The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Jem8472

Firstly the graph. That is excatly what they were showing in the programme that the graph does not show the correct picture. CO2 chases global temprature no leads it!

Also for the people who watched it what about the effect that the sun has. Which is bigger than anythign humans could ever do even if we tried out hardest? What about the effect of clouds on weather and global dimming? What about the effects of cosmic rays and solar winds. There are a lot lot bigger forces at play than just us burning fossile fules. I agree it would be better to find better fules but I do object to being told by the goverment that I have to pay more tax on something that is happening anyway and we are doing very very little to contribute.
In that programme one scientist said that of all the CO2 going into the atmosphere wer are adding about 0.01%

Also I have just looked at a little bit of that Zfacts website. Wow badly lay out graphs without proper lables, really good evidence!

http://zfacts.com/p/202.html
the fist graph has the axsis lables but the lines dont tell you what the two different ones are pointing to.
The middle graph is not labled and we have no idea what any of the lines mean.
the last graph we have one lable and again two lines that are not showen on the graph what they are ment to be showing.
I would not trust "facts" from someone that cannot put a graph together properly

Hereward

The programme is also being discussed in this thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=394619

kethry

this is my own feelings on this programme, which i did watch last night, and i wrote this on my blog last night:

"Watched this programme on C4 tonight. It was interesting in that it presented a whole other side to the great global warming debate, and much of what the scientists had to say made a great deal of sense.

I’m not fully au fait with the whole global warming thing. I just went to my favorite source (wikipedia) to read up on what they say on the subject… and i nearly fell asleep.

The politics aside, however, (and the programme went into quite a lot of thought provoking detail about the politics of global warming)… Maybe the really important part of it all though, is this: at the end of the day, whether mankind is responsible for global warming or not, its almost irrelevant. Whats more important, i think, is that many of the changes that environmentalists suggest people make for the sake of the environment, be continued. Ultimately, if you’re reducing your carbon footprint by driving less, flying less, or using group transport (train, bus, etc.) then that’s going to be good for the local environment (who wants to live in a fume choked city?). If you’re turning your lights off when you leave the room, then thats going to be good for your fuel bill (and means that the coal/oil/gas lasts that lil bit longer). if you’re growing your own veg then thats going to mean your health is better (assuming you’re eating it) as you’re not filling yourself with the stuff that gets sprayed on commercial veg, you’re getting out in the sunshine and working, which is good for both mental and physical health, and you’re (in the long run) saving money. You’re also saving food miles, which affects the local environment again.

From my perspective, and maybe this is a somewhat simplistic one: it doesn’t really matter if CO2 is found to cause global warming or not. What’s more important is the other part of the movement, the part that’s causing people to discover all these things anew, to think outside of themselves and the “me me me” consumerist attitude, to put back to the community and to consider the wider world around them, to be reconnected to the human race in a way thats been a long long time in coming.

And that can only be a good thing."

Cardew

There is absolutely no point at all in quoting 'evidence' from either side of the argument. The experts can't agree so what chance have we of knowing who is right or wrong.

The one statement(if it is true) that blows Al Gore's argument out of the water is that if we went back to the Stone Age and had no electricity, cars, and Man produced zero emissions, that it would make less than 1% difference to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I side with the argument put forward by kethry above, that it makes sense to preserve our natural resources and that is justification enough for some of the environmental measures.

However I have a sneaking feeling that 'global warming is man's fault' is just hype.

SusanCarter

elysiumuk wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure quite who you're referring to but I don't think anybody here is basing their opinions on one TV documentary and personally I (the OP) did not state what my opinion is as the point of this thread is thinking of other benefits to carbon reducing measures thereby making the issue of whether or not CO2 causes global warming irrelevent. If we promoted the other benefits of these things (such as those pointed out by ken68 and kethry) then people who don't believe the theory would see the point in doing them and be more likely to do them. That way a) we get the benefits stated and b) it will reduce CO2 emissions which is surely what those who believe the theory want? As long as we can find other benefits, it doesn't really matter whether the theory is true or not (or whether we believe it) as we are benefitting either way by doing the things.

I would appreciate if people who do not want to take part in the discussion of other benefits to carbon reducing measures would refrain from posting their arguments that we should all believe in global warming as that is not what this thread is for and there are plenty other threads where you can have that debate.

moonrakerz

Thought it was an excellent programme.

I have long had doubts about the causes of "global warming", it was heartening to see many of my doubts were reinforced by this programme.

One point that wasn't raised: have you noticed that just about every measure that "must" be taken to reduce global warming involves the public paying out even more money !!! No wonder Governments were so quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Queen.Bess

I too was pleased to see this programme. I have long held the opinion that we humans can't be entirely to blame for the earth warming up, the earth is a bit older than the 'records' are! I hope now that channel 4, or whichever channel takes it up, may now encourage debate between both parties so that people can truely make their own mind up.

Of course, just because the latest programme says that it's a natural phenomenon, that doesn't mean that we should stop doing our 'green' bit! It should be a way of life and not a panic because it's our fault!

Volcano

It would be a good idea if everyone followed Hereward's link above, it's a long post but is full of educated opinions.

Some of the "I knew I was right all along! I saw it on the telly!" posts on this thread are just a little disturbing.......

rosh12

moonrakerz wrote: »

One point that wasn't raised: have you noticed that just about every measure that "must" be taken to reduce global warming involves the public paying out even more money !!! No wonder Governments were so quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Not sure how using the car less, owning a smaller car, walking more, using local shops, growing / buying local + seasonal produce, flying less, turning down the thermostat one degree, turning things off at the socket, reusing and recycling in the home etc etc etc costs more-- in fact I think a lot of it is VERY mse!!

I agree with Susan (OP) that more needs to be made of the other benefits of living a greener life- it isn't JUST about global warming, that's just part of the picture (imo).

At the end of the day though, the climate is changing around the world, and becoming more chaotic, and as far as I can tell, living a more sustainable life is not going to have a bigger impact than our normal, unsustainable lives..

I think it's good to have these debates though- we need to hear both sides- I just hope it doesn't upset people and become personal...

gromituk

Pandora123 wrote: »

Also, they stated that animals produced several more times (can't remember exact figures) of CO2 than cars did

If that statement was made without qualification, it shows such a basic misunderstandingof the carbon cycle that the programme could have no credibility whatsoever. Please tell me they pointed out the difference.