Posted by DavidBartlett on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 22:51:49

Just looked it up on Channel 4, looks like must-see telly.

Posted by Tizzy on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 23:05:46

One for the open-minded - probably will be trashed before being aired.

Posted by kozmicstu on Wednesday, 07 March 2007 07:21:14

Bloody Al Gore. His film is quite good to watch, though the way he takes long and seemingly random pauses in his speech annoys me a little :-) The problem is I spent half my time screaming at the television when he said things that were clearly wrong! ARRGGHH!! It's a shame to see political propaganda treated as absolute fact.

However, you can't help but admire his tenacity, and he at least believes he's on the right track and helping a noble cause. I'd like to see pollution reduced myself, but Climate Change? We need a stock phrase for when something falls obviously foul of King Canute, I think.

This program looks interesting, but I agree it will be absolutely panned by the 'Greenies' before it's shown on TV.

Stu

Posted by DavidBartlett on Thursday, 08 March 2007 22:49:57

Just watched the programmme. Many thanks for mentioning it.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Global warming, a front for anti-capitalists, with no basis in science. Eye-opening stuff, hope it moves the debate.

Posted by kozmicstu on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:10:42

I watched it and, as much as I agreed with it's premise and certainly agreed with a lot of the points it makes, I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed in the film. It seemed a little too angry, a little too sure of itself, a little too accusative - particularly in its assertion that the environmentalist groups are deliberately seeking to prevent third-world development, where they are far more likely just meddling do-gooders (better termed well-meaners) who don't understand the first thing about the implications of their grand schemes.

It essentially was entirely predictable, and exactly what you'd expect from a anti-environmentalist film. I'd like to see more of an appropriately balanced programme. Thing is, I don't want to have to watch two conflicting documentaries which are both entirely certain of themselves, just as I don't want to take two bottles into the shower. I want one documentary which presents both viewpoints as their proponents feel they ought to be presented, and then comes to an intelligent conclusion.

Oh well. We can't expect everything and get it.

Posted by DaveGould on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:28:20

Yes, when watching "An Inconvenient Truth" I wondered if he should have covered some of the holes in the theories.

However, the IPCC theory does not depend on anything this Swindle programme supposedly exposed. It was entirely devoid of substance.

Posted by Freethinker on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:28:31

Thank you, Lizabeth, for bringing this programme to notice, great to see at least one part of the media prepared to tell the truth and stand up against the "green" loonys. For even more evidence as to how figures can be engineered to suit political agendas, why did the Stern Report, which is what current political thinking is based on, ignore completely, the "Medieval Warm Period" which lasted from 800 AD to 1350 AD? Using this would have meant starting their computer model base temperature from a higher base than the 17th Century figure they actually used.
The final part of the programme which shows that although Africa is rich in coal and oil, it is being prevented from development by the industrialised nations using the excuse of Climate Change was heartbreaking to watch and should make all the so called "Green" Politicians, Environmentalists and Tree-Hugging loonys hang their heads in shame.
If any of them come near my house wanting support, I'll set the dog on them !
Freethinker, Edinburgh.

Posted by nickbrooks on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:31:58

Readers might be interested to know that the people behind this documentary are ex members of the UK Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who used to publish the magazine LM, once "Living Marxism", the official newsletter of the RCP. They continue to push the agenda they promoted within the RCP through the Institute of Ideas and the online magazine Spiked. If anyone wants to check them out, try a Google search of "Martin Durkin Against Nature" (the title of another anti-environment documentary by this programme's director from the 1980s), or "LM group revolutionary communist party".

I'll declare my interest - I'm a climate scientist, and in my view (based on a decade of work in this area) this programme has completely misrepresented the science, and the positions of the scientists they accuse of being behind this "conspiracy". But hey, dig around on the web and see what the Revolutionary Communists behind this stuff are up to, and make you own mind up about their legitimacy.

I've just watched it and am annoyed enough to have Googled it to see what sort of coverage it's getting. Whatever your views on global warming, it pays to know who's behind the information (or in this case disinformation) that we're being fed.

Regards

Nick Brooks

Posted by Splatfly on Friday, 09 March 2007 00:30:49

nickbrooks - You do not cite any evidence that backs up your claim and when you use an opinion of your own about a group who may have been behind the documentary as you primary reason of why it is a load of rubbish. That is discriminatory and at worst extremely bad science.

In fact it was the documentary that suggested that the green activists are the communist & socialist who were against the capitalist movement and had their dislike of big corporations spun into a dislike of pollution by politicians to protect their ideology with out having to result to mass public suppression.

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).
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. (I will not delve into a conspiracy about this)
Science is about Science, not about the experience or background of the scientist.

Posted by Peekay on Friday, 09 March 2007 09:33:20

Nickbrooks is quite correct. It's astonishing to see a collection of conservatives being taken in by a documentary created by a splinter group of the revolutionary communist party! quite astonishing.

Their lineage can be found here:

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78

There is obviously a lot of knee-jerk loathing of 'green campaigners' in the above comments. However, I would say three quick things:

Firstly, greens are more than aware of the connections between environment and development issues, and have been for decades. The idea that they 'deny development' to the poor is simply rubbish. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and patronising. Attack green ideas by all means, but get your facts right first.

Secondly, Durkin has a history of twisting facts to suit his agenda - which is why his notorious 'Against Nature' series attacking the green movement was forced to air the only on-air apology in the entire history of channel four. Ask yourself: if his argument holds water, why does he need to selectively edit peoples' words and deliberately twist facts in order to get it across?

Thirdly, and crucially, you need to separate your opinions about environmentalists from your views on the environment. You may loathe all green activists if you choose - though it's hardly a balanced view - but that doesn't mean that climate change is a myth. Planetary change is entirely apolitical. If climate change is going to bring disaster, it's going to bring it to all of us, regardless of who we vote for. Please don't make this crucial issue a party political one. We'll all be the losers.

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 09 March 2007 09:49:59

Yeah that doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. Like I said above it would be nice if people didn't polarise so much and they actually presented a balanced point of view. Thing is there ARE issues with taxation based on climate change, there's no evidence at all to say we can actually do anything about climate change at all, and it will indeed mean that 'third world' countries will not be able to develop like western society has been able to.

I'm all for reducing pollution, though. Pollution sucks. There's no reason for us to be pouring black acrid smoke into the atmosphere when we can work on better more efficient technologies. Climate change, to me, is something entirely different, and even if we ARE altering the climate, the climate would alter itself at some point anyway. All we'd be doing is delaying and pushing back the problem, not solving it.

Stu

Posted by Henry2 on Friday, 09 March 2007 09:54:44

I hope that DC watches this programme. I was impressed by the scientific facts as for example there was a decrease in global temperature when one would have expected a rise if one followed the majority opinion. Also that in medieval times the climate was just as warm as now.

I think we should all watch the programme again and I hope that Channel 4 will broadcast a scientific response to it . Then we could have a reasoned argument.

It would be disastrous if governments took actions on global warning based on erroneous science.

However there is no doubt that the globe is getting warmer and sea levels are rising. Whether or not that is due to carbon dioxide is open to debate and last night's programme was, I thought, fact based.

A parting thought. The temperature records in geological terms show that the globe has had repeated ice ages and periods of warmer climes! And we were not around to influence it.

Posted by opethwalshy on Friday, 09 March 2007 11:07:01

Stu hits the nail on the head. Reducing pollution is fine and being 'green' to some extent is a worthy cause. I'm all for reducing human wastefulness.

But climate change is obviously cyclical and let's not remember that Global Cooling was all the rage in the 70s. When politics impinges on science - as well documented last night - we are all in trouble. I mean, how narrow minded and arrogant is it that Gore etc ignored that flaming big ball in the sky when coming up with their argument for man made GW?!

We need to dispel the myths and produce hard facts. At the moment, that documentary blows away anything I've read or seen from the camp that would have us believe we're all doomed.

Posted by carlos on Friday, 09 March 2007 12:13:16

It was one of the most interesting documentaries I have seen on TV for some time. I emplor all to watch this.

I too am in agreement with what Koz has said, we need a balanced look at the evidence. But I think last nghts doc was right for the 'climate' (excuse pun) we are in right now - the green issue has become scewed and distorted.

my parents were 2 old hippies, my mum bought only organic over 20 years ago, and have always used bio-degradeable products etc. So I am in no way a "green hater", however we have to look at FACTS; which clearly show that CO2 does not drive climate change, but follows it. the sun drives our climate: which all the evidence supports.

For me, the green issue is a very complex one - and has been hijacked by governments and the IPPC (UN political/scientific body) and been turned into a CO2 issue.
The real issue, is TOXINS!!! We are polluting our environment, and destroying it with more and more pollutants - our rivers, seas, and fields are being drained of their natural minerals and nutrients by man.

There is no doubt that man has had a devastating infulence of our environment - but concentrating on CO2 is a smokescreen (oooh sorry another pun), why aren't they meeting in europe about de-forestation, or the levels of nutrients in our aggricultural land i.e stop industrialised farming, and bring in universal organic farming..

The real issue, is that 'peak oil' is about to be reached all over the world, and so we do need to find other sources of energy!! No wonder they want us to cut back on carbon emmisions (all the more for the military/industrial complex); we're gonna run out soon!
What if I said that there have been scientists/inventors throughout this century (and last), starting with people like Nikola Tesla: please google him, he solved the AC current problem - and in doing so enabled us to have a national grid, and we still name magnetic field force in teslas - he divised a way of generating FREE ENERGY - but his proposal was turned down by the major electric company in the US (because they couldn't make money out of it.. surprise surprise). There have been numerous others since; all have either had ther work stolen by the US government, or not been allowed to patent their devices; US law states you need permission to patent any kind of new fuel technology.
For an excellent (if slightly rough and ready made) video on such free energy technologies check out The Race to Zero point:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7485732493597773138&q;=race+to+zero+point

Now I am not saying these are proved technlogies - but they should at least be given massive funding to find out whether they do work - because even if just one did - it would nulify ALL environmental debate. And not surpressed like they have been - by a government with MASSIVE ties with the oil industry!!

It would take power away from the oil companies, and give TOTAL FREEDOM TO ALL PEOPLE.. if everyone could provide energy for themselves then it's harder for any company or government to control you, as you are not dependant on them for your survival!!!

Just watching bLIAR doing his goody two shoes speech about CO2 - wake up people.. this is another exercise in mass hypnosis. They are focussing on a non-secular, and not the real issues; ones that give them more power to tax and make money, and limit development in the 3rd world.
This doesn't mean we aren't harming our world on a local level though, and that we shouldn't improve the amount we do pullute - but it is big business, and industry that needs to do this, and not the people - not flying to spain for a 2 weeks break will do naff all. Browns idea that another tenner on a flight will help the environment, is ample proof that all they care about is making some extra cash.

Posted by Peekay on Friday, 09 March 2007 12:59:35

'Dispel the myths and produce hard facts'? I would have thought that the best way to do this was to listen to the conclusions of the largest collection of impartial climate scientists ever gathered together. It's called the IPCC, and has no political affiliations, left or right. It is also, crucially, not the same thing as the 'green lobby.'

Please note that not one of the 'scientists' used in the documentary were climate scientists. Many were lobbyists or paid hirelings of oil companies, in line with Martin Durkin's usual method: produce activists and pretend they are impartial.

I'm all for listening to scientists who know what they're talking about, which is why I, with no science background, trust the IPCC. I would be very happy if they were wrong, but nothing said by a few ex-communists or media contrarians has yet convinced me that they are, sadly.

More on who was actually featured in that documentyary below. Check your sources before you cite them.

http://climatedenial.org/

And PLEASE people, stop letting your dislike of 'Blair and Brown' interfere with a SERIOUS issue. Climate change is NOT party political,and just because we would all like it not to be happening, doesn't mean it isn't! As for 'global cooling' and 'sunspots' - show me a massive, international scientific consensus on these and I will believe them. In the meantime, I would like to get serious about my children's futures, as any responsible person, left or right, should be doing.