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'

Hmm ofcom ruled that the documentry did not give a balanced view.

Wonder how balanced this thread is going to be :D

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?

Me and you towards the middle, everyone else out on the right....as always:lol1:

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...

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.

As long as politics are involved, its never going to be a balanced debate.

Tunnel-visioned scientists are bad enough as it is.

So back to your original question - there won't be a debate on climate change while the government are not interested in hearing what the people think.

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.

Given that the program was called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", did they ever set out to give a balanced view? Surely they set out to discredit The Global Warming Theory?

It's not so much what the people think that matters here though is it? What really matters is the truth, we need to understand what the reality is. Let's have the experts from both sides make their cases and debate the points. Then let's judge things for a position of knowledge and balanced understanding.

At the moment this debate has been hijacked by green fanatics and conspiracy theorists, leaving Joe Public stuck in the middle.

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!

Here Here :thumb:

[quote=chris1scouser;8019652]The sun governs the temperature of the earth.


Thanks for that revelation matey:lol1:

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. :)

And you KNOW all of this........how?

I'm God.

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? :wonder:

:lol1:

Dream Weaver, please say "statistics", please! :D

I think thats the point - You can't use channel four to present a personal view - However accurate or truthful it may be.


Any views expressed have to be impartial. "Just the facts ma'am" type thing.

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

If he's an economist, why should I accept his view of climatology?

Err you've lost me, it's a historical fact that Hitler was a right bstd, it's by no means a fact that GW is a 'swindle'

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 fag 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

I enjoyed it. It was great to see something so opposite the near hysterical stuff we hear all the time in the media.

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 sh1t by the way... How can the science breach posibly have breached rules, when it is science? :rolleyes:

As for Ofcom taking a side on the science of human input to climate change, that is an absolute disgrace :eek: "Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007"." :eek:
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 :eek:

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... :nono:

Next thing we know only the party in power will be allowed to broadcast PPB's...

Madness :(

But the government are having "An inconvenient truth" shown in secondary schools...............as part of the curriculum:(
Talk about brainwashing:mad:

Alcazar

:nono:

The high court ruled that Al Gore's mocumentary didn't give a balanced view either, so thats 1:1 then.
:luxhello:

BBC NEWS | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'