Friday, March 09, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Update

As I mentioned Here on Monday, a new documentary on global warming aired yesterday on BBC channel 4, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Spiked-online editor Brendan O’Neill, has a long op-ed on the show and its director, Martin Durkin. Its worth a READ. If you would like to reserve a DVD copy of the documentary for your own library go HERE. I am still hoping that a Canadian broadcaster might find enough of a backbone to air this program here in Canada, but I am not going to hold my breath. Bits and pieces of the show are showing up on youtube as I write this. Curently there are 5 6 parts posted that I can find, making up about 15 minutes of the 90 minute documentary. They are not the best of quality but they do give you a good gist of what the show is about. I would imagine more parts will show up soon if not the whole show.
H/T to Jack's Newswatch

4 comments:

ABFreedom said...

" I am still hoping that a Canadian broadcaster might find enough of a backbone to air this program here in Canada"

ROFL... your kidding right? .. the gov has started to swindle money, ain't no way they're going to screw that up now...

Mark Francis said...

"Whatever viewers may have thought about the new theories put forward in Swindle to explain global warming (personally, I found the replacement of the widespread, all-encompassing manmade theory with an all-encompassing cosmic ray theory – sort of ‘It’s the Sun wot done it!’ – a little unconvincing), there’s no denying that the film poked some very big holes in the global warming consensus."

The joke is, there's nothing there that's new. Solar radiance 'fluctuations' is know to not be the cause (they are incredibly minor and cyclical, AND MEASURED VERY ACCURATELY), neither are any as-yet-not-detected significant changes in cosmic ray quantity.

Actually, that experiment with the cosmic rays created water droplets too small to form into clouds, and can't produce clouds in the lower troposphere anyway (where it matters)... and satellite data shows that the troposphere is warming, not cooling. Heavier cloud formation in the troposphere would likely cause global cooling, actually.

Anyway, I find it hilarious that the massive volumes of varied data detailing global warming are ignored/derided, while one or two studies (and often they aren't even that) with inconclusive results get presented as some proof of global warming being a sham.

I'm all for questioning the status quo, but the race by a few to ignore the evidence in favour of a few quack theories is more pathological (or political) than anything.

Remember cold fusion? That caused quite a stir, and was 'proven' in a lab as well. Problem is, no one could duplicate the results.

Global warming science has been, and consitnues to be, rigorously reviewed and added to.

Tim said...

AB... If they can dream about how man is is causing the planet to destruct, I guess I can dream the some in the MSM might want to show both sides of the story. That does not mean that either of those dreams will ever come true however...

Tim said...

Mark... I have just finished watching the whole documentary. It goes far beyond just the "cosmic rays", "cloud formation" and its all the "suns" fault. As you probably already know, I don't expect this documentary to change the minds of the hard core "CO2 is going to kill us all" types out there as their minds are made up on the issue. As are many of the "this whole man made warming is crap" ideology. What I do know is that there is not enough of the "other side" of this equation being given any time in the main stream for people to be able to come to a conclusion. The media is feeding the frenzy by only publishing the doomsday message. The debate is not over as many would like us to believe. It has not even begun. At the moment the only way one can get get the other side of this story is to search out the info for ones self. Why is that? Why is that anything that goes against what the IPCC and its followers say, is given very little if any coverage or claimed as unsubstantiated? What are they afraid of?

You are freely allowed to believe the science as you wish to as am I. We simply come to different conclusions based on the evidence to date. I hold the right to change my mind on the topic as new information comes to light. I hope that you would agree to do the same. This is in fact what good science is about and what good scientists do. So far I do not see the IPCC following that rule. They speak as if all the hypothesis given them are in deed facts. They are not.