If the program had investigated the level of uncertainty surrounding the theory of man-made global warming, then that would have been very commendable.
However, what it did was turn a certain level of uncertainty (which exists about ANY scientific theory - this is the nature of science) into a "scientific truth" that is supposedly being repressed by the mainstream science community to protect their own vested insterests.
Anyone who knows a little bit about the scientific process knows that, whereas there may exist some muscle flexing and some protectionism in a particular scientific community (and believe me, I have experienced it first hand), it is never to this incredible scale as suggested by the program: if a particular theory is false, it will come out! If the evidence against it is not strong enough, the objections will disappear when the particular scientists that hold them retire or die.
Yes this is a nice idea but we all know once the media bandwagon gets going truth takes a backseat. I don't pretend to know thr full truth but I am 100% certian both sides are using the affair to further their own ends. The pro-nuclear power brigade are loving the global warming stories and Blair and Bush love nuclear power, and that means we can make more nuclear weapons. But will they be letting other countries develop nuclear power then? What about Iran? Won't that be better for the planet? And if it is C02 that's the culprit and weeliminate that from our emissions then can we go on polluting with everything else in the safe knowledge we are doing no harm. My worries are that the whole debate is being trivialised by those with most to gain, and if Durkin has re-dressed the balance a little so be it. If it makes us stop and think and stop sounding off about the apocalypse as a way of manipulating society by keeping us too scared to think, then it has done us a service.
Maybe... but I had the feeling the whole documentary was focussing on the wrong issues. We can not simply keep on polluting as we do, we have to find ways of becoming more sustainable. So scaremongering may indeed not be the right thing to do, but Durkin's "nothing is happening" approach is equally unhelpful.
Durkin didn't say nothing is happening, his focus was on C02 specifically as a cause of global warming. That is not the same as saying let us carry on polluting the planet. It is a specifc point about a specific issue. What he was saying was that the theory is being treated as fact despite many scientists who do not believe it to be fact. Theory is not fact, it is theory until conclusively proven and it has not been. Many may be convinced by the theory but that does not make it fact. Just because many believe something to be true doesn't make it so - it's just like religion!
Global warming caused by C02 has become a dogma and all dogma must be challenged to prove itself.
I have nticed that scientific proof seems to come from those who willing cite theories of others, but only those that back up what they believe. They do not seem to have the originality of thought to develop their own theories. Yes levels of CO2 are rising man needs to take responsibilty for the resources of the planet and recycle etc,, but... when the politicians and the brown rice brigade start getting all emotional and dictating, pontificating etc ,,and believe me these guys are effusive bombasts who like the sound of their own voice or in this case type, the politicians will listen especially if the soin guys can use it and help make a case for more taxation etc, and companies have been looking for a new sales gimmick.. global warming is the new gimmick. Return england to its green and pleasant land and plant trees all over dartmoor, and saddleworth moor and Scotland the trees we have cut down all over the world would easily absorb the co2, cut the human population by 50 % back to 4bil as it was 40 years ago.. oh hang on a min is there some corolation there, POp increase of 50% from 4 to 6Bil in 40 years all that CO2 emmission that could explain the higher co2 levels??? Anyway CO2 isn't what is causing the warming. the sun is getting a little larger, as it is dying, we are a little closer due to orbit, there is a lot higher cosmic rads than 10 years ago, but it will sort itself out. Change is a natural order, go with it, fight it and we'll make things worse.
Your whole argument rests on data from 1976 on. However, I think everyone accepts that there are short-term fluctuations in the weather which cannot be fully explained. It is perhaps more pertinent to note that CO2 levels reached 2000 ppm, six times the current level, for millions of years without "destroying the planet".
There is no doubt that you put an excellent case forwards CobblyWorlds but so do others in response to your points, though you obviously do not agree with them, which is fine. You are obviously passionate in your beliefs and that is to be applauded, and no I am not a scientist which is why I find it the whole thing so difficult. What I am is dubious and skeptical of all sides when they are so often not acting in the public interest but their own. Both sides. All I am saying is that Durkin has provoked some debate and the C02 theory is still theory - even if the arguments for the theory are very good. How can it be conclusively proven to eveyon's satisfaction?
