The Great Global Warming Swindle....swindle
21 July 2008, 09:26 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 July 2008, 09:45 PM
#32
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From El Reg
...but hey, why listen to the majority 
mb
Swindle received 265 complaints after being broadcast, although Channel 4 says calls to the station supporting the programme outnumbered those complaining by 6 to 1.
mb
21 July 2008, 09:58 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why people are sceptical about the whole climate change issue is the fact that government policy the world over basically says that it's perfectly ok to f*ck up the environment as long as you can afford to pay the tax for it.
21 July 2008, 10:28 PM
#34
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been reading the BBC's propaganda, oops, FRONT PAGE news, website to see what Dave Rado (as in, not an impartial journalist) wrote - and it stinks 
...plus pages more of pro "we are all doomed" crap - from the same (impartial) BBC that consigned Flash's signing away our rights to the european consti..., er, treat..., er, tidying-up-exercise to some hard-to-find sub-article.
Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it?
Biased Broadcasting Company
mb
When I sat down to watch the screening of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 in March last year, I had no idea how much of an impact it would have on my life.
Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it?
Biased Broadcasting Company
mb
21 July 2008, 10:40 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
Although I would describe myself as being less sceptical than most on here, I do still believe that we are talking about scientific theories rather than scientific facts. To have the Al Gore movie shown in schools is wrong, because it is very possible that the theory the film is based upon is, at least in part, wrong.
21 July 2008, 10:43 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I'm not at all surprised that lots of people were supporting it at the time.
21 July 2008, 10:45 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an inherent danger in what you say here, the logical conclusion being that we clearly aren't being taxed enough yet, if we are carrying on regardless....
21 July 2008, 10:46 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been reading the BBC's propaganda, oops, FRONT PAGE news, website to see what Dave Rado (as in, not an impartial journalist) wrote - and it stinks
...plus pages more of pro "we are all doomed" crap - from the same (impartial) BBC that consigned Flash's signing away our rights to the european consti..., er, treat..., er, tidying-up-exercise to some hard-to-find sub-article.
Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it?
Biased Broadcasting Company
mb
...plus pages more of pro "we are all doomed" crap - from the same (impartial) BBC that consigned Flash's signing away our rights to the european consti..., er, treat..., er, tidying-up-exercise to some hard-to-find sub-article.
Oh, and another "front page" article is about the people who have been nicked for not paying their licence fee - but with crap like the cLIEmate change stories, who would willingly pay it?
Biased Broadcasting Company
mb
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good old SN myth
Oh btw they are about to discuss the GW Swindle on Newsnight, I'm sure it will be biased though
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 July 2008 at 11:00 PM.
22 July 2008, 02:46 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ofcom ruled "Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues."
Which means that "An Inconvenient Truth" cannot be shown on tele in the UK because that one sided load of tripe also fails to be impartial...
So, in that instance the ruling is a benefit, because it would be terrifying to think anyone could watch Al Gores pitiful attempt at a clamber back into politics as with substance... That said, he might end up as an advisor to Barack Obama, should he be elected, which is a truly terrifying thought...
"But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules" says the report... No **** by the way... How can the science breach posibly have breached rules, when it is science?
As for Ofcom taking a side on the science of human input to climate change, that is an absolute disgrace
"Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007"."
That is truly terrifying, that a regulator can be influenced to a political agenda and therefore potentially prevent factual counters to the ludicrous concept of humans contributing to climate change
This alone takes news reporting on television to a whole new level, where the only way to stay on the side of the operator is to preach lies to scare current and future generations into thinking that putting your cardboard in a different coloured bin will make everything better...
Next thing we know only the party in power will be allowed to broadcast PPB's...
Madness
Which means that "An Inconvenient Truth" cannot be shown on tele in the UK because that one sided load of tripe also fails to be impartial...
So, in that instance the ruling is a benefit, because it would be terrifying to think anyone could watch Al Gores pitiful attempt at a clamber back into politics as with substance... That said, he might end up as an advisor to Barack Obama, should he be elected, which is a truly terrifying thought...
"But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules" says the report... No **** by the way... How can the science breach posibly have breached rules, when it is science?
As for Ofcom taking a side on the science of human input to climate change, that is an absolute disgrace
"Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007"." That is truly terrifying, that a regulator can be influenced to a political agenda and therefore potentially prevent factual counters to the ludicrous concept of humans contributing to climate change
This alone takes news reporting on television to a whole new level, where the only way to stay on the side of the operator is to preach lies to scare current and future generations into thinking that putting your cardboard in a different coloured bin will make everything better...
Next thing we know only the party in power will be allowed to broadcast PPB's...
Madness
22 July 2008, 02:51 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Australia, the lastest Govn't policy is to highly tax domestic consumers of power, gas and fuel while big businesses, like aluminium smelters and coal fired power stations get "exemptions" or "free carbon credits".
So yes, it's all about saving the planet - NOT!
Last edited by Klaatu; 22 July 2008 at 02:55 AM.
22 July 2008, 03:03 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there was plenty of debate on this at the time, and as predicted by some, it appears that this was just a propaganda piece. I also understand similar accusations have been made about the Al Gore documentary, which begs the question....
When can we have a proper and balanced and national debate on this complex, controversial and potentially huge issue?
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate documentary 'broke rules'
When can we have a proper and balanced and national debate on this complex, controversial and potentially huge issue?
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate documentary 'broke rules'
22 July 2008, 03:05 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 July 2008, 07:52 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main issue is not climate change but managing our resources. I honestly believe that climate change is a myth that is suported because every environmental scientist out there knows that we are wasteing our resources.
Ultimately we have to live in a way that helps us to maintain a balance with the planet and not strip it of all that is there. Oil reliance needs to change and the longer and smoother we start that change the better.
Our government needs to stop using this Myth as a tax excuse and start be honest about the real issues of resource management and also accept that industry and the cheap petrol nations around the world can have far more impact on climate change than taxing us.
Ultimately we have to live in a way that helps us to maintain a balance with the planet and not strip it of all that is there. Oil reliance needs to change and the longer and smoother we start that change the better.
Our government needs to stop using this Myth as a tax excuse and start be honest about the real issues of resource management and also accept that industry and the cheap petrol nations around the world can have far more impact on climate change than taxing us.
22 July 2008, 09:51 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 July 2008, 11:27 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well this sums it up ... THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS - The Daily Mash
"THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS
MORE than half of all communities in Britain are being terrorised by gangs of global warming scientists, it was claimed last night.
Research shows gangs are assaulting people in broad daylight if they cite references suggesting climate change may be caused by factors unrelated to human activity.
PE teacher Bill McKay, 44, from Sudbury, was attacked in the car park of his local pub after he was overheard telling friends how much he enjoyed Top Gear.
He said: "They told me my contention was erroneous and suggested I was being paid lots of money by General Motors. And then one of them kneed me squarely in the *****."
He added: "A couple of weeks later that George Monbiot came up to me and said that if I didn't stop going on about the prevalence of volcanic emissions in the upper atmosphere he'd give me a peer-reviewed kicking.
"I have no idea what he's talking about."
The Department of the Environment has refused to recognise the problem of global warming violence and stressed the research has already been dismissed by some of the most respected global warming gang leaders in the country.
A spokesman said: "Look, would you just **** off and leave me alone alright?
"If they know I've been talking to you they'll tie me to the back of their Lexus and drag me to an REM concert." ".
Dave
"THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS
MORE than half of all communities in Britain are being terrorised by gangs of global warming scientists, it was claimed last night.
Research shows gangs are assaulting people in broad daylight if they cite references suggesting climate change may be caused by factors unrelated to human activity.
PE teacher Bill McKay, 44, from Sudbury, was attacked in the car park of his local pub after he was overheard telling friends how much he enjoyed Top Gear.
He said: "They told me my contention was erroneous and suggested I was being paid lots of money by General Motors. And then one of them kneed me squarely in the *****."
He added: "A couple of weeks later that George Monbiot came up to me and said that if I didn't stop going on about the prevalence of volcanic emissions in the upper atmosphere he'd give me a peer-reviewed kicking.
"I have no idea what he's talking about."
The Department of the Environment has refused to recognise the problem of global warming violence and stressed the research has already been dismissed by some of the most respected global warming gang leaders in the country.
A spokesman said: "Look, would you just **** off and leave me alone alright?
"If they know I've been talking to you they'll tie me to the back of their Lexus and drag me to an REM concert." ".
Dave
22 July 2008, 11:36 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you suspected Martin, the Newsnight programme did indeed seem very biased coupled with a most irritating female presenter who in common with most "investigative" reporters did her best to interrupt the Channel 4 man every time he tried to make a valid point and she was favouring the ex government scientist who was allegedly misquoted. I did not see the film myself incidentally so I cannot comment on it.
I wonder if all the fuss about this, and I agree that it is wrong to misquote people of course, has further strengthened the opinions of those who are convinced that the change in the Earth's climate is due to global warming as such when we have not had any for some ten years now!
Les
I wonder if all the fuss about this, and I agree that it is wrong to misquote people of course, has further strengthened the opinions of those who are convinced that the change in the Earth's climate is due to global warming as such when we have not had any for some ten years now!
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 22 July 2008 at 11:38 AM.
22 July 2008, 11:58 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fact and obvious.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8021117]FACT the sun governs our temperature it is obvious too, my apologies.
convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as were back to school.
have a nice day
convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as were back to school.
have a nice day
22 July 2008, 12:00 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fact and obvious.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8021117]FACT the sun governs our temperature it is obvious too, my apologies.
convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as we're back to school.
have a nice day
convection from our planets core has an effect also, OBVIOUSLY, i let you off with that one seeing as we're back to school.
have a nice day
22 July 2008, 12:37 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a nutshell. But how do you forcibly remove choice from people once the option has been invented? We woke up to environmental concerns 50 years too late in my opinion...
22 July 2008, 12:50 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is, its one rule for them and something quite different for us.
How can he justify spending £0.5million on hiring a luxury aircraft to go to Hokkaido and to cross the Atlantic twice with all the CO2 that produced, and little things like great big fuel burners as personal transport, all the lights and computers left on in Gov't.buildings all night etc with all their extra luxuries and future proof pensions and obscene tax free expenses while we are expected to pay through the nose largely to keep them in clover. They are just not worth it anyway.
Les
How can he justify spending £0.5million on hiring a luxury aircraft to go to Hokkaido and to cross the Atlantic twice with all the CO2 that produced, and little things like great big fuel burners as personal transport, all the lights and computers left on in Gov't.buildings all night etc with all their extra luxuries and future proof pensions and obscene tax free expenses while we are expected to pay through the nose largely to keep them in clover. They are just not worth it anyway.
Les
22 July 2008, 01:33 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure its worth watching - there are fundamental issues raised that remain unanswered by the pro brigade. For example - all the "modelling" (and I use the word loosely) predicts that warming will occur midway up the atmosphere. However the actual results observed indicate that warming (up to 10 years ago that is) is at the Earths surface. This indicates a completely different pathway to the ones used in the models and destroys any "credibility" (again used loosely) assigned to the models. And yet we are told that the models are good! The evidence clearly does not bear this out. How can anyone continue to support the predictions of these models, and yet that is exactly what the Government would have us believe.
22 July 2008, 01:36 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think its a case of removing choice from people, more like giving them more choice. How come there are only four alternative fuel cars available to buy ? (G-Wizz, Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Lexus LS400h) And 3 of those use petrol as well ! You'd think if it really was society's use of the car that was the biggest threat to the environment then all car manufacturers would have alternative fuel models in their model ranges - but they don't.
22 July 2008, 01:40 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Humankind's reap now, pay later attitude through the centuries is not something that is going to be overcome at the end of the day.
That is, of course, on the arguably fairly far fetched assumption that we, the human race, are responsible for anything more than wasting the natural resources of this planet gifted to us by God, evolution or ET (depending on your outlook)
22 July 2008, 02:17 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure its worth watching - there are fundamental issues raised that remain unanswered by the pro brigade. For example - all the "modelling" (and I use the word loosely) predicts that warming will occur midway up the atmosphere. However the actual results observed indicate that warming (up to 10 years ago that is) is at the Earths surface. This indicates a completely different pathway to the ones used in the models and destroys any "credibility" (again used loosely) assigned to the models. And yet we are told that the models are good! The evidence clearly does not bear this out. How can anyone continue to support the predictions of these models, and yet that is exactly what the Government would have us believe.
Whilst the findings can easily be questioned, I think it's a bit of an over-simplification to suggest that 20,000 scientist across the globe are all working to the same climate model or models.
22 July 2008, 02:47 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think its a case of removing choice from people, more like giving them more choice. How come there are only four alternative fuel cars available to buy ? (G-Wizz, Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Lexus LS400h) And 3 of those use petrol as well ! You'd think if it really was society's use of the car that was the biggest threat to the environment then all car manufacturers would have alternative fuel models in their model ranges - but they don't.
22 July 2008, 04:17 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 July 2008, 09:44 PM
#58
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 July 2008, 10:00 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW if you google BBC bias you get about a million returns, with claims from just about every interest group (some opposing each other) saying that the Beeb are biased against them...work that one out!
BTW if you want to see real editorial bias, tune into Fox News!!
Last edited by Martin2005; 22 July 2008 at 10:11 PM.
22 July 2008, 10:15 PM
#60
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that you couldn't be bothered to follow any of the suggested links, so you still have your fingers stuck in your ears
The BBC most certainly wasn't "in a state of open warfare with No.10"!!!
mb
The BBC most certainly wasn't "in a state of open warfare with No.10"!!!
mb