So Global Warming is dead. Who’s mourning?

The brilliant documentary on Channel 4 last night, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", in interviews with top meteorologists, geologists, oceanographers, climatologists, physicists and others worldwide, utterly destroyed the global warming argument and exposed it as a myth. I hope we will all now see sense.

Related posts:

  1. I am a global warming skeptic: Would you agree that this is a decent reason to question it?
  2. global warming
  3. If global warming(climate change) is the reason for everything bad in the world, why did ice ages and floods and diverse weather occur before man became a prolific species on the planet?
  4. Do you believe in man-made global warming? What about the possibility of global cooling?
  5. Answer to global warming?
3 Responses to “So Global Warming is dead. Who’s mourning?”

  1. sophieandlili - January 28th, 2010

    I doubt it, doesn't usually work that way! People have a tendancy to believe what they want to believe and the truth doesn't get in the way of a good story. Circumstantial evidence has been the undoing of many a criminal case and although sometimes the facts fit the scene that doesn't necessarily mean that they are relevant or appropriate.

  2. LuvvieIg - January 28th, 2010

    Global warming isn't exactly dead! This programme merely pointed out what I had long believed, that humans are not real reason for it. The Earth is still warming up as part of a normal cycle and will probably get a lot hotter before it cools again, and I do not think that any attempts by us to reduce our carbon emissions is going to have the slightest effect on it.
    The best thing we can do is have a jolly good time before we get fried!

  3. chrisdurr - January 28th, 2010

    1: The main reason that TV programmes get made is to get viewers so the advertising space can be sold at a profit. Controversy sells.
    2: A well-crafted documentary can make almost anything seem plausible, if you can get convincing looking "talking heads"
    3: You can find a convincing looking/sounding "expert" to support any theory, from the eminently sensible to the crackpot- I've seen some very convincing looking advocates of "intelligent design" which the entire scientific community (except pseudo-scientists of the religious right in the USA) dismiss as nonsense.
    4: Given point (1), and given the scientific expertise of TV producers (i.e. none), it's also not beyond the wit of man to suspect that experts can be selectively quoted or cut to make their words support a specific point of view. See;
    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

    What is beyond debate is that climate change is happening, and we should all be sh1tting ourselves about the consequences, which could range from relatively unimportant (like shorter Alpine skiiing season). the positive (e.g. Norfolk disappearing :-) to the critical- like wars breaking out as countries fight it out for natural resources, and huge number of people become refugees and migrants as their homeland is no longer able to support them, and widespread loss of natural habitats as plants and animals struggle to cope with new climates.

    There is still plenty of room for debate as to how much man is contributing to climate change, which factors are the most important, how these factors will affect each other, and where we'll end up. However the consensus of scientific opinion (which involves a LOT more scientists than the few that can be accomodated in 1 hour of TV) is that it's mostly (if not all) man made, and the consequences could be serious. It might be worth following what is said in the New Scientist, because that seems to have very balanced reporting, and much better coverage than TV (You'll notice that TV science stories are mostly wednesdays and thursdays, as lazy execs get that week's copy of New Scientist and decide to make a story about it.

    What makes it difficult for people to understand is that burning fossil fuels is not the only thing affecting climate. It's a hugely complicated systems issue, influenced by factors from airliner contrails to volcanic activity. When you're doing an experiment with the planet as your lab, simultaneously trying to look at hundreds of factors that effect your result, and the experiment is taking tens or hundreds of years, then you're going to get some pretty inconclusive results to start with. However, they're looking a lot less inconclusive now, especially as scientist's computer models of climate improve.

    So far from mourning the death of Global Warming, I regret to say that the 4 horsemen of the acpocalypse are toasting its rude health.

Leave a Response