The Great Global Warming Swindle (Ch 4 9pm 8/3/07)

Do you think that the common version of global warming and climate change is correct?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
I have always thought global warming was a feed, anyone remember summer of 76?
The weather does what it wants, and will do so again no matter how much deodourant we wear.


War Hero
I started a thread on this about a month ago:

I have also done some pretty heavy mathematical work on this (not through choice but toward a qualification) it really captured my interest though, the mathematical models used to predict climate change are absolute crap, produced by alleged "leaders in their field" they do not contain any real science more a bunch of guesses and what ifs.

I already knew about the 800 year carbon gap and the relationship of weather to sun activity (neither of which are included in the standard weather model) I was very interested in how this has been driven by politicians though, shocking! The problem is these scientists will get reduced funding now and less of an opportunity to prove their point, this is a Billion pound industry, who in authority is going to admit it's complete fantasy? What about the embarrassment? financial incompetence? political advantage?

One thing good comes out of the great swindle, at least people have started to think about the huge amounts of waste they are producing daily. Unfortunately, especially now that George has been convinced, the third world will never be permitted to reach their full potential.
Alleluia! A mainstream media outlet has at last been daring enough to present the evidence as seen by many experts, most of whom appear to have no axe to grind.

I have always believed that the global warming theories of today were just an excuse for pseuds to make money and that humankind's arrogance knows no bounds.

Unless you are bereft of useable intelligence, like the creationists, the historical record shows that man has been a pimple on the backside of the Earth for a very brief period and that temperature fluctuations have occurred often in its history. As one of the contributors said, if you use computer models for anything, you can make them predict what you want by changing your input assumptions. That appears to be what the global doom-mongers have managed in this case - oh and made a fantastic living from peddling ballox!

It was interesting to hear that Maggie jumped on the global warming bandwagon so that she could big up nuclear electricity generation. Now, there was a canny bird!

The only thing we need to worry about now is just how much of our GDP is being squandered on this nonsense.
The world does seem to be getting warmer, we cam measure that, so it isn't a con. The problem is why. I agree that the process could be a completely natural process that we have no control over whatsoever and nothng we do will change what will happen. There are some of the scientific community who support this view. Equaly the global warming- greenhouse gas theory has many adherants and equally a good publicity machine. I think both camps are as yet unable to prove their theories conclusively, we just don't know enough about the mechanisms involved

Now if the bunch who say it is all natural are right any thing we do will have little or no impact, we are b*ggered. If the greenhouse mob are right then we can do something.

Which way should we gamble, because that is what we are being asked to do, gamble on opposing scientific theories. If being less wastefull had no benefit I would probably suggest we prepare for the worst rather than try to change it, but being less wasteful does have a positive side, using less energy does cost you and me less, so that is 'god'. Equally many of the primary resources we use are finite and potentially costly to produce so 'renewing' as much as possible has an element of sense and potentially will cost us less. Just to give a 'for example' here in the UK for as long as I can remeber and probably for a long time before that we have had to pay people to take our rubbish away and dispose of it. Some time ago my ship was based in Mombassa for several months and there the local rubbish contractor paid us for the priviledge of taking away our rubbish whilst in harbour because he could make more money by recycling it. This is an art we have lost. So perhaps there are sgnificant benefits for us as a society if we move more to renewable energy and recycle far more of our waste rather than just sticing it in big holes in the ground.


I've always had a bit of a problem with this one too.

No one seems to consider the 19th/early 20th century when all the mills and foundrys etc were pumping out the [email protected] into the atmosphere all over Europe and the States (think London killer smogs) and the amount of pollution that must have been caused by the two world wars. What about all the steam trains, coal fired ships and household coal fires - none of this is ever mention in relation to global warming, why? didn't it have any effect?

Or is it because it's all in the past that it won't help secure all that loverly money they get?


Lantern Swinger
Until I watched the programme last night I was as much a sheep as most people on this subject I guess. The number of "experts" that are constantly rolled out sounded as if their research was scientifically sound and that the consensus was that Global Warming was largly a man-made phenomenon. I like to think I am a reasonably intelligent bloke and have a naturally enquiring mind and always try to see an argument from both sides, but I got taken in by the steamroller of popular "evidence" and pure weight of public opinion which I admit, blindsided me to any other explanation.
After watching the programme last night I now feel I have been duped - or at the very least, we as a population have not been given the full facts. Well done to C4 for airing the programme and hopefully sparking what we should have had from the begining - a proper debate on the subject, usung ALL available data and not just CO2 emissions as the basis.

Dusty Jack - no more the sheep
I do recall (I wish I could remember where) reading a report which stated that only 6% of the global warming was directly attributable to humans..
Most was direct from the Amazon (and other) rainforest due to natural vegetation rotting etc.
The politicians have jumped on the bandwagon purely as another ruse to get our money with the "green tax" pretence..
dustyjack said:
Until I watched................ available data and not just CO2 emissions as the basis.

Dusty Jack - no more the sheep

Perhaps we should treat all Ministers / MPs / PC Dogmatists / 'experts' / with the contempt they deserve, until they have positive proof.
But as some are now beginning to realise, it's a way to grab money ( a thing that this government and its cronies has down to a fine art) for populist, but unfounded and unaccepted by all scientists, beliefs.

If they were really so interested in cutting the emissions, why do they allow jet travel (something that the government loves indulging in), car racing and other high pollution pursuits to continue - 'look at me I am so in touch', cronyism, the need to be with the high life, rich donors perhaps - or am I too cycnical .......??


Book Reviewer
Theres some fairly simple things that could be done which would save energy and cost.

I think one of the easiest would be the doubled up packs of biscuits and the like, it doesn't need wrapping on both pack and then another layer to put the packs together, just a sign saying two packs for x amount, look in the supermarket on your next trip and see how many items this applies to, not just extra energy and costs to prepare but more rubbish to dispose of. A simple thing to stop.


Lantern Swinger
Global Warming who cares I will be long dead before the world implodes or cooks its self to bits.
Live for the moment, live on the edge and save room for other buggers.

I am here for a good time not a long time !!!!!!

On your first point if you wait untilthese is conclusive proof you will be too late to take action if of course any action is required.

Of course it is a way to try to get funding for this and that, if it wasn't global warming it would be something else so no real change there at all. Stopping them grabbing money for global warming stuff will not stop people grabbing money for pet projects just change the project.

I don't think motor racing itself is that carbon heavy, but the vast numbers of car/bike goons that go to watch the events, they must shift a hell of a lot of carbon. As for air travel the actual carbon spend per passenger mile has falen significantly in recent years, the real problem is the increase in passenger miles, but what government s going to commit political suicide by stopping the great unwashed from having their holidays

Latest Threads