I got this programme off UKNova. I've always believed that global warming is natural and not caused by man and this programme confirms this. There is too much hysteria on this subject. It's almost got to a stage that if an expert believes GW is natural, then they are accused of being a pawn of big business/oil companies.
Bush and Howard are right to oppose Kyoto and Blair/Brown are wrong.

The Director of this film has been involved in a few controversies in the past I believe... C4 have also received complaints from some of the scientists in the film stating that they believe they have been deliberately misrepresented by the film's makers... So not that interesting really...

Of course this is going to happen, this is exactly what the film is about. too many scientific institutions and university are dependant on government funding, without it these people would have no income. There is immense pressure on these institutions to earn there keep by towing the government line. And besides there is only one of the scientists features who claims to have been misrepresented, and he still spoke the same words that was used in the film. Global warming is now a political issue, and as we will all agree regardless of which side of the fence we are on, once something becomes political the truth is irrelevant.

I don't know if this film contains the truth, but it certainly is interesting, i cannot even begin to imagine how you would come to the conclusion that something is not interesting because there are people who do not agree with it??? that makes no sense whatsoever. This show clearly demonstrates what many people have been saying recently that a thousand years ago the earth was much warmer than it is today, the earth went through a period of global warming in the 900's and then cooled down to a mini ice age in the 1600's and since then has been warming again. This is fact, no-one can dispute this. The only argument is whether man is contributing to an increased rise over the last few years. It suits our current political agenda to say yes to this question.

We are getting the man made global warming story shoved down our throats every single hour of every single day and we need some balance. The whole thing is getting ridiculous, everytime there is a storm somewhere in the world it is down to global warming and therefore our fault. until 50 years ago are you saying that we never had storms, floods, droughts, ice ages, heating periods and severe weather?? of course we did. Whether you believe in it or not it is still a good idea to see what the other side have to say. If it were not for people prepared to go against the generally held views of governments and religion we would still be living on a flat earth and burning witches. ( in wonder how much co2 a burning witch would produce? ;-)

Hmm... The biggest Institutions are based in the US where they're all very busy not toeing the Government line...

"Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator."

Seems pretty damning to me... But then the Director that made it is used to doing this...

"In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made."

Monbiot


Absolutely...

It is not interesting, to me, because it is so obviously biased bearing in mind the complaints about the maker, and some of his 'sources' like Tim Ball. In just the same way Al Gore's 'documentary' isn't interesting to me because I don't believe the facts would be presented in an impartial manner... And I believe that his press secretary has now admitted that there are "inaccuracies" and "flaws" in the film...

I agree but this film doesn't do the flip side any favours at all...

Yes it is, but as I said earlier I don't believe this film will help anyone... And no I haven't seen it nor Al Gore's effort... I prefer to read about both sides from slightly more authoritative sources... And I'm probably leaning a little to the sceptics...

Hmm... If you hold Polly down I'll light the fire starters...

For The Observer, read Guardian = bunch of trendy leftist bunny huggers. What do you expect them to write?

Just read this article last night.

Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

Both men hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause. But they think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

Full article:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6460635.stm

you should also read this:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...032572,00.html

Well said. Take the current drought in Australia. Current hysteria is that it is the worst ever in Australian history. Do some research and you will find that the drought in the 1920s was much worse and the one at the end of the 19th century even more so. Yet now because of the drought, hysteria about CO2 is at an all time high. Looks like Australia is going to vote in a socialist government in October (sheep-like IMO), Pete Garrett is already making noises about zero growth in coal production. The Lefties could seriously undermine our economic prosperity and it could all end in tears.

But these days it seems that an awful lot of govenrments and religions are the ones denying climate change. At least that's how it looks on this side of the Atlantic.

Sure they are, but this is not an opinion piece... They are reporting facts here about someone that may be seeking legal redress...

How anyone can seriously argue that all those scientists are in the lap of the governments that often fund them is comical! The logical way to stop the warming is to make serious - and I mean SERIOUS - cutbacks to economies, such as banning transport and putting a cap on home heating temperatures. What government is going to advocate that?

Australia's population in the 1920's vs 20 mill plus today?

Show the stats which say this is as bad as the 1920's.

'socialist', 'sheep like', 'lefties could undermine our economic prosperity', 'hysteria' etc. How's Genghis Khan out on your side of the political spectrum?

Vested interest in mining?

OzTennis

Should ensure a percentage of the popular vote somewhere in the low single figures...

C,mon, us righties are allowed a voice too...!

Now then, who's turn to deal...? Must be yours Attila...

Right is acceptable, extreme right is another thing.

I laughed at the 'sheep like' voting a 'socialist' government in. 'Socialist' is what you call Labour (or New Labour) to frighten people that there are 'commies' under their bed and this was the politics of Bob Menzies. The reality is that Labour and Liberal (Tory) governments are not as different in practice as they seem in rhetoric.

For example, New Labour has hardly undone all Maggie's legislation to reduce Trade Union power or stopped the NHS being privatised by the back door, or presided over an increase in industrial action. I suspect there won't be sweeping changes when one of the last remaining Liberal governments in Australian state or federal politics goes.

This type of politics is characterised by a 'sheep like' procession to get one's hair blue rinsed, to invade for those weapons of mass destruction they are still looking for, to call for halts to immigration (keeping people like Amazulu out - no, of course it is certain types of immigrants which this brand of politics wants to halt).

OzTennis