Your Blog

The Great Global Warming. Swindle. Will you watch this David?

Posted by Lizabeth on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 22:35:03

Whatever your present views the Channel 4 programme March 8th at 9 pm entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is surely essential viewing for everyone. This is particularly important as I understand Al Gore's "An Inconvenent Truth" is to be shown to all secondary school pupils.

, ,

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by carlos on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 22:14:54

....yeah the solution is ANOTHER FORM OF ENERGY!!!
So we are no dependant on massive companies and corporations - i.e slaves (maybe advanced slaves, but still slaves)

please watch this film if you are interested in this 'issue'...
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7485732493597773138&q;=race+to+zero+point
We needto be able to step out of the hysteria, and the political game playing. Imagine if we all had a box in our house, that once up and running, never needs an imput of energy, but gives out a constant supply of energy, there would be no "utility bills". No getting p!ssed that British Gas has just raised the prices by %15, no need to fill up every few hundred miles.. etc.. etc.

Essentially what is going on is we are being sucked into a false debate - the debate should not be about cutting back on energy consumption, but how we will get our energy. But this is hardly being talked about - especially by the politicians that seem to be driving this with a vengance.

This technology exists, please look at my blog regarding this subject: https://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/3032.

Posted by nickbrooks on Thursday, 15 March 2007 22:34:20

Some responses to Splatfly here.

1. "You do not cite any evidence that backs up your claim ...That is discriminatory and at worst extremely bad science."

I keep running into this idea that scientists should only talk about science and not voice opinions on issues or alert others to the motivations of those seeking to discredit science. Curious. No I didn't provide evidence to back up my claim that this programme was rubbish, because there is plenty out there already, and because I was not addressing the science, but the ideology behind the programme. I provided enough information for people to start their own enquiries about the background of the director of this programme - this was my intention.

2. "As a scientist I hope you respect that every bit of evidence for and against a problem should be individually proved or disproved and not just chucked out as ridiculous (which is extremely bias)."

I do indeed, and every bit of "evidence" presented in the programme has been rejected on the basis of rational scientific enquiry. There has been quite a lot of effort put into investigating the science that the programme claimed to tackle, and the documentary was an example of spin rather than scientific substance. The arguments don't stand up and this has been demonstrated. See http://www.realclimate.org for more details.

3. "The documentary does not misrepresent the science, it has provided and alternative view point and an alternative set of science that does not get represented by popular press or politicians for some reason most like the loss of the scare factor which those factions need to control the public."

Actually it does, horribly. You can't just have "alternative science" in the same way you can have alternative views on an issue. Science is about developing testable hypotheses and about reproducibility and observation. It isn't a pick and mix where you can choose the science you like based on your own personal prejudices.

4. "Science is about Science, not about the experience or background of the scientist."

Science is, yes, but this was not science but pseudo--science, i.e. an argument dressed up in scientific clothes but with no scientific substance. Even real science is not entirely objective - someone has to choose which scientific questions to ask, and how to investigate them. When we are dealing with pseudo-science and propaganda, the background and ideological stance of those presenting the arguments are highly relevant if we are to understand what we are being told and why. the purpose of this programme was to rubbish proper, peer-reviewed science, and to mislead the public, pure and simpe.

Anyone who is "Against Religions and Philosophies that utilise false science as way of arguing their believes" [sic] should be against people twisting and misrepresenting science in order to further their own ideological aims, which is exactly what was going on here.

Climate change is real, and we are causing it. I'm happy to tell you that, but I'm not going to tell you what to do about. If people decide they want to carry on as normal and risk really severe climate change, fine with me. But I want them to make that decision on the best available evidence. What to do about climate change is not my decision to make, and I'm not telling anyone not to fly, drive or leave their TV on standby. Those are decisions that should, in my view, be made by people individually. If the idea that climate change is happening makes people feel so bad that they have to deny the reality, demonstrated by on a ton of really sound science, perhaps they should ask themselves why. Climate scientists are not here to preach, but inform. The rest is up to you lot. Change the climate enough to destroy civilisation for all I care - at least it would get rid of the ideologically-driven nonsense coming from the likes of Durkin.

Posted by scrubsupwell on Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:35:25

Global warming is a new kind of reality. I hope it replaces 'war on terror'. Although caused by our orbit round the sun changing just slightly, I agree with Kozmos, we should concentrate on reducing pollution which affects the way the brain develops in young kids. (carbon monoxide kills brain cells)

Kosmos says we need a balanced view, well, we all should try and reduce energy consumption by replacing 100W light bulbs with low energy 15 Watt types (they are cozier, sexier and save you money). We all should have kettles that have two compartments for water, fill the top full, them push the button to fill the lower chamber for the no of cups of tea u r making (saves heating up a full kettle).

Governments are to blame for wasteing energy resources(read how we blew all our North Sea Gas) by being greedy and not reserving precious supplies.

The governments 'global warming' is related to energy burning, which relates to fossil fuels, which relates to oil, which relates to pre-emptive strikes, which relates to 'war on terror', which relates to rhetoric and spin, which relates to . . . .