All these views are from UK Nova’s forums discussing the ‘Global Warming Swindle’

View 1
As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of
speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and
more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." ~ Orwell
Scientific method is not a popularity contest, it is not decided by a premium rate phone in poll. the relative
proportions of scientific papers in support of one theory versus another are only that, a measure of column inches,
it doesn't matter if only one person believes a theory to be correct, if they are right, then one is enough. that is
science.
no one agreed with Einstein, they actively disagreed, (or "denied" in the current, shrill, juvenile vernacular), but
eventually he won out, overcame all opposition, and eventually with adequate third-party research, experiment
confirmed his assertions.
In the current debate, a climatoligical Einstein would not receive funding, he'd be shouted down, accused
as a corporate schill (even if he wasn't). imagine what we would have lost if we had behaved then as we do now.
something has gone very far wrong ... the contemporary flight from reason and scientific method is a massive
concern, and some of the responses in this thread need to take a considered look at what they are doing. you guys
are behaving like the church in it's treatment of Galileo ... you need to figure out how you have come so far adrift
that you now actively seek the punishment of dissent, and condemnation of free expression and independent
scientific endeavour.
Feynman explained that no matter how important a proponent or how elegant the theory, if it disagrees with
experimental observation, then it's wrong. right now human caused global warming struggles to find actual
unequivocal evidence. mathematical models do not and should never count, they are simply the theory rephrased,
they are not evidence. the current models are all over the place in terms of output, don't match observation, and
break if you try to run them backwards into past history.
Popper defined science as the requirement for the theory to be falsifiable ... how exactly are we supposed
to attempt to falsify or disprove theory if anyone that does receives death threats. On this basis, it is the people
actively attempting to disprove theory that are the genuine scientists, the genuine rationalists ... people indulging in
ad-hominem, and blinkered prejudice are anti-science, they are dogmatists. they are the new-zealots. Like all
dogma followers, they insist on punishment for heretics ... if the theory is correct, it can stand up for itself, against
all comers, why do you need to silence or smear critics. what are you so scared of?
... so if you ignore a scientist because you suspect coal-money, do you ignore a report if the author runs a
(profitable) carbon offset program, no? if a spokesman for free-enterprise think-tank is to be rejected, why not a
similarly paid spokesman for Friends of the Earth ... do you see where this takes us. let's all play at being
hypocritical bastards. Iif someone is wrong, don't say they are wrong, tell me *why* they are wrong ... if you can't
do that, and do it properly and rigourously, then you need to figure out why you are shouting your mouth off in this
thread, we see the contempt current deep-green environmentalism has for science ... it turns up in mobs and
destroys GM crop field trials rather than let the science and experiment run. (say what you will about creationists,
and i do, at least they don't run ploughs through fossil sites)

View 2
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us
when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming
Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is
to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most
distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear
that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme,
and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number
of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that
all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into
that."
Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had
to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on
environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions
on why it accepted another programme from him.
The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had
"distorted or misrepresented their known views". Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely
misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it
was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it
is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely
refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
West Island School – TOK – SJT GM Food – 8 –Using new skills
When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an
almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where
there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what
the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument." Mr Durkin last night said that Professor
Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way
misrepresented what he said".

Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin
and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.. A spokesman said the programme made
by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."
View 3
Here's another funny thing: In its promotional material, Channel 4 was advertising one of its experts, Dr. Tim Ball,
as a Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg. In fact, Dr. Ball retired from a
short, unspectacular academic career in 1995. He neither earned nor was he given the honour of an Emeritus
professorship, and the University of Winnipeg has, on at least one previous occasion, specifically requested that he
stop presenting himself as such.
Far from being a working scientist or credible expert, Dr. Ball has associated himself in the last decade with a
series of energy industry front groups (the Friends of Science, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project ) that fight
against any policy that would address climate change.
Even the Calgary Herald, the leading newspaper in the Canadian oil capital of Calgary, has said that Ball is viewed
as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.
OR THIS:
The respected Kenyan that the fictional show keeps referencing is a free market evangelist working for a think tank
called ISIL or International Society for Individual Freedom, a FAR RIGHT laissez faire capitalist
group.http://www.isil.org/
Go here to read their attitude toward environmentalists, which are in their words "lunatics" and "wackos" bent on
destroying "capitalism":http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/california-greening.html

This shit is not even close to accurate, fair or reasonable.This is holocaust denial for the global energy glitterati...in
other words, it's offensive lies created to push back against reasonable people around the world who are fighting to
save the planet. Watch it if you must, but this is propaganda for big business, and that's all.

View 4
I haven't watched this yet, but with all the negative comments about it I thought this quote from William F. Buckley
Jr. amusing and appropriate: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and
offended to discover that there are other views."
Truth is, some one is right, someone is wrong and while most of the time it is the majority, sometimes it can be the
minority. I for one will watch this and the Gore film then make up my mind

View 5
MrBronson, I know that I may aggravate folks with my strident tone, but I despise the concept that all opinions are
equally valid, no matter their relative merits. Our society will collapse completely if we can't differentiate between
what big business wants us to buy and what the majority (99.999999999999%) of scientists agree about.
I would wager there's a higher majority of people that survive falling out of planes with faulty parachutes than
scientists that disagree with the basic science of global warming.
Would you jump out of a plane without a parachute? Of course not?
Why choose, choose to believe this non-sense, unless you are either taking the piss, or have a stake in confusing
others? I just don't get it.
Why not argue the earth is flat?
View 6
I would like to chime in. I am a research scientist. I have a degree in Chemical Engineering. I have worked in
biomedical research (Cancer, Neurodevelopment, Autism) and materials science (ceramics.) I have not worked in
climatology, nor have I received monies for it.
1. As a scientist, there's always a driving knowledge to KNOW the answer. Yes, there are scientists who will
research at the behest of corporations. Without trying to put forth an opinion, let me make the following
talking points:A peer reviewed paper is the apex of research. It means that a hypothesis was formed,
experiments designed, data collected and conclusions formed. Then, people not affiliated with the project
looked over the work and gave their opinions on its merits. If published, a paper is thought to be the best
and most current work in its field, since it often must be reviewed by a researcher's most fierce rivals in his
area of research.
2. Peer papers are found, after the fact, to be in error, either by intent or genuine mistake. This happens
approximately .005% of the time. Meaning one in 20,000+ papers has a false or erroneous conclusion.
However, a good 30% of papers are found, later to simply be stepping stones to better understanding and
methods.

West Island School – TOK – SJT GM Food – 8 –Using new skills

 3. Authors of such papers are required to declare if they've any monetary stake or salary from companies or
entities concerned with the published material. However, interests under $10,000 do not have to be
declared.
4. Documentarians are not required to state their affiliation, or the funding source for their programming.
5. Peer reviewed papers stating the reality of Global Warming outnumber those stating the lack of any
anthropomorphic effect by about 100:1. A coming global ice age was not foretold in peer papers. Flash-in-
the-pan discoveries like Cold Fusion and Bubble Energy Fusion and Faster-than-light communication
generated less than a dozen papers each, and were not decades-old, growing scientific issues.
6. Government money funds 95% of all basic research. Government personnel do not choose what to fund.
Panels that decide the funding are made of Scientists, and those scientists review incoming grant
applications, to see if they should be funded. Often, such decisions start trends in funding, and the
scientists starting these trends are usually experts in the fields they begin funding trends for.Once Scientific
recommendations are made, the Government can allot blocks of money just to go to given areas.

This is a political hot-button issue. It's getting to be like abortion and gun control, here in the states. But I'll give my
opinion, even though minds are usually made up. If in doubt on a scientific issue, see what the scientists are
saying, as a consensus. See who disagrees with them. See what the disagreement says, and see if the scientists
answer with more science.
And believe the consensus. It's almost never wrong. Almost.

View 7
.Well! I *think* we can all agree that "global warming" is happening, if only as a reaction to the increased amounts
of hot air created by politicans. The debate comes down to "is it going to get us"? I have great faith in the human
race to be able to use technology to overcome this "threat", or at least hold this threat at bay until something else
"gets us".

View 8
It IS a humanitarian disaster. Just because it is happening slowly and has yet to have a significant impact on the
human population doesn't make it any less disastrous than an earthquake or a tsunami.
What do most scientists believe caused global warming?
The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide. It was established scientifically 180 years
ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and
the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some
20C colder and we would freeze. Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us
warmer.
Has the world warmed before?
Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels; changes in solar activity
are more likely. Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it,
making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one goes up the other follows. This
time it is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans.
What about more recent history?
There was a warm period in Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar activity, but it does not
seem to have been a worldwide phenomenon, although records are scanty.
So is the sun responsible now?
Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades,
solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is
CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in
global warming this century.

View 9
I thought the documentary was fun. It's wonderful to hear an opposite viewpoint on this issue. I especially enjoyed
the history of how Global Warming became such a political issue. As somebody who remembers being taught in
school about the oncoming Ice Age, I wouldn't take the media Chicken Little's theories too seriously, gents. Three
decades of declining temperatures had the media in a frenzy. Tales of apocalyptic doom were common. Then they
were supplanted by tales of nuclear doom through the early 80's, then Global Warming became the new drum to
beat.

Now, if the Global Warming advocates would put as much gusto into solving world hunger and finding an
alternative to oil that works as a sustainable energy source (Solar and Wind energy are laughable) as they do
blaming Bush, I'd be 100% behind them.

West Island School – TOK – SJT GM Food – 8 –Using new skills