Archives

After two decades, the long scientific and political debate over whether human activities are warming up the Earth is finally over. Or is it? The world scientific community says so. Even the most recalcitrant governments, including the Bush administration, reluctantly agree. But the British media is characteristically unwilling to let an old row simply fade away.

On Thursday, Channel 4 will screen what it calls a "polemical and thought-provoking documentary" - The Great Global Warming Swindle - by one of the environmentalists' favourite hate figures, film-maker Martin Durkin.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

Link to the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl


But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

Well, somebody's lying. One side points directly to ice core data and says "This is clear evidence that what's happening now is different. The other side points to the exact same data and says precisely the opposite. So who is right? To me that's all that matters. Either the current warming trend (that much seems to be accepted) is or is not man made. I think it's time to look for source data and figure it out for ourselves.

**EDIT**
Subatomic particles from cosmic rays produce clouds, warming or cooling the planet? WHAT?!?

Well either burn less gas to save the planet, or burn less gas to save our republic. Either way, we got to burn less gas.

When I lock horns with an anti-warming nut, I'll simply concede and say

You know you may be right. Hey what do you think about importing oil from Iran, should we stop?In the end, it's easy to convince most anyone that we have to curtail consumption, doesn't matter what argument you use.

I finally watched the video. There were some interesting points raised that I certainly wouldn’t know enough about to argue. But mostly I’m mystified by the implication there’s some special interest being served by the global warming proponents.
So there’s some evil cabal hyping the science to make money off the global warming issue. Well if it can out-earn the oil industry by much, I'd like to invest in it.

The argument is that there is money to be made in grants and research funding to study global warming. If global warming isn't a threat then those funds would dry up. Some people have invested a lot of effort on global warming and it is all they know. Dr. Hedi Cullen(sp?) from the weather channel for one has a lot to lose if there is no global warming.

So, while there might be people on the right that want to fight against the believe in global warming to fill their pocket books, there are also people on the left fighting for the believe for the same reason.

I've always held the believe that we should do something "just in case". A little money spent on a non-existant problem is worse than lives lost, and the amount that will have to be invested in technology to survive in a world changed though global warming.

I did not see it, but is there where the story originated skeptics had death threats or suggestions they would be made into parahs if they did not support the climate change theory?

This media item, as well as other aspects of climate change are dealt with rather thoroughly at

http://www.realclimate.org

It is a long reading assignment, but with the prospect of paying great dividends. An upcoming 'global warming debate' is announced in the 12 March 07 entry.

Though presented in a 'not necessarily unbiased' website, this:

http://gristmill.grist.org./skeptics

Is quite well-organized. I have not read though enough of it to call it fair and balanced, but the initial indications are all positive.

DAS

The argument is that there is money to be made in grants and research funding to study global warming. If global warming isn't a threat then those funds would dry up. Some people have invested a lot of effort on global warming and it is all they know. Dr. Hedi Cullen(sp?) from the weather channel for one has a lot to lose if there is no global warming.

So, while there might be people on the right that want to fight against the believe in global warming to fill their pocket books, there are also people on the left fighting for the believe for the same reason.

I've always held the believe that we should do something "just in case". A little money spent on a non-existant problem is worse than lives lost, and the amount that will have to be invested in technology to survive in a world changed though global warming.

I tend to agree with Tom's statement.

I watched the link posted in this thread. And knew peoples statements could very well been taken out of context. Just as Gores presentation could be. I wont pay to watch Gores show. So if theres a link to it I will watch it also.

I belive we need to do something. Heck every one of us here is doing more than 99.9999999% of the general public. But that dosent mean I belive in the dooms day stuff that the eco bunch are spewing. Anytime the dooms day crowds start yelling and chanting there stuff,,, no matter what it is. They basicly get put on ignore until Im ready to dig into what ever it is.

Just because funding for something is there dosent mean its important. Just ask any x-director of a drug recovery program. Or the founding fathers of nuke power. Or eduction or studies of human behavior. There always seems to be money around for research. Dosent seem to matter if its good or bad science. The end result seems to not matter if money cant be made on it.

The debate will rage on until one side runs out of money ,, or are proven wrong. The middle will never be looked at. We have become manicly extreme in our views and actions. Its a shame. If this was so bloody important. Why isnt there a world wide debate held on TV. Both sides square off with there data. Seems simple to me. But alas we doing nothing simple anymore and 99%of the time wrong.

psy

One thing I found interesting is the guy from BBC Canada that I talked to yesterday was shocked when I told him pretty much every American has heard of global warming. He said other countries don't report on it as much and he didn't think the general public in other countries even think about it.

I may have misquoted him, and if he happens to drop by he can correct me, but thats what my understanding of what he said was.