sorts of things by journalists which a scientist would never do. My problem with that is that scientists seem happy to keep their heads down when this happens.

For example, on a piece on BBC news the other day about coastal erosion in Norfolk, the reporter blithely said that it was "because of global warming". What? No it's not, it's waves undermining cliffs, a natural process that always goes on. Why did no-one challenge this lazy thinking?

For example, on a piece on BBC news the other day about coastal erosion in Norfolk, the reporter blithely said that it was "because of global warming".
Yes, I noticed that: erosion on the east coast was happening long before global warming was talked about.

Yes, I noticed that: erosion on the east coast was happening long before global warming was talked about.

Flooding used to happen before global warming was first talked about (19th century) .

The North Sea has been getting steadily choppier, warmer and higher at an unprecedented rate, and erosion rates at points on the east coast are up to five times greater than 200 years ago.

The BBC reporter may have been lazy and sloppy, but she was probably correct.

The North Sea has been getting steadily choppier, warmer and higher at an unprecedented rate, and erosion rates at points on the east coast are up to five times greater than 200 years ago.


Can you point to any evidence for this?

Now they now how the contests on Big Brother feel and a certain Michael Jackson dint come out to well from a bit of "distorted by selective editing”, thats how TV works.

err those aren't my words those are from the Independent Television Commission. Just because there have been other programmes that have "selective editing" does that make it right?

Whereas the great majority of media comment on GW is that it is a 'fact' which is never challenged, and moreover is lazily blamed for all sorts of things by journalists which a scientist would never do. My problem with that is that scientists seem happy to keep their heads down when this happens.

For example, on a piece on BBC news the other day about coastal erosion in Norfolk, the reporter blithely said that it was "because of global warming". What? No it's not, it's waves undermining cliffs, a natural process that always goes on. Why did no-one challenge this lazy thinking?

Yes I agree, there is a lot of lazy reporting going about but there is a difference in this programme as it specifically discredits other theories without any defence being heard. Where as the a lot of the GW journalism may well be lazy reporting or programmes specifically made about Global warming put forward their views but don't usually discredit other view in the process without a defence.
Take for example the doicumentory "Did Man Really Land On The Moon"that was a programme that specifically challenged the traditional view of the monumentous event in 1969. It put forward the "new" theory point by point but also they put those "new views" point by point in front of experts of the traditional view. In the end when both sides have had there say, the viewer was left to decide, which was the correct version. That's how a proper programme challenging any traditional/established view should be made, not the agenda driven film that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" obviously was.

Can you point to any evidence for this?

I seem to remember it was a chap from the East Yorkshire Coastal Observatory, based at Hull university wot said it.

Durkin obviously knows what he's on about though - so he must be right.

Durkin was also questioned by the Independent newspaper regarding the origins of a graph of global temperatures in recent years that was crucial to his argument. He has been unable to point to the source of the graph, which was labelled as "NASA" but did not reflect the most recent data NASA have freely available on their website. He was also quoted in the independent as saying "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find".


There's a big difference between a television program and real science. Someone should set Ben Bradshaw onto him.

Didn't Channel 4 also give us the groundbreaking documentary that showed that AIDS and HIV were unrelated? And that there wasn't going to be an epidemic in Africa...And that Adolf Hitler was living on the moon with Lord lucan on the USS Eldridge. (that last one may have been the Sunday Sport, who are equally qualified in the sciences as Martin Durkin).

A report published today by the Independent investigating "The Great Global Warming Swindle" claims the programme " riddled with distortions and errors"

Here is an extract:

"Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent."

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

Full article here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Take a day off, mate - you're obsessed!
Why did this documentary upset you so much that you've made about 100 posts condemning it? Does your livelihood depend on the myth of manmade global warming?

(well if Kingmaker2 wants to repeat his posts across several threads, I don't see why I shouldn't?)

Yes I agree, there is a lot of lazy reporting going about but there is a difference in this programme as it specifically discredits other theories without any defence being heard. Where as the a lot of the GW journalism may well be lazy reporting or programmes specifically made about Global warming put forward their views but don't usually discredit other view in the process without a defence.
Take for example the doicumentory "Did Man Really Land On The Moon"that was a programme that specifically challenged the traditional view of the monumentous event in 1969. It put forward the "new" theory point by point but also they put those "new views" point by point in front of experts of the traditional view. In the end when both sides have had there say, the viewer was left to decide, which was the correct version. That's how a proper programme challenging any traditional/established view should be made, not the agenda driven film that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" obviously was.


Well my point / worry is, that so much of the info presented to the public which backs the idea of GW is such bobbins that it's hardly fair to complain that someone putting the opposing point of view uses the same tactics. In other words it ceased to be real science a long time ago and is now politics, so you should look for hidden agendas, propaganda, etc. on both sides. Which to be fair to Durkin was one of his points.

Put another way; there's so much rubbish spoken about GW these days by the environmental lobby (and the BBC, Independent, Guardian, and the government) that it gets on my nerves and I for one start wondering if it is all a load of hot air after all - and I can't be the only one.

Well my point / worry is, that so much of the info presented to the public which backs the idea of GW is such bobbins that it's hardly fair to complain that someone putting the opposing point of view uses the same tactics. In other words it ceased to be real science a long time ago and is now politics, so you should look for hidden agendas, propaganda, etc. on both sides. Which to be fair to Durkin was one of his points.


I understand where your coming from, believe it or not I don't always believe what the media are saying either. However it's a liitle bit rich for Durkin to accuse others of hidden agendas and propaganda when he's been doing it for at least a decade himself. My point is that if you're going to try to seriously disprove something, then at least do it properly, not use inaccurate graphs, not present someones views out of context etc. Ironically Martin Durkin may have caused more harm than good for the Skeptics lobby now that his film has been exposed to have so many flaws. Don't get me wrong, I welcomed a different viewpoint on global warming but the way it was presented was in my view poorley done.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

All true, but then the Indy also plays fast and loose. For example they say that this kills off Durkin's main point - but it doesn't! Durkin's point is that temperatures went down 1940 - 1975 - before that they were rising and after that they are rising. Leaving off the last 20 years makes the first rise larger than the second, but that's not the important bit, it's the 35 year period of cooling that is interesting. The Indy tosses out "due to airborne particulates reflecting sunlight" - OK, so that's the Global Dimming theory. Great stuff, tell us more about this. They don't. Why be against air travel if airborne particulates can save the world, for example? But they duck all this, 'cos it's complicated and they want to stick to their simple story.

OK, so that's the Global Dimming theory. Great stuff, tell us more about this. They don't. Why be against air travel if airborne particulates can save the world, for example? But they duck all this, 'cos it's complicated and they want to stick to their simple story.

The Global Dimming theory is a relatively new one so who knows what changes in that theory may be discovered in 5-10 years time.
The current argument is that Global Dimming is a seperate problem and can't be seen as a solution to Global Warming.
It stands to reason though that the pollutants that you can see, which some scientist claim cause global dimming can't be that healthy for us humans or indeed other animals. I suffer from respiratory problems when the air around me gets too polluted so I guess I notice it more than the average man in the street. When I am in London I do notice a distinct improvement in air quality since Ken Livingston's congestion charge was put in place.

The Global Dimming theory is a relatively new one so who knows what changes in that theory may be discovered in 5-10 years time.


Same for global warming theory - it might all turn out to be a huge mistake.

Same for global warming theory - it might all turn out to be a huge mistake.

True but the global warming phenomena has been studied and researched much more intensively than the newly discovered global dimming phenomena.

True but the global warming phenomena has been studied and researched much more intensively than the newly discovered global dimming phenomena.

But if global dimming is flakey, the Indy shouldn't say it explains away the discrepency in the temperature record. And if it's not the explanation for the post war cooling, then what other explanations have been put forward? If these other explanations are solid (because GW has so much solid science behind it, right?) then why weren't these mentioned by the Indy?

It's this constant oversimplification that invites simplistic counter attacks like Durkin's.

As a child I remember stopping up until the early hours to watch a grainy picture of man walking on the moon, I now somehow feel “swindled” by the growing theory that it never happened.

I wonder how many how many of our kids will feel “swindled” when it is accepted that global warming is a natural occurrence.

As a child I remember stopping up until the early hours to watch a grainy picture of man walking on the moon, I now somehow feel “swindled” by the growing theory that it never happened.

I wonder how many how many of our kids will feel “swindled” when it is accepted that global warming is a natural occurrence.

Malky, did you notice my post 225, where I make a reference to the moon landings conspiracy theory?

Not sure if you actually watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but that program was not presented in the same balanced way as the Moon landing programme was and that is my main point about the programs worth.

Malky, did you notice my post 225, where I make a reference to the moon landings conspiracy theory?

Not sure if you actually watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but that program was not presented in the same balanced way as the Moon landing programme was and that is my main point about the programs worth.

No I haven’t read all of the threads, sorry, but the thing that amazes me is that people believe everything they are told, they swallow it all, hook line and sinker.

Malky, did you notice my post 225, where I make a reference to the moon landings conspiracy theory?

Not sure if you actually watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but that program was not presented in the same balanced way as the Moon landing programme was and that is my main point about the programs worth.

Instead of endlessly banging on about the programme why don't you go and do some reading and find out for yourself about the anti-GW theories. You've made up your mind the programme was crap so instead of dismissing the theories because of that go and find out for real.

Instead of endlessly banging on about the programme why don't you go and do some reading and find out for yourself about the anti-GW theories. You've made up your mind the programme was crap so instead of dismissing the theories because of that go and find out for real.

Hang on a minute, I replied specifically to the moon landing reference Malky made.My post was directed specifically to Malky not yourself. If you don't like my comments then don't read them, I haven't suggested to you to stop posting your ideas have I?:suspect:

Hang on a minute, I replied specifically to the moon landing reference Malky made.My post was directed specifically to Malky not yourself. If you don't like my comments then don't read them, I haven't suggested to you to stop posting your ideas have I?:suspect:


You also mentioned the unbalanced nature of the swindle programme for about the fiftieth time. Don't squirm out of it on a technicality - go and find the material and read it. That way you might come across as being more balanced than the rogramme instead of like a stuck record :hihi:

You also mentioned the unbalanced nature of the swindle programme for about the fiftieth time. Don't squirm out of it on a technicality - go and find the material and read it. That way you might come across as being more balanced than the rogramme instead of like a stuck record :hihi:

Err... now who's sounding like a stuck record?:huh:

Mod note: Let's try to move this on without the bickering please.

Mod note: Let's try to move this on without the bickering please.

Noted:thumbsup:

Surprisingly its snowing in March and there is more to come, its probably something to do with global warming.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No I haven’t read all of the threads, sorry, but the thing that amazes me is that people believe everything they are told, they swallow it all, hook line and sinker.

You said it.

wrong Global Warming thread :roll:

an epistemic community, peddling a highly dubious (and probably false) theory can exert a profound influence on government policy

Yes, the monetarists have a lot to answer for.

Yes, the monetarists have a lot to answer for.

Probably less than the neo-Keynesians and most definitely far less than the Marxists.

In the field of economic policy, all 'isms' are bad if applied rigidly, because the real world is far too complex to fit neatly into any theoretical framework - as Poggi said, a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing (or in other words, a way of looking at the world is also a way of not looking at it).