The Great Global Warming Swindle

[daniel49]

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi...swindle/index.html?intcmp=docpage_box2

Was Just wondering of anyone got to see this and what your reactions to it were.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Guess I need to find it on bittorrent.

Whats happening now is that too many scientists are tired of being falsely associated with the GW camp or worse are tired of the intimidation being used to coerce fellows.

Its a house of cards which a lot of groups are profiting from. That is real reason GW took off so recently, businesses sprung up to take advantage of it. Before then it was just the fringe groups and government employed scientist looking to maintain their paychecks

 

[Strk]

It's a British TV channel, so I'm going with most people here not seeing it.

 

[shoegazer]

It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

 

[daniel49]

to the first 2 posters. I emailed them to find out what options US viewers have. Maybe they will reply.

To shoe Gazer: are you pumping empty rhetoric at me or did you actually view it.
(hint) An actual viewing would give your opinion more weight.

 

[techs]

HEADS UP: B.S. ALERT!!!!

Ok, so Channel 4 is somewhere in England. Is it a Rupert Murdoch site? Who Knows??
Most importantly who is the guy who made this SUPPOSED "documentary"???

Who is Martin Durkin??? Well, lets see:

In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin
took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon.
Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming
women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast
cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out
whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough
review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a
powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin
Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it,
however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it
to their science series, Equinox.

So basically just cause they have a pretty website and claim this is a "documentary' it appears to be just another well funded charlatan spewing out propaganda.

Move along, nothing but lies here.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: daniel49
To shoe Gazer: are you pumping empty rhetoric at me or did you actually view it.
(hint) An actual viewing would give your opinion more weight.

I read through the arguments presented on the website. They include disproved ideas like the old poorly calibrated satellite temperature records, the lag between warming and rising CO2 seen in ice core records that actually does not at all disprove the idea that current warming is largely a result of human CO2 emissions, the global cooling after the 1940s which can largely be attributed to particulate pollution that reflects more sunlight, BS sunspot correlation which falls apart in recent years, etc.

 

[catnap1972]

Was there any footage of Al Gore devouring a baby (whole)?

Just curious...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: techs
HEADS UP: B.S. ALERT!!!!

QFT! Just more distraction and dissembling from desperate deniers with their own agenda, separate and apart from the interests of humanity.

If producer, Martin Durkin or Rupert Murdoch really wanted to do anything to further human knowledge or to significantly reduce pollution, they could volunteer to be a crash test dummies. :laugh:

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: techs
HEADS UP: B.S. ALERT!!!!

Ok, so Channel 4 is somewhere in England. Is it a Rupert Murdoch site? Who Knows??
Most importantly who is the guy who made this SUPPOSED "documentary"???

Who is Martin Durkin??? Well, lets see:

In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin
took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon.
Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming
women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast
cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out
whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough
review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a
powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin
Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it,
however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it
to their science series, Equinox.

So basically just cause they have a pretty website and claim this is a "documentary' it appears to be just another well funded charlatan spewing out propaganda.

Move along, nothing but lies here.

It could still be interesting. Michael Moore is well documented to have false information in his documentaries, but they're still interesting.

 

[LumbergTech]

there was a global warming section in my astronomy class and it sort of gives the impression that we will probably run out of the fuels we use before it could cause a massive catastrophe..but there are many smaller risks that could add up to a big problem as a result of unchecked climate. our world will end eventually, but it seems that we can have at least a minor level of control over preventing some of these minor problems that i mentioned..such as loss of property due to flooding and also an increased elderly mortality rate

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

Have you seen the show? I didn't think it had aired yet.

I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shoegazer
It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

Have you seen the show? I didn't think it had aired yet.

I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

I'm basing my statements off of the arguments presented on that website. I'm hardly fanatical. I'm actually a geology major with a number of courses under my belt from some of the top professors in climate science. I know very well that the earth is extremely dynamic, it's what I study.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

While the people who think inversely readily admit that humans putting thousands of tons per hour of CO2 and the like into the atmosphere might possibly be having some effect?:roll:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: techs
HEADS UP: B.S. ALERT!!!!

Ok, so Channel 4 is somewhere in England. Is it a Rupert Murdoch site? Who Knows??
Most importantly who is the guy who made this SUPPOSED "documentary"???

Who is Martin Durkin??? Well, lets see:

In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin
took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon.
Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming
women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast
cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out
whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough
review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a
powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin
Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it,
however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it
to their science series, Equinox.

So basically just cause they have a pretty website and claim this is a "documentary' it appears to be just another well funded charlatan spewing out propaganda.

Move along, nothing but lies here.

Not to detract from anything you contributed, but did you notice how it went from Rupert Murdoch,,,who knows? in your post to being a fact in Harveys post.
lol, reminds me of a party game we used to play where someone starts whispering a sentance and by the time it gets to the end of the room, you see how much it has been changed.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

While the people who think inversely readily admit that humans putting thousands of tons per hour of CO2 and the like into the atmosphere might possibly be having some effect?:roll:

I am not now nor have I never denied that. And if you browse around you'll see that I'm a big fan of wind, solar, nuclear and other alternative forms of energy. (As well as drilling ANWR... the two are not mutually exclusive)

But the basic foundation of the GW argument is that if it weren't for man, things wouldn't be changing. The whole thing starts on a false premise and proceeds from there to blame man for the whole thing. And that is the basic point that I have a problem with. The theory drives politics which in turn drives the science... vicious cycle. And in the mean time, other people with legitimate science showing other possibilities are shouted down.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
But the basic foundation of the GW argument is that if it weren't for man, things wouldn't be changing.

No it is not. It just says that human activity is indeed a significant factor, not that it is the only factor.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
But the basic foundation of the GW argument is that if it weren't for man, things wouldn't be changing.

No it is not. It just says that human activity is indeed a significant factor, not that it is the only factor.

Show me one theory... one scientific paper that starts with "The earth's climate is a dynamic and constantly changing thing."

 

[jackschmittusa]

Whoozyerdaddy

But the basic foundation of the GW argument is that if it weren't for man, things wouldn't be changing. The whole thing starts on a false premise and proceeds from there to blame man for the whole thing. And that is the basic point that I have a problem with. The theory drives politics which in turn drives the science... vicious cycle. And in the mean time, other people with legitimate science showing other possibilities are shouted down.

Where do you get this crap?

I have read numerous articles and seen several presentations on climate change, and not once have I ever heard that the climate is static. Your statement is entirely false.

You show me one example of an ice core study that concluded that the climate never changes. Or one of the seafloor cores. Or even tree rings for crying out loud.

Sounds to me as though you are really not well versed on the subject.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: daniel49
to the first 2 posters. I emailed them to find out what options US viewers have. Maybe they will reply.

Here was channel 4's response to anyone interested in viewing it outside of UK

Dear Dan,

Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries.

Unfortunately we would have no information on whether the programme will be aired in the USA. However, the production company that made the programme will be making the programme available on DVD. If you email gw@wagtv.com and leave your details, they will get back to you on how to purchase the DVD.

Regards,
Rachel Salinger
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries


cheers daniel49

 

[3chordcharlie]

I get that GW researchers may now have a vested interest in global warming (funding), but it did not start that way. In fact, like all scientific revolutions, it started with little funding, but rather with a hypothesis which has been largely supported, but also adapted and expanded to the available evidence.

So: what was 'to be gained' from the original research? A masochistic desire to force the world to give up practices that have been economically beneficial (at least to some)?

Was global warming a 30 year scam to secure funding for the first researchers grad students' grad students' grad students'?

What is the motivation for this great conspiracy?

 

[shoegazer]

"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate 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."

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

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate 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."

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

oops

 

[Wingznut]

Link to documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831


I have no doubt there is plenty of spin in this "documentary", but that doesn't refute all points completely. Undoubtedly, the "documentaries" that support human cause of global warming have their share of spin as well.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shoegazer
It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

Have you seen the show? I didn't think it had aired yet.

I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

Nobody says that. Nobody denies the Earth's climate is dynamic. The issue is the change occuring NOW and the predicted changes still to come that are due to man's influence.