The Great Global Warming Swindle?

SusanCarter

I haven't watched the whole programme yet as I taped it and went to bed but was just thinking about the fact that there is such an emphasis on global warming and CO2 emissions as almost the only (and most important) green issue to the detriment of all other arguments for "green" practices. Surely as so many people either don't believe in global warming or believe it's "too late" or that it won't happen in their lifetime etc. etc. we should be putting forth other reasons for good environmental practice rather than focusing on this one thing? How about trying to think of how else things which reduce carbon emissions can have a positive impact on the environment. Here's some to start:

- use car less: Less generally unpleasant car fumes for us to breath in. Makes out limited supply of fuel last longer.

- use less stuff generally/produce less rubbish: Makes all our supplies of things last longer. Reduces the size/number of disgusting horrible smelly landfill sites.

- compost plant/food waste: Good for your garden/plants or for someone else's. Wheelie bin is less smelly. Less waste in landfill sites.

Ken68

Hi Susan...'Green practices' are also cheaper.
B ig swindle tho if what some scientists say is true.
The programme seems to suggest that because government money was available for research into the environment, experts just made it up.

billy_the_kid_2

I think the issue that CO2 is to blame for global rise in temperature and the rise is due to us is the major crux. Had reasoned scientific debate been allowed, and all the facts presented on the table, then the common man could have come to the same conclusions as the experts banging their heads on the wall in this prog. I am mortified to say that I have bought into the paraonia. Indeed a collegue of mine told me about two years ago that the current global warming is just a warming cycle from the sun, and we are just comming out of an Ice age. I wish I would have taken him more seriously.

This aside, we all should still be very careful with out energy use, if only to keep the existing stocks of fossil fuels going for longer, saving us money and investing into new technologies.

It was a brilliant program, and great, if uncomfortable viewing.

Jem8472

I just watched
"The great global warming swindle"?

It was very impressive, shows that all of this man made global warming is rubbish without the backing of crediable science.
Also put the boot a bit into Al Gore a little and his film. That he failed to mention about the "complex relationship" between CO2 and temprature is that CO2 actually trails global temprature by about 800 years, not the other way around as he implies.

So it seems that all this global warming stuff is being driven by............. can anyone that did not watch it guess???





£$£$£$£$£$$£$£$

Money as always!
There was one statistic in the film that I was amazed at (well lots actually but this is a good one)

When Bush Sr was president there was about $170,000,000 being spent on enviromental studies and on weather research etc.
That is now over $2billion being spent. That is a massive increase. So lots of money around so lots of people jump on the band wagon and get some of the pie.

So what is the cause of "global warming" it turns out that it is more to do with the sun, water vapour, cosmic rays and thigs like that, nothing to do with us.
Also all the global warming predictions are based on us putting 1%CO2 into the atmosphere. It is currently 0.45%, last year 0.42% and the year before that lower! So no wonder their models show temps rising, they are putting in over inflated information.

Now I will be looking foraward to reading the comebacks to my post. According to the scientists in the programme you will be treated as a heretic would have been a few thousand years ago, or a Holocaust denier. So we shall see what the reply is.:rolleyes:

But as I always thought this global warming argument is being used by goverments to controll the masses. Also it seems to be that they are also useing it to keep down the devloping nations, trying to get them to use solar and wind energy which won't allow them to catch up with us in the west.

billy_the_kid_2

And the entomologist who had to threaten legal action to get his name removed from the IPCC report on contagious diseases and global warming. He rubbished the reports persective on malaria risk and increasing temp. Malaria was only removed from Scandanavia in the last centry.

ka7e

One documentary does not/cannot/should not undermine the huge amount of well-documented evidence that carbon emissions by the developed world are out-of-control and detrimental to the environment. The $2 billion dollars spent in the US on envirnmental research is a sop to the fact that they are the biggest global producers (per capita) of CO2 emissions.

To sit back and imagine that the byproducts of the combustion engine and consumer consumption have no negative impact on our planet is niave at best. So what if we're only coming out of an ice-age? We are doing it too quickly for the planet to adjust properly. Certainly too fast for us to adapt efficiently to climate change. All we can do is install air-conditioning and whinge about not being able to water our gardens!

Recent reports suggest that the latest findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been edited by government invigilators to omit reports of "positive feedback" - measurable changes that pointed to possible accelerated climate change. Article here.

There is a very good article in this weeks New Scientist about carbon offsetting. It says that the "dump, burn and offset" attitude of companies and governments is fundamentally flawed, as you cannot possibly offset the level of current CO2 emmissions.

The average per capita CO2 emmissions for the UK are 11.1 tonnes per year;

1. 4.68 tonnes Goods and Services (clothing, waste disposal, street lighting, consumer durables, recycling)
2. 3.25 tonnes Food production and transport
3. 1.03 tonnes Car travel
4. 0.79 tonnes Household gas consumption
5. 0.48 tonnes Household construction and maintenance
6. 0.47 tonnes Household electricity consumption
7. 0.36 Flights

To offset this, each one of us would have to either plant 505 trees in the tropics annually, or install 85 square metres of solar panels.

Cardew

This is an extension of the discussion in this thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=346106

There is a very sound argument that we should husband the earth's resources; which is surely the main reason for the environmental - green - movement.

However the global warming/increased carbon dioxide debate is a heaven sent opportunity to use scare tactics to achieve a laudable aim. (in the same way as my mother used to tell me certain practices would make me go blind!!)

Also what an opportunity for people to make money! From the Chancellor increasing tax for planes leaving UK, to those promising to make you carbon neutral – for a price – everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. Nobody more so than Al Gore(who doesn’t practice what he preaches) and sees the green movement as his key to the White House

The trouble is, as ever, scientists argue and get huge sums for their research; so what hope have we mortals of knowing the true situation.

My gut feeling is we are simply being taken for suckers.

SusanCarter

ka7e wrote: »

One documentary does not/cannot/should not undermine the huge amount of well-documented evidence that carbon emissions by the developed world are out-of-control and detrimental to the environment.

As I thought I'd stated in my original post (although perhaps not explicitly enough), many people already don't believe in the whole CO2/global warming thing. My point is why not promote the other benefits (green or otherwise) of carbon reducing measures (as per my list)? That way everyone has reason to do them regardless of whether they belive in the CO2 theory. Surely it is easier for example to reason for reduced car use on the basis of how unpleasant it is due to car fumes to walk near a busy road than on the basis of something which someone doesn't believe or thinks is pointless?

elysiumuk_2

You really can't base your opinion on whether Global Warming exists or not based on a TV documentary. Try and be a little more scientific and look at the data.

If you can't be bothered looking at all the evidence then at least look at this graph http://zfacts.com/p/226.html.

The evidence is overwhelming, and I can't see how it can be in the G8's benefit for global warming to exist. It is certainly not a major contributer to GDP in any of the G8 countries and isn't likely to be. The research is costing multi-millions of pounds, and while climate scientists may be benefiting from extra job security, I fail to see how having to use more expensive renewable fuels is beneficial to the economy.

Pandora123_2

I watched some of it, and thought the programme glossed over some important points. The message seemed to be: Don't worry, don't feel guilty, humans have nothing to do with global warming (and, by implication, environmental destruction).

Example: It was stated that the polar bears survived the last global warming and they would survive this one. But the last time polar bears survived global warming, people hadn't been destroying global fish stocks (which affect populations of seals, which polar bears eat).

Also, they stated that animals produced several more times (can't remember exact figures) of CO2 than cars did, but how many of those animals are raised for food and therefore attributable to human actions?

Here is a simple but interesting ecological footprint quiz. You can see how much different lifestyle changes will affect your environmental impact, and another interesting article on how your diet affects the environment.

CO2 emissions may be a small (or even insignificant) part of our destructive environmental impact, but we are absolutely to blame for poisoning the air/water/ground, decimating animal and plant populations, clearcutting rainforests, etc etc.

Justie

well if it's just a natural phenomenon then there's very little we can do about it but IF CO2 is the cause then I'd rather know that I've done something now to try and reduce my emissions and to persuade governments and big business to do the same than to think 'I wish' a little way down the line. There will always be disagreement in the scientific community and for those who point at the amount of money going into research that supports greenhouse gasses as the cause then I'm sure the likes of those in the documentary and who shout loudest in the 'natural phenomena' lobby aren't complaining about the publicity and any increase in the funding that comes their way through it either.

We will never know for sure until there's nothing that can be done to reverse it. In the mean time I'm going for the belt and braces approach in the hope that it might do something and if nothing else in the mean time I'm reducing my use of the world's resouces and saving some money too.