The Great Global Warming Swindle - C4 (I think)

[Gobbledigook]

Is anyone watching? It's very interesting.

hmm I'm still not sure.

Always the sceptic I couldn't help but notice that a large number of the people they had on their were Americans.....funded by who???? US not exactly being renound for wanting to be more environmentally friendly (before anyone jumps on me - Expat et al - I'm talking US government - not people!).

I got the impression from some of them that they'd rather we all just got on with life as usual - and not try to be "greener"......despite the fact that being greener may (or may not - who really knows?) contribute to a reduction in Global Warming - but that's not the only thing we need to think about with "green" issues. People's health - pollution causes all sorts of health issues so even if we try and reduce it for that problem alone it's worth it IMO.

oh and what did p*ss me off about the prgoramme was a the primary school based diagrams/cartoons showing what they "Thought" used to happen........followed by a long scientific explanation of why it was wrong...

fannyannie they did address the funding - many of them joked about if they only got paid by the big oil companies, they could afford their products.
Most said they had no agenda bar their own research. But yes it's worth contemplating agenda in both areas.

I totally agree about pollution and for health reasons and for reasons of finite resources we need to address fossil fuels and transport. it's the air that we breathe after all.

Actually, there were just as many Canadians on it - Winnipeg, Ottawa.

And quite a few Europeans.

I did think it very pertinent to bring up how developing nations might see Western moves to cut carbon emissions on them and their nations.

Isn't the really important thing that firmly held scientific beliefs should be challenged without fear of losing one's job/funding.

Yes Drops that would be nice wouldn't it? in an ideal world..
Same as developing madicines that save lives and find a way to get it to people who need it the most but cannot afford it.
The decency principle I think it's called...

i am at work at the mo in the office in London and i went straight to the hippy office guy ( we all have one don't we?) and told him about the prog.

i said cosmic rays and the office fell about laughing.

talking about captain scarlett

and hippy office guy said " well they say things like that so that people like you who dont understand scientific stuff take it all in"

and ch4 being rubbish and a minority of scientists and i said " well *i'm getting a 4x4 now"!

of course i'm too skin to do anythng of the kind

skint*

I understand the " Scientific Stuff" what would you like to know? I also happen the think that the program was very clear.

I was confused by this - if teh agenda is to keep the developing nations down then why has Bush only just got onto the GW bandwagon. And then only a bit. Surely he would have been banging on about it to suppress China/India/Africa. I didn't see the end of teh programme so may have missed a bit.

Considering the history of Earth's climate changes - looking over records from times even before humans came along - it doesn't make sense to think the sun isn't a MAJOR player in this scheme of things.

I mean, duh!

I've no problem with teh GW theory being questioned - hope they're right, in fact, then can get rid of those ugly lightbulbs (joke). But what if this theory is also wrong and man is contributing teh to earth's problems - 20 years may be too late to say, oops, got that one wrong.

It might suprise you that trying to suppress developing nations is not on GW's agenda

I'm sure it is not on the GW scientists' agenda - but it might serve the purposes of some of the governments!

BTW - like Paulaplumpbuttom, I don't think anyone would argue that conservation, making sure we have clean air or limiting waste is bad, even if there is no global warming. Nobody wants acid rain etc - so it still makes sense to use our limited resources as efficiently and effectively as possible.

(as an aside - check out what Al Gore's energy useage is - definitely a case of do as I say, not as I do!)

Sorry what I meant to say was that I didn't think it ws Bush'd agenda (meant to put GB instead of GW)

I read that about Al's consumption. What a hypocrit

As a family, we try to reduce our waste and consumption and to recycle because where is all that rubbish going to go?

But I'm very, very skeptical of government use of the media as a propoganda tool and whipping up mass hysteria to control people.

It doesn't take much research to realise that this can often have results as disastrous as anything global warming can produce.

We are big into recycling in our house to and we try to limit of fuel consumption because oil is not an unlimited resource. Its the scaremongering I hate.

expat, that link that Granny posted was dated WELL before that programme on channel 4 was shown, it was from:
"Thursday, November 5, 1998 Published at 15:37 GMT "

So, I don't think it's a matter of BBC having a pop at channel 4

Same here, PPB.

Because it has happened in the past.

People laugh about it now. Oh, yes, how those silly fools just a few centuries ago burned people at the stake for being the 'witches' who whipped up a bad storm whilst King James of Scotland was bringing back his bride from Denmark.

But in reality, hundreds of people lost their lives because of this mass hysteria - and that's just one among hundreds of occassions.

Weather phenomenon has been a tool to control and persecute people for many centuries now, in addition to lots of other things, like extreme nationalism or religion (often these can be linked to weather phenomenon - 'The gods/God is punishing us/you for disagreeing or not obeying. The gods/God has sent this as a good/bad omen, for example).

No one's saying global warming isn't occuring, but there seems to be closed doors all around when people try to debate the causes.

3, I'm really sorry, but the BBC is biased in many ways. This is only one of them.

It doesn't take a genius to see that bias.

The BBC has its own agenda and uses its influence in the media to push this.

I didn't (don't) have time to see the programme, but were they concluding that there's no point at all in reducing emisssions of green-house gas? So the conclusion was that nobody should do anything at all to reduce CO2/methane/NO2 emissions, is that correct?

No, that's not correct. I suggest watching the show. It'll be repeated next Monday on More4.

obviously BBC is bias, as is any TV channel...wasn't disputing that per se...just saying that the newsarticle that was linked too was hardly bias, as it was published over 8 years ago, iykwim

oh, expat...what time on more4 please, do you know?