The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Small Screen



Message


Scruffybobby -> The Great Global Warming Swindle (9/3/2007 10:52:00 AM)

I found this to be very interesting in the way that it pointed out a lot of the inconsistencies of the global warming theory, and some the politcal ideas, like a deliberate suppresion of the third worl were pretty scary

I've always been of the opinion that climate change is a natural phenomenon that we are pretty pwerless to any thing about for good or ill That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to find cleaner and more efficient fuel sources though and it's certainly true that we are damaging the enviroment through deforestation and the like.

We just need a bit of balance.  Opinions?




ilovebeerme -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (9/3/2007 11:56:21 AM)

http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=1221262

Quite a bit of discussion at the mid-end of this thread.

Climate change is a well established natural system and nobody disputes that.  the arguement, which in scientific circles is over and has been for years, is whether we are causing a skew to that system.




Jar Jar Gabor -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (9/3/2007 12:01:04 PM)

I thought it was interesting too. The problem I have is how polemical programs such as these only ever put forward one side of the story, so you're left with all of the evidence in support and none of the evidence in disagreement. For example, the assertion that cloud cover is linked to cosmic rays is far from proven and there is some doubt about how active the sun has been over the past decade when temperatures have continued to climb.The program tells us about the temperature decline from 1940 to 1975 during a period of heavy increase in industrialisation, and how it flies in the face of what you would expect if global warming were linked to man made carbon dioxide, yet it mentions nothing about the theory of global dimming which has been put forward to explain this discrepancy.

Still, I thought the program did a good job of showing just how complicated global climate is and just how many systems it has acting upon it, any one of which could cause warming and cooling. I thought the graph showing CO2 levels rising 800 years AFTER an increase in global temperature, thereby being the result and not the cause, was the biggest slap in the face to the man made global warming argument. I also thought that its revelations about environmental extremists and political groups using man made global warming as a ready-made excuse to do whatever they want, and the way that ties in with the media's tendency for hysteria, was particularly good. When you've got the co-founder of Greenpeace telling you things have got out of hand then you do sit up and take notice.




elab49 -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (10/3/2007 8:48:11 PM)

It was awful. The show itself introduced no balance and presented political bias as scientific opinion. It was stuffed full of those types who when completely wrong and are told so wander round saying 'oooo, I'm a martyr me, I'm being suppressed'. That C4 could present this in their science strand was appalling.

If they wish to present actual science from the very small number, who actually are scientists and not in the pay of Exxon or politicians, then they should do so, in context, and allow the opposing point to be made.

This was shockingly poor.




Scruffybobby -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (11/3/2007 3:03:35 PM)

quote:

If they wish to present actual science from the very small number, who actually are scientists and not in the pay of Exxon or politicians, then they should do so, in context, and allow the opposing point to be made.


There's any number of programmes that present the "we're all doomed and it's all our fault" argument without any leeway given to the opposing argument so why should this show be any different in i's presentation of its argument? I don't see anything wrong in a programme being polemical. As long as the other side gets a chance to make their point.And they certainly do, there's far more of the ITV news "three degrees to disaster" type stuff, which is just as biased than there is of this show.

I wasn't entirely convinced by a lot of it, but it did provide some food for thought.







elab49 -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (11/3/2007 3:38:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

quote:

If they wish to present actual science from the very small number, who actually are scientists and not in the pay of Exxon or politicians, then they should do so, in context, and allow the opposing point to be made.


There's any number of programmes that present the "we're all doomed and it's all our fault" argument without any leeway given to the opposing argument so why should this show be any different in i's presentation of its argument? I don't see anything wrong in a programme being polemical. As long as the other side gets a chance to make their point.And they certainly do, there's far more of the ITV news "three degrees to disaster" type stuff, which is just as biased than there is of this show.




Because I'm not talking about the argument. I'm talking about the facts and their interpretation. And this show had virtually none of the former - it was full of the 'I knows you know, I don't care what the facts are' rather than the considered viewpoints of credible people who actually know what they are talking about.

Climate change isn't an opinion based subject depending on your politics. But that is how this show presented it.

THAT should not be in a science strand. It is a basic misunderstanding of what science actually is.




Rotary Ten -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (11/3/2007 6:28:59 PM)

Irresponsible programming.




sanchia -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (11/3/2007 9:29:15 PM)

It appears even one of the scientist who appeared on it view it as being skewed and edited in such a manner that it misrepresented what he was saying.  HERE 




Mason Verger -> RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle (12/3/2007 12:27:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It appears even one of the scientist who appeared on it view it as being skewed and edited in such a manner that it misrepresented what he was saying.  HERE 


They're repeating it on Monday 12 March at 10.00pm on More4 (but may not). [:D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125