Thursday, March 08, 2007

This could be the greatest scandal of our time ?

There's always a problem with TV documentaries, in that they very rarely give both sides of an argument equal weight. Over the last decade we've had a load of them weighing in for man made global warming.

I've just watched one that goes the other way on Channel 4 ( if you missed it at your interested in politics then you *must* watch it on Channel 4's on demand facility. )

Its one of those "The king has no clothes" moments.

There will be a furious counter spin from the environmental lobby, but eventually the truth will out.

The danger for the Conservatives is as the Green brand gets associated with deception and lying, then Vote Blue go Green could become a millstone. At least Gordon Brown will have the Stern report to explain ! But that won't save David Cameron if this is true - and I'm inclined to believe it is.

Executive summary of the documentary is as follows:

    1) Global Warming causes CO2 production, not the other way round ( and they have the evidence to back it ).
    2) The climate is driven by the Sun stupid ( and yes they have evidence for that ).
    3) A lot of people will lose their jobs if man made global warming is discredited.
    4) It gives lefties another way of changing the world and cover to do it.

I worry for what the greater population will think when they realise that Global Warming caused by humans has been made up.

Update: See this from YouTube ( for those who can't get Channel 4)

Update: A good summary of the program has been posted by Thomas Papworth here.

Also see Melanie Phiilips on the same subject ( she has been making points on this subject for some time - pointing out the case is not proven ).

Other parts of the doc here .

Further updateIain Dale is posting related to this and the green taxes fiasco here ... he has a link to the whole programme here ( for those of you outside the UK ).


IanP said...

Following the distribution of the Al Gore documentary, I wonder whether the DfES will circulate this to every school in the country to balance the education.

Bet not..

Tom Paine said...

Don't worry. "The greater population" never believed it.

It is apparent to anyone with a grain of nous that (whatever the merits of the science) ex-Socialist and other Statist politicians have leapt on this theory like the last helicopter out of 'Nam because it provides a new ideology to justify a centrally-planned economy and State interference in everything.

It is the perfect substitute for their previous discredited theories. And if this one is discredited, they will find another one. Some humans simply can't bear to see others living as they wish, especially if those others appear to be more successful.

Statist, Socialist, Fascist, Nationalist, Third Wayer, Democrat, "Liberal" (in the modern American sense), Green; these are all synonyms for either "envious loser" or "manipulative hypocrite."

Usually, when such ideologies prevail, they result in small numbers of the latter, leading millions of the former.

delroy said...

I've never thought any different.
I find that if I take the opposite view to F of E, Greenpeace and Jonathon bloody Porrit I am probably going to be right.

ContraTory said...

Today, The Independent (or rather its science editor Steve Connor) alleges that Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film debunking the accepted Global Warming idealogy, has used dodgy/out of date/selective data.

A case of "Pot-supporter calling the kettle black" you might say. However, when seeking to cast doubt on a widely accepted theory, your facts have to be cast iron and accepted as valid, leaving your detractors able to challenge your interpretation alone (and thereby make themselves look deluded.)

Durkin's analysis might still stand but now it can be represented as "discredited". This was foreseeable and avoidable -given that it was obvious this account would be examined in minute detail to establish errors.

Man in a shed said...

I've seen two rebuttals - in the Independent (today) and Guardian (yesterday). They no doubt have their points - but we would never have heard any debate if they had had their way.

The problem is we are entering the realm of modelling of complex non-linear systems. Graphs just don't tell all the story.

Melanie Phillips has her own counter rebuttal - might pull all this together for another post tonight.