After 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Ch4 why has there been no discussion in the media?

Question

If you want a real conspiracy theory, try asking yourself why any evidence like this, against the Human CO2 Global Warming THEORY, is given no newspaper or TV debate time at all? In fact just last night all we heard about were some more EU regulation to be introduced to make us change our lightbulbs... am i the only one who realises that all they are trying to do is stretch out the time that we still have fossil fuels for. Making sure oil and gas companies stay in business until they suddenly 'decide' solar, wave and wind power are real viable alternatives...??
And for those who say it's actually the oil and gas companies trying to deny Human Global Warming, it is actually to their benefit to slow down fossil fuel consumption to stay in business as long as possible, plus, they will profit from the 'fuel switchover' as they are invested in that technology also.

Answer 1

While strongly agreeing that it this subject should be properly debated, and that the referred to Channel Four programme was a brilliant exposure of the truth and extremely well researched, I believe myself that the reason it is being hushed up by the BBC, ITN and Sky News is because the powers that be therein feel embarrassed..

I think they have been humiliated in that Channel Four got this out and exposed the fact that they had failed in their duties
to be unbiased and cover the facts fully in their own news output? Those who did see the programme in full can not fail to recognise the magnitude and validity of the facts, statistics and scientific expertise involved in the Channel Four programme, whereas those who have not seen it yet simply do not believe that?

They are probably a bit like me. Because I myself strongly supported the need for proper measures to limit the production of carbon emissions by the kind of measures agreed at the EU Summit because I believed they were valid UNTIL I saw the CH4 programme. My view is now totally changed because I realise that I was naive, misinformed and erroneous in my previous beliefs and outlook. Nobody likes admitting they are wrong and stupid, and I believe the rest of the media and our political leaders will be even less willing to admit what I am admitting, because their whole credibility will be undermined. So if they can get away by pretending the programme never happened that will be good for their collective credibility. I hope Channel Four wil repeat this programme again and again so that others get a better understanding of the truth and force the rest of the media to become involved in a proper analysis of the true facts on this issue.

Answer 2

I watched this programme and all the way through I couldn't help feeling that the Global Warming deniers are missing a vital piont. It matters not a jot if Climate Change is caused by humans or not. The fossil fuels on which our economies depend are FINITE resources. I attended the Great Transport Debate at the University of Reading and a Dr. Bently from their study group on Peak Oil had, after looking at all the evidence concluded that the inevitable decline in oil supply could begin as soon as 2012. 2012! In planning terms this is nothing. Consider this: the world currently uses one square mile of oil. To generate the same level of energy contained in this amount of oil you would have to;
Build 104 Coal fired power plants every year for 50 years, or
Build and install 32,850 wind turbines every year for 50 years, or
Build 4 Three Gorges dams every year for 50 years, or
Build 52 Nuclear power stations every year for 50 years,(not possible because Uranium is also a finite resource and there is already a shortage), or
Build and install 91,250,000 Solar panels every year for 50 years.

All this to replace one year's oil supply!

So I'd like to know why we aren't getting busy and switching to alternatives while we can still afford it. Anyone who is waiting for the oil price to rise high enough to 'make it worthwhile' is forgetting that by then it will be too expensive. We should all be investing in alternatives NOW.
One final word: I was very offended at the presentation of envoironmentalists denying Africans the chance to develop. This is simply not true. As we ourselves face a declining energy supply, would it not be totally irresponsible to put in place power systems that are unsustianable? Wind turbines and solar panels mean Africans can be independant. They could end up in a better postion than us at the end of the day. And don't forget, the biggest manufacturer of solar panels? BP Shell.

Answer 3

I too had my opinion changed. Before seeing the Channel 4 programme, like cimex I too had been a supporter of the kind of measures agreed at the EU this week. I think the documentary has demolished the case for a reduction in CO2 emissions being so crucial for preventing climate change as so many of us mistakingly thought?

That said, there are other reasons, not connected with climate change and global warming, as to why reducing CO2 emissions would be beneficial for the future of our Planet, and so I would not necessarily oppose these?

But a lot of the furore that is still being expounded about the need for these measures on our side of the pond could be due to the hatred of President Bush throughout UK and Europe. His views on climate change and global warming seem to be more akin to the producers of "The Great Global warming Swindle" than to the views of the political leaders in U.K. and Europe? For any politician to support anything Bush says is not a way to win votes at Elections in the UK?

I do not think it was the oil and gas companies who were behind the programme, but they do clearly have a vested interest in the subject being properly debated? But there is no way people like Tony Blair and David Cameron, after all their vociferous utterances on the subject this week, are now going to stand up and eat humble pie by admitting they had misunderstood the facts regarding CO2 The Conservatives in particular will be in trouble after making it their policy this week to put a huge tax on air travel, if it is confirmed air travel has no significant effect on climate change. If Blair changed his view the media would immediately christian it a further example of "Bush's poodle"? So they are both in trouble.

But Sky News did report today there is to be a debate in parliament on the subject shortly, so hopefully the facts made in the programme will now be properly "debated" by MPs - or will there be a continued conspiracy of silence and a rubber stamping of the Party Leaders views? We can only wait and see?

Regarding the media, the BBC do usually tend to copy everything other broadcasting organsiations do before them
after the hierarchy has been woken up. I believe they may well put out a similar progamme to what Channel Four put out this week with their usual prefix "The BBC has learnt......." . But waking up the BBC hierarchy always takes a bit of time?.

Answer 4

Sadly, this is nothing new.

I was reading an article by Bob Carter the other day (written 13/10/06 - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5006 ) in which he reports about a technical meeting on climate change that he attended in Sweden, at the same time that Al Gore arrived to publicise his film. He comments that the “…public might ponder why it was that such an important conference as “Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability” was allowed to pass unremarked by a local media which at the same time gave prominence to the movie An Inconvenient Truth…”

It seems that the media are not interested in truth, just what sells newspapers.

Answer 5

I have been a very strong GW advocate on this site. I have watched the C4 programme several times now. Although there are clearly attempts to paint the GW community as being driven by a bunch of Leftist/Marxist Luddites (quite expected given the divide between the two communities {pro and anti GW} and that its really self interest from the science community itself regards maintaining funding that keeps this rolling along, that aside) I have been swayed by what would appear to be a clear link between solar activity, comic rays and cloud formation. I have been back to the IPCC report and although there is clear mention of the large contribution from water vapour as a green house gas and the solar energy input heating I have been unable to find any mention of the effects of comics rays on cloud formation.

If this is absent from the modelling then the models are wrong. As a result I'm now back on the fence because I too would like to see what counter arguments are brought forward from the pro GW science community to either demonstrably refute the link identified in the programme or demonstrably show its inclusion in the models.

Answer 6

The reason was made pretty clear in the documentary. There's money to be had on the GW gravy train. Anyone who attemps to debate against it will be cast out as a heretic.
The scientists are afraid that they'll lose their funding.
The politicians will say anything to win votes, even if its a mistruth.
The public are being slowly brainwashed by the media and the doom- mongers and will believe what they are told to beleive.
I may be showing my age but I remember my geography teacher telling the class that we were heading into a new ice age.

Answer 7

Have you really not yet learned that profit comes above all else? Profit means wealth, wealth means power, power means you can both buy and direct anyone including governments to do what suits you. These people are not interested in what will happen to the world in twenty years time, they will probably be dead by then , so they want to spend their money now , and to spend it they have got to make it. So we are back to where we started from. If only some one, somewhere, could do more that make gentle waves about this issue . We need to make the world stand still for long enough to face facts and act. Everyone is procrastinating or hoping the problem will go away, it won`t.

Answer 8

It is when you see information like this from highly respected scientists, that you begin to realise that this "new science" is flawed.....badly flawed.

It also suggests that the gravy-train of "research" is as pernicious and self-interested as anything charged against those "in the pay of the oil-industry."

Add to this the far-fetched "worst case scenario" figures chosen by Isaac Stern for his "Report," and it soon becomes obvious that the lunatics are taking over th asylum; whilst Tony Blair struts the world-stage with a big "S" written on his t-shirt.

I'm all for lengthy, ACCURATE AND INFORMED debate, but after reading the Stern Report and watching Ch.4, I am beginning to think that the politicians are, as usual, reacting to something they know absolutely nothing about.

It is a case of the vain-glorious leading the inglorious, and further strengthens my view that Blair is a danger to us all, by dint of his delusional personality.

Answer 9

I extra desirable answer this question Matthew until now I come out to artwork :( i think of Trevor covers it quite lots. yet another element to undergo in concepts is Nigel Calder, who tries to declare that scientists have been all speaking approximately international cooling in the 70's, i'm hoping this solutions your question.

Answer 10

If we find no more oil and just run the world on wells that are known the world can run at the same pace for 75 to 90 years. If we take coal and turn it in to gas add 125 more years to that. We will not run out even in your great-grandchild life time.