hi, On a general note about global warming and then the program.
Firstly Global warming , I have taken the view for a long time that SCIENCE not belief shows that the earth has been warmer and colder over the millea and in more recent times has been colder and is following one of the natural cycles. For example GREENLAND was called that because 1000 years ago when settled it was actually green then the cycle changed and it became colder.
I believe than when politicians and interest groups declare that the "debate is over " then we have entered a time no different than the religious orthodoxy of earlier times and that to state that the Science is fixed and never to be questioned can lead us into areas such as the study of EUGENICS did in the early 20th century which was accepted as scientific fact and lead to the horrors of the second world war death camps.
However even if I do not agree with the theory or politics of Global Warming is does not mean that i do not believe that every attempt should be made to conserve resources , this is common sense and should be the path we go down, however we in the west have become stringent in our demands for the developing world not to industrialize thus condemning millions of people to abject poverty and early death. We can be green without the witch hunt .
As regards the program , I felt it was well argued, with convincing SCIENCE from people who are high in their fields and are in fact putting themselves at risk ( personally and financially ).
To sum up I do believe the science not the hype or the demands of interest groups not to question them.
If we do not question then we become a dictatorship of thought police.
I disagree the program was well argued with convincing SCIENCE, it was right-wing propaganda.
If you want convincing science, read the Royal Society or the IPCC, that the program rubbished.
Oh but of course, the program rubbished the mainstream of SCIENTISTS, while wheeling out the half-a-dozen skeptics in the pay of Oil/Coal companies. If you bother to investigate, for a start read about Patrick Michaels. The documentary conveniently forgot to ask him where he gets his money!
I actually felt that the program made some valid points. It was however frustrating that there was no opportunity for critical response from the other side.
Being a scientist (geologist) myself, I have long felt that the Global Warming debate was rather flimsy. Particularly given the vastness of geological time and the comparatively short time that the modern temperature data has been recorded - personally I feel its far too short to draw inferances from.
However I must admit that in recent years I have kind of assumed that there must be something to it as the majority of scientists appear to support it. What this programme has done is to encourage me to actually do some research and look for the evidence myself. In that respect the programme was great.
one thing for sure however is that the science is not black and white, and certainly the fact of global warming (through C02) is NOT a fact, and if anyone tells you otherwise then ignore them. In that respect the "inconveniant truth" documentary was no better........
Come on Robbie Writer, This is a typical liberal tactic. Don't talk about the issue, just bring up a side issues like big oil. The tiny bit of money that comes from oil is infinitesimal comparised to the billions coming from governments and news organizations that want an issue to use for other purposes.
Science mostly deals with probabilities. Inevitably with a system as complex as the climate the range of uncertainties will be greater. Unfortunately, most non-scientists want "facts" - yes/no answers. Human nature always seems to lead to any argument polarising into two utterly opposed camps, whereas reality carries on doing its thing. Each camp chooses the data ("facts") that it likes to "prove" its case. We do prefer black/white to the grey of the real world.
After a certain point, human psychology becomes more important than other influences i.e. people form tribes and engage in "war" with the opposition. It's depressing how little humanity has really advanced over the millenia. We seem to be the same as our tribal ancestors (mind-wise) but with a veneer of technology.
"If you want convincing science, read the Royal Society or the IPCC".
When the program clearly showed the IPCC were guilty of censoring and hence biasing their reports! This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact - the IPCC has even admitted it. How can you trust an organisation like that?!
When the program clearly showed the IPCC were guilty of censoring and hence biasing their reports! This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact - the IPCC has even admitted it. How can you trust an organisation like that?!
Unfortunately that was also nonsense. The IPCC reviews the existing science published in journals, it doesn't do its own science. Every conclusion in the IPCC report is referenced back to the scientific papers on which it is based, so you can check whether it is biased.
In fact the predictions of warming reported by the IPCC report in 1990 turn out to have correctly predicted the warming in the 17 years since then. The predictions based on the solar cycle would have argued that global warming stopped in the 1990's because solar activity went down after 1990.
It was good to hear the arguments against global warming. For once the programme maker presented a lucid and convincing argument for their case. Would that others should do likewise.
Whether one believes them or not is only academic if that is the realm in which we are dealing but it is not. But we are being asked to make MAJOR changes to our lives and to our children’s future based on the argument for man’s CO2 emissions causing global warming.
YAR123 mentions ‘eugenics’. We all know the horrors of the Nazi extremes, if only through the film ‘The Boys from Brazil’, but I remember the shock of finding out that Sweden was still practising enforced sterilisation in certain cases until the 1960’s. If breeding science can be distorted to such an extent it illustrates the way man’s thinking can go. The debate is never over. Remember Newton’s parting words...
I well remember an article many years ago in the National Geographic magazine illustrating the discovery of man’s habitation of the Arctic sea area pre the last ice age, and I think one of the most telling parts of the documentary was the point about ‘The Weather Machine’ that 30 years ago ‘scientific’ opinion was for the emergence of another mini Ice Age. Thus changes have taken place both within recent and distant memory. To bind ourselves to the latest theory is to make the same mistake those generations before have done and I agree with Tribal777 its depressing how little we have advanced in presenting and dealing with the major issues and dilemmas we face.
Thus to bind our future for next 50-100 years to a theory that may not stand the test of time is very damaging possibly dangerous to our society. We need to have the challenges made here fully argued out, before we are asked to commit ourselves. We can all see the disaster this & the US govt have got us into over their mistake over WMD.
I was less convinced about the argument for the developing world – it seemed rather ‘thin’. However, the western govts have a long history of telling others how they must run their lives in order to fit in with western/European ‘theologies’. Restricting their development is wrong. Encouraging them to avoid the errors we have made in past should allow them to advance at a faster rate then we did. Burning coal & oil to generate electricity may not be wrong, per se, but the excess emissions and ecological harm this can cause probably is - certainly in the short term.
In a recent TV discussion Nigel Lawson was almost shouted down by others over his opposition to the global warming theory. Last night’s programme shows some good arguments why this dogma should be challenged. If the Conservative govt initiated the whole movement as part of their keenness to build a case for more atomic power then maybe he knows more than he is prepared to admit to. In any event, this is yet another why this commitment, we are being asked to make, should be challenged.
Finally, I am sick to death of hearing every time a cow break’s wind some ‘media personality’ screams “global warming” !!
Robbie Writer wrote "Oh but of course, the program rubbished the mainstream of SCIENTISTS, while wheeling out the half-a-dozen skeptics in the pay of Oil/Coal companies. If you bother to investigate, for a start read about Patrick Michaels. The documentary conveniently forgot to ask him where he gets his money!"
It is this very attitude of those who believe there is no more debate or science to be had. Rather then stengthens your ground actually proves the political points made.
I think when the co founder of GREENPEACE speaks out then you have to listen and are you telling me that all believers in co2 based climate reasearch are not tainted by the money they recieve. For your info unlike yourself I have done my own reasearch and unlike you I have kept a open mind.
When the program clearly showed the IPCC were guilty of censoring and hence biasing their reports! This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact - the IPCC has even admitted it. How can you trust an organisation like that?!
Buggered if I know, and to be honest I don't really care - the IPCC is there to bludgeon recalcitrant politicians into a seriously belated realisation that there's something just a smidgeon wrong with the climate, and that the probability, around 90%, is that this is down to human activity. Which gives "sceptics" a 9/1 shot that it's not, but if climate change isn't anthropogenic then that's even *more* reason to take drastic action now. If the world is warming up naturally it's still having serious and highly damaging effects, so we need to actively try to slow the warming trend, or even reverse it. By arguing that humans aren't responsible for climate change, "sceptics" are shooting themselves in the foot.
But sod the IPCC. I prefer to give credence to serious scientific magazines such as New Scientist, which has little doubt that climate change is anthropogenic, and provides empirically-backed research every week to show it. This isn't some liberal greenie rag, but a long-established publication read by, and contributed to by, practicing scientists. Call me naive, but I'm inclined to give their views, backed by empirical research, a little more credence than those of a tiny ex-Trotskyist sect, its pet TV producer, and the few mavericks (some of whom are also allied to the sect, such as Philip Stott) who are "sceptical" of anthropogenic climate change. No, it's not a certainty - nothing in science, even gravity, ever is - and it's more than legit for scientists to use *scientific method* to criticise mainstream theories (sometimes being vindicated despite being labelled cranks - see Alfred Wegener and tectonic drift). What isn't legit is for a scientifically-illiterate TV producer with a serious axe to grind to make a programme full of half-truths, distortions and just plain lies - the prog should be seen as what it was, an angry polemic, and not as any kind of 'scientific' documentary.
We do prefer black/white to the grey of the real world. 
