The Great Global Warming Swindle

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

The film examines an alternative theory that explains global temperatures, based on research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center. The professor and his team found that as solar activity increases, and the sun flares, cloud formation on earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.

Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa explains: 'Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.'

Finally, the film argues that restricting CO2 emissions could actually be damaging for people in the developing world. James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network, says: 'The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

'I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio.

'The thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.'

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Their goal in to create a carbon tax and control people with it.

96% of all CO2 produced is from the Earth (volcanoes etc...)

[GaryC 7]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

[fozzie 41]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

I don't know too many people who think its not a man made problem. Whatever your opinion on the cause of global warming he fact remains that all energy sources we use that send co2 into the atmosphere are going to run out sooner rather than later and then we will be up sh#t creek without a paddle. So why not start buying green energy now? why not champion tghe cause of renewable sources of energy so that more money can be used to improve these energy sources? To make them more efficient....so that they CAN power a steel factory or a railroad? We WILL need them eventually so its better to be prepared.

[GaryC 7]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

I don't know too many people who think its not a man made problem. Whatever your opinion on the cause of global warming he fact remains that all energy sources we use that send co2 into the atmosphere are going to run out sooner rather than later and then we will be up sh#t creek without a paddle. So why not start buying green energy now? why not champion tghe cause of renewable sources of energy so that more money can be used to improve these energy sources? To make them more efficient....so that they CAN power a steel factory or a railroad? We WILL need them eventually so its better to be prepared.

You may not have seen some of Steve and I's arguments about Global Warming. I am in no way convinced that humans are causing GW. GW may in fact be happening but it's natural not man made. The sacrifices the greens are asking us to do is way overboard. They will hurt rather than help and the planet will do whatever it was going to do.

Get away from our addiction to oil? Thats another subject. Yes, we should do whatever is needed to get away from imported oil.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Alex+R 0]

It's great to talk about renewable energy sources and alternate energy sources, because even if you don't believe that will solve global warming it sure as hell will solve a whole host of other problems. But the idea that anybody is having debates or arguments about global warming outside of the science world is kinda silly. I am not a climatologist. I don't think VJ has any climatologists. I'm leaving the climatology to them, and their consensus says that it's highly likely it's our fault.

I am going to trust the majority of scientists, because I can't say I have ANY firsthand information to judge the situation on.

[GaryC 7]

It's great to talk about renewable energy sources and alternate energy sources, because even if you don't believe that will solve global warming it sure as hell will solve a whole host of other problems. But the idea that anybody is having debates or arguments about global warming outside of the science world is kinda silly. I am not a climatologist. I don't think VJ has any climatologists. I'm leaving the climatology to them, and their consensus says that it's highly likely it's our fault.

I am going to trust the majority of scientists, because I can't say I have ANY firsthand information to judge the situation on.

Thats the problem though, the sacrifices the pro GW types are asking would seriously hurt our growth and economy. Before measures like that should happen we should have a much more definitive answer. Somehow GW has turned into something more than just a concern about our climate. It's seen as political hockey puck and they are ignoring everything that does not fit the template.

Your right, no one here is a climatologist. But our future is being shaped from the political side of this and not the scientific side as it should be. So it needs to be talked about.

[mawilson 2,133]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

Actually he's not. He's just going to rubbish any research that suggests there's even

a remote possibility that global-warming is not man made.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

I don't know too many people who think its not a man made problem. Whatever your opinion on the cause of global warming he fact remains that all energy sources we use that send co2 into the atmosphere are going to run out sooner rather than later and then we will be up sh#t creek without a paddle. So why not start buying green energy now? why not champion tghe cause of renewable sources of energy so that more money can be used to improve these energy sources? To make them more efficient....so that they CAN power a steel factory or a railroad? We WILL need them eventually so its better to be prepared.

You may not have seen some of Steve and I's arguments about Global Warming. I am in no way convinced that humans are causing GW. GW may in fact be happening but it's natural not man made. The sacrifices the greens are asking us to do is way overboard. They will hurt rather than help and the planet will do whatever it was going to do.

Get away from our addiction to oil? Thats another subject. Yes, we should do whatever is needed to get away from imported oil.

Mars is having global warming along with us. Could it be the sun or the Mars rover we sent?

[fozzie 41]

the pro GW types are asking would seriously hurt our growth and economy.

Your Economy????????? #######???????

Take car manufacturers as an example. Ford and GM - gas guzzleing, polluting, amora - heavily subsidised by the american government because they are in dire straights (not the band) and would otherwise go out of business and are a drain on the economy. Toyota (and other ecofriendly companies) - produce hybrid cars, less polluting, fewer carbon emmissions, and a great alternative to the gas guzzling Cadillac - a thriving company that provides jobs security to the local workers and aids the "Economy" that you mentioned earlier.

My Point (in case you missed it): Being ecologically responsible does NOT hurt the economy!!!! It boosts it. If more was spent by people on greener sollutions to energy supply then those businesses will grow and create more jobs and more wealth. What will make renewable energy more efficient? The technology sector. You know...that useless industry that does not create jobs and wealth and is not a real booost to the US economy.

Any comebacks from you 'economists' out there?

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Take car manufacturers as an example. Ford and GM - gas guzzleing, polluting, amora - heavily subsidised by the american government because they are in dire straights (not the band) and would otherwise go out of business and are a drain on the economy. Toyota (and other ecofriendly companies) - produce hybrid cars, less polluting, fewer carbon emmissions, and a great alternative to the gas guzzling Cadillac - a thriving company that provides jobs security to the local workers and aids the "Economy" that you mentioned earlier.

My Point (in case you missed it): Being ecologically responsible does NOT hurt the economy!!!! It boosts it. If more was spent by people on greener sollutions to energy supply then those businesses will grow and create more jobs and more wealth. What will make renewable energy more efficient? The technology sector. You know...that useless industry that does not create jobs and wealth and is not a real booost to the US economy.

Any comebacks from you 'economists' out there?

won't disagree about the american vehicles versus japanese in regards to gas usage, although i'm not sure they'd qualify for the term "ecofriendly" though.

i do agree that more money spent on green energy would cause said businesses to grow, but i do doubt that such will "...create more jobs and more wealth" than the current methods.

[fozzie 41]

Take car manufacturers as an example. Ford and GM - gas guzzleing, polluting, amora - heavily subsidised by the american government because they are in dire straights (not the band) and would otherwise go out of business and are a drain on the economy. Toyota (and other ecofriendly companies) - produce hybrid cars, less polluting, fewer carbon emmissions, and a great alternative to the gas guzzling Cadillac - a thriving company that provides jobs security to the local workers and aids the "Economy" that you mentioned earlier.

My Point (in case you missed it): Being ecologically responsible does NOT hurt the economy!!!! It boosts it. If more was spent by people on greener sollutions to energy supply then those businesses will grow and create more jobs and more wealth. What will make renewable energy more efficient? The technology sector. You know...that useless industry that does not create jobs and wealth and is not a real booost to the US economy.

Any comebacks from you 'economists' out there?

won't disagree about the american vehicles versus japanese in regards to gas usage, although i'm not sure they'd qualify for the term "ecofriendly" though.

i do agree that more money spent on green energy would cause said businesses to grow, but i do doubt that such will "...create more jobs and more wealth" than the current methods.

It doesn't need to create MORE it just needs to get close so that the economy won't be affected. I honestly do not beleive that going green will adversely affect anyone except the oil industry! And how many probles would that solve around the world? Oil Industry =

[Alex+R 0]

Take car manufacturers as an example. Ford and GM - gas guzzleing, polluting, amora - heavily subsidised by the american government because they are in dire straights (not the band) and would otherwise go out of business and are a drain on the economy. Toyota (and other ecofriendly companies) - produce hybrid cars, less polluting, fewer carbon emmissions, and a great alternative to the gas guzzling Cadillac - a thriving company that provides jobs security to the local workers and aids the "Economy" that you mentioned earlier.

My Point (in case you missed it): Being ecologically responsible does NOT hurt the economy!!!! It boosts it. If more was spent by people on greener sollutions to energy supply then those businesses will grow and create more jobs and more wealth. What will make renewable energy more efficient? The technology sector. You know...that useless industry that does not create jobs and wealth and is not a real booost to the US economy.

Any comebacks from you 'economists' out there?

won't disagree about the american vehicles versus japanese in regards to gas usage, although i'm not sure they'd qualify for the term "ecofriendly" though.

i do agree that more money spent on green energy would cause said businesses to grow, but i do doubt that such will "...create more jobs and more wealth" than the current methods.

It doesn't need to create MORE it just needs to get close so that the economy won't be affected. I honestly do not beleive that going green will adversely affect anyone except the oil industry! And how many probles would that solve around the world? Oil Industry =

I second your angry frustration. It's just too bad the oil industry has so much power they can easily convince a large section of the populace otherwise.

[GaryC 7]

Take car manufacturers as an example. Ford and GM - gas guzzleing, polluting, amora - heavily subsidised by the american government because they are in dire straights (not the band) and would otherwise go out of business and are a drain on the economy. Toyota (and other ecofriendly companies) - produce hybrid cars, less polluting, fewer carbon emmissions, and a great alternative to the gas guzzling Cadillac - a thriving company that provides jobs security to the local workers and aids the "Economy" that you mentioned earlier.

My Point (in case you missed it): Being ecologically responsible does NOT hurt the economy!!!! It boosts it. If more was spent by people on greener sollutions to energy supply then those businesses will grow and create more jobs and more wealth. What will make renewable energy more efficient? The technology sector. You know...that useless industry that does not create jobs and wealth and is not a real booost to the US economy.

Any comebacks from you 'economists' out there?

won't disagree about the american vehicles versus japanese in regards to gas usage, although i'm not sure they'd qualify for the term "ecofriendly" though.

i do agree that more money spent on green energy would cause said businesses to grow, but i do doubt that such will "...create more jobs and more wealth" than the current methods.

It doesn't need to create MORE it just needs to get close so that the economy won't be affected. I honestly do not beleive that going green will adversely affect anyone except the oil industry! And how many probles would that solve around the world? Oil Industry =

Your confusing becoming less dependent on oil and the other things the GW bunch want to shove down our necks. The manditory reductions in carbon outputs effect a lot more than the oil and auto industry. It effects every segment of our manufacturing industry. It would hinder our ability to compete with 3rd world countries that are not mandated to reduce carbon. It would in effect hand any lead we may still have over to the third world. People complain about our manufacturing jobs going overseas? This will make it worse!

[Alex+R 0]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.