How can they be allowed to spread their misinformation about the clarity of climate science's conclusions in their successful attempt, so far, to stall serious action on global warming.
'They' is Martin Durkin, MD of Wag TV. The anti-environmentalist's crusader, it seems from his bio on the ABC microsite devoted to the propaganda. The ABC is going all out with Tony Jones hosting the The Great Global Warming Swindle at 8:30, Thurs, July 12. Tony will then have an in-depth interview with Martin Durkin, and then throw to a panel of leaders from the business and scientific communities, social commentators, environmentalists and academics. This group will include a number of climate sceptics who support Martin Durkin's view of global warming. Let me guess, Bob Carter's an Aussie. All in front of a, no-doubt, fired-up ABC studio audience.
I watched the trailers of The Great Global Warming Swindle posted on the ABC microsite. Most of it is, disappointingly, stock-standard denialist fare that's been rehashed, reheated and slopped up over the years. But the premise is a conjurer's gem. It was news to me that the catalyst for setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was nasty, evil Margaret Thatcher. See, she wanted to flog nuclear power, so gave the Royal Society money to 'invent' global warming. Once a fabrication industry had been set up, so the story goes, it became more and more alarmist to sustain itself with bigger and bigger government grants.
Margaret Thatcher, the Great Global Warming Swindler? Not the Margaret Thatcher that drove the Great Rock 'n Roll Swindlers, the Sex Pistols, anarchic in the UK? Surely not?
Global Warning Climate Change Energy
7 comments:
This sounds like the same program that was on Channel 4 in the UK: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
It's complete rubbish and is debunked on the New Scientist website at: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Unfortunately, it gets used as an excuse by those in denial, the ignorant and the selfish as an excuse to do nothing.
Thanks for that.
The New Scientist article "debunks" only one part of the movie - the movie claims CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere, and so it is likely to have a small effect on temperature, which is pretty lame, and should have been attacked. The rest of the New Scientist arguments slightly "soften" the points made in the film only. The trouble with the film is that it is not an exhaustive debunking of the man-made CO2, because a lot of its focus is on possible alternative causes for climate change, which are just as flakey as the arguments on the other side, rather than systematically debunking the bad science of those promoting the link between man-made CO2 and climate change. And New Scientist does NOT debunk the movie's linking of the promotion of nuclear power as the very probable reason why so many government scientists and organizations (including the BBC) are behind the vilification of CO2, and blaming made CO2. This still applies today, look at the US Department of Energy, the US Nuclear body, who hosts many sites supporting the link between man-made CO2 and warming. Weapons of mass destruction, anyone?
My grandfather died in the Nazis death camps. I find your use of the word 'denialist' to describe people who disagree with your point of view disgusting.
Well then you are being too easily disgusted by not considering the facts.
The facts are that the conservative IPCC has stated that, on the balance of the evidence available, there is a 90% chance that mankind is causing the warming we are documenting.
That, my precious, easily umbraged friend, is not 'point of view'. What ever angle you look at it from, it is peer-reviewed science. Those who deny reality, are denialists, whatever modifier you want to put in front of the word you somehow link to your gandfather to attack me. You might want to reconsider your invoking your grandfather's memory so cheaply, and thinking things through a bit more next time you comment.
I dont know if im alone in this view but why does the government simply charge more road tax (uk) for higher CO2 producing vehicles. It almost seems as though they are saying its fine to drive highly polluting vehicles / pollute enviroment just as long as we pay extra money? Should the problem not be dealt with at source (car engine manufacturers) rather than allowed to continue as long as we pay extra?
lol, the IPCC. How many scientists have left that? How many of the members are ACTUALLY scientists vs. politicians. Their latest findings support a non-manmade global warming. Just like back in the 70's everyone was terrified that we were headed into the next glaciation cycle. Put the BS and Bias out of your head. Look at the facts. Unless your name is Al Gore, you will see that the earth is getting warmer, just not because of man.
Post a Comment