Home > Environment, Global Warming > The great global warming swindle?

The great global warming swindle?

March 9, 2007

Did anyone see the program “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4 last night? I did not but listening to the radio this morning I wish I had. It seems to run counter to everything we have been led to believe about global warming and in particular the causes.
I have had a look at their website and if I understand what they are saying correctly then there would appear to be a fundamental dispute about the facts with regard to the warmest periods in the history of our planet. If you believe Al Gore then we are already in uncharted territory, if you believe the makers of this film then we have been here before and we are not the cause of the problem. Indeed they seem to be saying that natural events such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity.
Food for thought but even if you accept that global warming is not man made we cannot continue to abuse the planet in the way in which we currently do and we cannot continue to use up the natural resources of the planet at such a rate without paying the price in the future.
Update : for a great precis of the programme see Tom Papworth on Liberal Polemic
Advertisements
  1. budgiebird
    March 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    Watched this programme last night and it certainly made out a good case.

    It would seem from all known evidence that the levels of Carbon Dioxide follow temperature changes on our planet as opposed to causing them. When the planet increases in temperature, Carbon Dioxide levels increase. This is hardly surprising as the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which release more Co2 as they heat up.

    The programme also pointed out the very tiny percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere that human beings are responsible for creating.

    It also highlighted the fact that a lot of the scientists who are accredited with supporting studies which confirm Global Warming actually findamentally disagree with the finding. Some scientists have resigned from these bodies in protest, but there names are still included on the long list of scientists supporting the theory.

    Scientists who disagree with the Global Warming theory are treated as heretics and, if they speak out against the theory, are far less likely to receive funding to help with their research into this and other areas.

    Of course there are other good reasons for being more frugal with our resources, but I am convinced that the Global Warming is indeed the greatest scam of our time.

    If you accept that the Global Warming theory is a fallacy, then of course, you need to delve a little deeper to discover who would benefit the most from perpetuating the myth.

    My guess is that the countries which are already industrialised and use the lions share of the oil are the ones with a vested interest in ensuring that the rest of the under-developed world do not catch up. There is great pressure on Africa, which has resources of both oil and coal, not to use these resources to develop because it would fuel Global Warming. Perhaps our friends across the pond want to keep those resources in the ground until they can get around to finding an excuse to develop those resources themselves.

    Cynical? Moi?

  2. Joe Otten
    March 9, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    Apparently they had fake academics from non-existent departments in that programme.

    Anyway, non-anthropogenic factors are no secret. Whatever they are, what we do is on top of them. It is cheap polemic to pretend that they are revelatory.

  3. ecofx
    March 9, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    If it was on Channel 4, is there now a way to watch over the Internet: I seem to recall channel 4 now being available in some areas as a trial… ? Do they mind a you-tubing?

    Al Gore didn’t go back all the way in his film, if I remember correctly, maybe only as far back as after the dinosaurs. And we were warmer before that, but that’s not the point. Dinosaurs probably didn’t care where the various coastlines were, or how much of the planet was easily habitable for them – the billions of us increasingly do!
    Climate change isn’t the end of the world either, but of the world we know. Even a reduction of human populations by 99% (not likely to happen) wouldn’t exactly get rid of us – Birmingham would still have a population of 10000, for example. But this doesn’t mean global warming doesn’t matter, especially if it leads to mankind becoming his own direct enemy again in a fight over resources and land areas.

  4. Tom Papworth
    March 9, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    I’ve put a précis of the programme on my blog. Whether or not you agree with it, I welcome the debate. Too much in environmentalism gets the TINA treatment.

  5. Bishop Hill
    March 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Joe Otten said:

    “Apparently they had fake academics from non-existent departments in that programme.”

    You can’t leave it at that! Which ones were fake?

  6. jp
    March 9, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Which ones were fake? Without backing that statement up it adds nothing.

  7. Joe Otten
    March 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    From comment 43 on http://www.badscience.net/?p=381

    “What I found most infuriating however, was the use of so-called experts with non-existing university affiliations. For example, Philip Stott is not a professor at the “Department of Biogeography ” at the “University of London”. No such department exists. He used to be a professor at the Geography Department at SOAS (an institution better know for its cultural studies than climate change research).

    Equally, Tim Bell can’t be affiliated with the “Department of Climatology” at the University of Winnipeg, because this department does not exist, nor does he work at the University of Winnipeg. Apparently, he left in 1996 to become a consultant. “

    … I have attempted and failed to find these alleged departments using Google.

  8. Anonymous
    March 11, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    Calling these academics “fake” is not only false and libelous, but also lets you avoid the addressing the substance of their positions. You will get no such pass.

    Regarding their credentials, as far as Philip Stott goes, to say he is a fake is absolute nonsense. Professor Stott is well known to anyone who follows science in the UK, and he is a regular commenter on BBC programmes about science. To suggest that he is a “fake” in this way strikes me as potentially libellous. Philip Stott’s Wikipedia page is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott

    Can anyone really suggest that labelling him as Professor in the Department of Biogeography is a misrepresentation?

    Tim Ball (not Bell), also has a Wikipedia page which is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

    There seems to be some doubt as to whether he was the first Canadian PhD in climatology but it is undisputed that he was a professor at the University of Winnipeg and did research into the historic climate. He is clearly qualified to speak with some authoritaty on the subject of climate change. Again, calling him a fake appears somewhat risky, particularly as he appears to know his neighbourhood libel lawyer’s telephone number.

    This all looks to me like an attempt to play the man rather than the ball. Given that one of the central claims of the programme was that climate heretics were persecuted, this rather proves the point, doesn’t it?

  9. John
    March 18, 2007 at 4:06 am

    Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: