The Great Global Warming Swindle....swindle
21 July 2008, 03:45 PM
#1
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
The Great Global Warming Swindle....swindle
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'
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 July 2008 at 04:09 PM.
21 July 2008, 03:54 PM
#3
When we have a government that's genuinely interested in what the people think rather than forcing their own agenda of tax tax tax. If the clown's party were really interested in what the people thought then they would have held the long-promised referendum on the EU constitution.
21 July 2008, 03:59 PM
#4
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
When we have a government that's genuinely interested in what the people think rather than forcing their own agenda of tax tax tax. If the clown's party were really interested in what the people thought then they would have held the long-promised referendum on the EU constitution.
At the risk of derailing my own thread, what do you think the people want then, an EU constitution or not? Or is this just a trojan horse for the real agenda of some that foolishly believe we'd be better off outside the EU altogether?
21 July 2008, 04:00 PM
#5
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
21 July 2008, 04:04 PM
#6
What I think isn't important but considering the EU accounts for a significant majority of our trade then we would be mad to be outside it...
21 July 2008, 04:08 PM
#7
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
It makes no difference what the people want mate. It's the process of holding the referendum that I'm talking about - giving the people the right to choose, as they were promised.
What I think isn't important but considering the EU accounts for a significant majority of our trade then we would be mad to be outside it...
What I think isn't important but considering the EU accounts for a significant majority of our trade then we would be mad to be outside it...
Totally agree with both points, it's a bloody disgrace that we have not had the referendum we were promised, I know why they haven't done, and I kind of understand why, but it's still wrong.
Trending Topics
21 July 2008, 04:26 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the sun
The sun governs the temperature of the earth.
i remember that in the programme, a graph was laid over the time period from the start of the industrial revolution to today and the increase in temperature did not coincide with human activity.
however it did match the cycles of the sun.
we are all told that we must not do this we must do that, it is the quest for wealth and economic growth that will destroy us.
we need to be allowed to change our habits by ourselves, i.e. all new build houses should have solar panels on the roof. these are only allowed to be fitted by approved installers( scam) ineffective wind turbines should stop being built, they are not cost effective and they only produce energy when its windy. there are clean and green fuel and energy sources already available we aren't allowed to access them easily because the government doesn't want it. it is possible to run an internal combustion engine on a mixture of fuel and hydrogen. there are videos of this being achieved on you tube. Google hydrogen generator.
why isn't this method being pursued? because oil companies are terrified of the technology.
additionally the residual heat in the ground can be used to heat homes and water but again there is strict government legislation preventing our access to it.
i remember that in the programme, a graph was laid over the time period from the start of the industrial revolution to today and the increase in temperature did not coincide with human activity.
however it did match the cycles of the sun.
we are all told that we must not do this we must do that, it is the quest for wealth and economic growth that will destroy us.
we need to be allowed to change our habits by ourselves, i.e. all new build houses should have solar panels on the roof. these are only allowed to be fitted by approved installers( scam) ineffective wind turbines should stop being built, they are not cost effective and they only produce energy when its windy. there are clean and green fuel and energy sources already available we aren't allowed to access them easily because the government doesn't want it. it is possible to run an internal combustion engine on a mixture of fuel and hydrogen. there are videos of this being achieved on you tube. Google hydrogen generator.
why isn't this method being pursued? because oil companies are terrified of the technology.
additionally the residual heat in the ground can be used to heat homes and water but again there is strict government legislation preventing our access to it.
21 July 2008, 04:27 PM
#12
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
At the moment this debate has been hijacked by green fanatics and conspiracy theorists, leaving Joe Public stuck in the middle.
21 July 2008, 04:33 PM
#13
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 think the point is that the title of the programme could well be the conclusion they reached after going through a balanced and inpartial process. The problem is they would appear to of reached that conclusion before they made the show!
21 July 2008, 04:37 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
1. Climate change exists (look how cold it is at the minute!!).
2. It is not man made, it's natural.
3. We can't do anything about it.
4. The End.
There you go, that's how it is so we should all get on with getting Labour out of gov't now.
2. It is not man made, it's natural.
3. We can't do anything about it.
4. The End.
There you go, that's how it is so we should all get on with getting Labour out of gov't now.
21 July 2008, 04:38 PM
#17
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
And you KNOW all of this........how?
21 July 2008, 04:50 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"I think the point is that the title of the programme could well be the conclusion they reached after going through a balanced and inpartial process. The problem is they would appear to of reached that conclusion before they made the show! "
So if I made a documentary entitled "Hitler was a right b*stard", would I have to include a whole load of good things he'd achieved when he was younger, to balance my argument?
"I think the point is that the title of the programme could well be the conclusion they reached after going through a balanced and inpartial process. The problem is they would appear to of reached that conclusion before they made the show! "
So if I made a documentary entitled "Hitler was a right b*stard", would I have to include a whole load of good things he'd achieved when he was younger, to balance my argument?
21 July 2008, 04:53 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any views expressed have to be impartial. "Just the facts ma'am" type thing.
21 July 2008, 04:58 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a less hysterical view, I would recommend everyone to go a read 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomberg (the original 'Skeptical Enviromentalist). He's an economist, not a politician or green fanatic. It's the most balanced view on the subject of global warming that I've read and would hope that a few of the people in power would take note of what he says (plus he loves ripping Al Gore apart ).
Chris
). Chris
21 July 2008, 05:04 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a less hysterical view, I would recommend everyone to go a read 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomberg (the original 'Skeptical Enviromentalist). He's an economist, not a politician or green fanatic. It's the most balanced view on the subject of global warming that I've read and would hope that a few of the people in power would take note of what he says (plus he loves ripping Al Gore apart ).
Chris
). Chris
If he's an economist, why should I accept his view of climatology?
21 July 2008, 05:31 PM
#25
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
Quote:
"I think the point is that the title of the programme could well be the conclusion they reached after going through a balanced and inpartial process. The problem is they would appear to of reached that conclusion before they made the show! "
So if I made a documentary entitled "Hitler was a right b*stard", would I have to include a whole load of good things he'd achieved when he was younger, to balance my argument?
"I think the point is that the title of the programme could well be the conclusion they reached after going through a balanced and inpartial process. The problem is they would appear to of reached that conclusion before they made the show! "
So if I made a documentary entitled "Hitler was a right b*stard", would I have to include a whole load of good things he'd achieved when he was younger, to balance my argument?
21 July 2008, 07:05 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a general assumption here that Joe Public is someone of immense common sense who will make the right decisions based on being provided the impartial facts.
This, IMHO, is nonsense. If Joe Public ran the show anyone who dropped a *** end would be at the end of a rope and paediatricians would have their houses burnt down because their neighbours thought they were paedophiles.
It has to be left to the scientists but they haven't helped their cause in recent times by getting things slightly wrong like BSE. There are also too many scientists linked to a vested interest which leads to doubts as to their independence.
It strikes me, as Mr Joe Public, that GW is happening more quickly than is healthy but that no one really knows what the man made contribution really is.
On a side note I would get out of Europe but continue to trade.
Just my 2 euros. dl
This, IMHO, is nonsense. If Joe Public ran the show anyone who dropped a *** end would be at the end of a rope and paediatricians would have their houses burnt down because their neighbours thought they were paedophiles.
It has to be left to the scientists but they haven't helped their cause in recent times by getting things slightly wrong like BSE. There are also too many scientists linked to a vested interest which leads to doubts as to their independence.
It strikes me, as Mr Joe Public, that GW is happening more quickly than is healthy but that no one really knows what the man made contribution really is.
On a side note I would get out of Europe but continue to trade.
Just my 2 euros. dl
21 July 2008, 07:17 PM
#28
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
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
21 July 2008, 09:00 PM
#30
The high court ruled that Al Gore's mocumentary didn't give a balanced view either, so thats 1:1 then.
BBC NEWS | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'