The Great Global Warming Swindle

[almac]

No, Almac, you didn't; we're a thick-skinned bunch on NW (well, some of us...). As you'll see from the sxchanges between Mondy, C-Bob, others (& me), the game is in the cut-and-thrust. we actually secretly PM each other with arguments for the other side so we can keep the threads lively.

Keep the challenegs coming. :)P

I think by now you can probably see where my concern is coming from - so I'll leave the technicalities to you guys from now on.

I'll take my leave and let this fine fellow do the talking....

Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. ~Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905

[Thundery wintry showers]

Daveshug; if you detect religious fervor it is only in your imagination, I am afraid. But the point of your post is interesting: you are suspicious not because of the science, but because of the doom-mongering and extreme claims that some people make. You are also (justifiably) annoyed at the abuse the government makes of the science, to justify policies such as road taxing and increased parking fees, whilst not providing sensible solutions.

:)P

The above is a very key point; it's important to differentiate aggreviation at the above factors vs. the scientific arguments presented by the likes of the IPCC report (which may or may not be biased, but is far less biased than what we hear from politicians and the media which generally have other agendas to spin)

In the meantime I have been doing my research around the 'net and in various sources that I used when doing my MRes degree at Leeds and climate books. Most, if not all, of the scientific arguments presented in the program do appear to be addressed by "AGW" climate scientists, while agreeing that there is nonetheless some uncertainty in the exact details. There are many resources freely available on issues like the CO2-temperature lag and the issue of the surface warming faster than the troposphere.

At the moment, two conclusions seem to stand out to me:

1. The program did an excellent job of showing how stupid much of the extremism in the "AGW camp" is, and suggesting that bringing in a large Draconian stick to force mass unpopular changes and/or reverting to primitive lifestyles is fraught with problems.

2. The program did not, however, do a particularly good job of providing evidence to suggest that there is little or no anthropogenic component to the current climate change. What evidence they provided seems to be sadly flawed.

I also note that the program covered solar and wind energy and suggested that they wouldn't be able to support the developing countries or replace the fossil fuels. But what about geothermal, tidal, biofuel energy etc, together with the controversial nuclear option?

Edited March 10, 2007 by Thundery wintry showers

[almac]

Yes, but you seem to accept it, and I didn't see the programme.

I hereby resteth my case.

Happy hunting Stratos

[Stratos Ferric]

I wasn't specifically referring to people on here SF, naybe "The Indepent" view is what I hate most, which is almost as obsessed by catastrophic GW as the "Daily Excess" is with the Princess of wales!

I accept GW. I don't sign up to the wholly anthropogenic part but we must be having some effect, I jsut dislike the certainty that both sides put to their view.

If I'm still around in 15 years time, things may look very different. Maybe the doomsayers will be on the way to being proved right, maybe the naysayers may have "fought back".

At the moment, I am most concerned abouy my day to day life. I want to do my bit where possible, even if AGW is pants, it make sense both financially & environmentally.

However, I want to travel & discover & learn. Our government at the moment seems to want to prevent me from doing so, either by making public transport unaffordable, or pricing me off the road.

And if your last sentence betrays a value set that drives a belief that clouds your judgement then I wouldn't be at all surprised that you're sceptical regarding AGW. YOu make my point eloquently.

Don't get me wrong: we live is a democracy, but I am disturbed when a point of view is presented as being reasoned when in actual fact it contains inherent bias; doubly so when the author is unaware of their own bias.

Working backwards from undesired personal consequences to a current point of view re GW hardly suggests objectivity; it appears like forced induction from a preferred end point. On the whole, the AGW community in here tend to be more deductive in their approach.

...

At the moment, two conclusions seem to stand out to me:

1. The program did an excellent job of showing how stupid much of the extremism in the "AGW camp" is, and suggesting that bringing in a large Draconian stick to force mass unpopular changes and/or reverting to primitive lifestyles is fraught with problems.

2. The program did not, however, do a particularly good job of providing evidence to suggest that there is little or no anthropogenic component to the current climate change.

TWS, assuming that what you state is a fair reflection of points made by the programme then re 1 it's hard to disagree. However, and there tends to be some of the same silliness here on N-W, working back from more extreme (and over-stated) suggestions about what to do about a problem, and dismissing these as silly, is not the same as undermining the argument for the initial problem.

In the 80s when the problems of leaded fuel were proven, nobody suggested baning motorised travel. When acid rain was proven as being caused be coal powered power generation, we didn't suddenly ban electricity.

[parmenides3]

When will those who demand irrefutable evidence for rival theories support funding instead of taking cheap shots at oil companies, private doners and academic bodies who would pay money to establish the facts either way?

NGW advocates will lose a "link war" with HGW supporters until the funding imbalance is corrected. Arguing from "concensus science" is two words where "censorship" would do.

Come on, AF, you can do better than this! There's more evidence in support of GW than against it because nobody will pay for the counter-science? How about there's more evidence in support of GW than against it because it supports the evidence, i.e., because it is basically correct?

Scientists don't get together and conspire with each other to agree. They spend most of their time competing with each other for publication and funding and looking for flaws in other people's arguments. Your complaint is really only a disguised version of the 'conspiracy' theory again.

Has it also occurred to you that consensus can occur where there appears to be no falsification or counter-argument?

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

...

NGW advocates will lose a "link war" with HGW supporters until the funding imbalance is corrected. Arguing from "concensus science" is two words where "censorship" would do.

AFF, that's a plausible argument, but I have to say that between you, you and Mondy are becoming a case-study in the type of behaviour that allows cults to form and sustain. Your ingenuity in finding no end of arguments as to why your position is the right one, even in the face of all and any evidence ot the contrary, right upto Mondy's refusal to acknowledge warming at all during his mid-winter madness, really is classic stuff.

I forget whose "rule" it is, but it's just possible that it applies here: when all is said and done the obvious answer very often is the answer.

[parmenides3]

AFF, that's a plausible argument, but I have to say that between you, you and Mondy are becoming a case-study in the type of behaviour that allows cults to form and sustain. Your ingenuity in finding no end of arguments as to why your position is the right one, even in the face of all and any evidence ot the contrary, right upto Mondy's refusal to acknowledge warming at all during his mid-winter madness, really is classic stuff.

I forget whose "rule" it is, but it's just possible that it applies here: when all is said and done the obvious answer very often is the answer.

How about the Sherlock Holmes version: when you have eliminated all other possibilities, the final explanation, however unlikely, must be the true one?

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

C Bob

That is exactly it........temp controls CO2 always has and always will. All empirical evidence points to that without fail.

...

Did not see programme...shame. Now reading other posts to catch up

BFTP

BFTP,

I'm sorry, but one reading of that (there are others but this is afailure of the written word as opposed to the spoken) is plainly and simply wrong. Are you honestly suggesting that the ONLY control of CO2 is temperature?

[Thundery wintry showers]

However, and there tends to be some of the same silliness here on N-W, working back from more extreme (and over-stated) suggestions about what to do about a problem, and dismissing these as silly, is not the same as undermining the argument for the initial problem.

In the 80s when the problems of leaded fuel were proven, nobody suggested baning motorised travel. When acid rain was proven as being caused be coal powered power generation, we didn't suddenly ban electricity.

Extremely well said and well put- I might have posted a similar response to a similar post before, but it rather reminds me of the straw man fallacy (which can be found on any website documenting logical fallacies). An exaggerated version of someone's point is presented and refuted, and the person takes this as a refutation of the person's original point, but in reality it is nothing of the sort.

Hence my point 2) about the program; the arguments of the extremists were well tackled, but not the more moderate arguments of the scientists who generally believe that AGW is likely to be a reality to some extent. Thus, although it raised some important points, it hasn't really offered much substantiated evidence for its core proposal, i.e. that AGW is a swindle- at least from what I can see of the evidence.

[almac]

How about the Sherlock Holmes version: when you have eliminated all other possibilities, the final explanation, however unlikely, must be the true one?

:)P

Or...

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

Mahatma Gandhi

[Bobby]

QUOTE(mackerel sky @ 9 Mar 2007, 12:53 AM) *

I think it was simply put that man-made CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to volcanic eruptions, just as an example. Look, i'm not going to humour you or waste my time compiling lists of references. Global warming and cooling is well recorded in the geological record. You don't have to drill oil and gas for it to get to the surface, its been getting to the surface without us sticking a straw in.

Well, this is incorrect. It's the opposite, volcanic eruptions are a drop in the ocean compared to human CO2 emissions.

From a previous post I made:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

Really puts into perspective the immense amounts of CO2 we are emitting doesn't it? How can we not be the cause of the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere? And more CO2 means more warming. Seems straight forward to moi.

[Stratos Ferric]

How about the Sherlock Holmes version: when you have eliminated all other possibilities, the final explanation, however unlikely, must be the true one?

:)P

I had that one in mind as well; and taking the two together doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for manouever unless and until we mke some ground-breaking discovery that is bcked up by good science. In the meantime I will sleep tonight with a wry grin at the thought of all those highly paid and not altogether stupid politicans being duped by all this AGW hokum. We should all be humbled and appreciative of the fact that in our midst there are a precious few lifted, so it would seem, from the pages of a Hans Christian-Andersen fairytale, opening our eyes to the delusions that many of us seem to be suffering under.

[Michael Winston]

I rather think that you have misrepresented/misunderstood Adam Smith: here (I assume) is the famous quotation from "An Inquiry Into The Wealth of Nations" taken from Wikipedia...

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

I.x.c.27 (Part II)

It is not a "major goal" of business to deceive and oppress but it is a feature of business that in the absence of effective competition policy/law businesses will always be tempted to from cartels.

Regards

ACB

Hi, ACB and thanks for the considered reply; I appreciate your time. It has been thirty years since I read it, so my memory is a little hazy, to say the least. However, I believe that despite the ravages of time and Guiness I have neither misrepresented or misunderstood Smith - a testament to the power of positive drinking! Adam Smith's brazen tome was written in a time of virtual serfdom, when the rich and powerful felt confident enough to openly discuss how powerless the law was to rein in their exploitative excesses. The rich and powerful made up the rules as they went along. Human rights didn't have to be ignored because there were no human rights. Slavery flourished. The freedoms we enjoy and despise today were won by people whose sole reward was transportation or worse. In later times, people gave their lives to get us the vote. These were the 'free market' conditions which the libertarian Smith so admired and described so succinctly. (Atlantic FlameThrower, please note.)

However, as usual, I digress. Apologies.

There are, I think, two main points to my argument which I would like to reiterate. The first is that I believe that the industrialised West is using AGW as a stick to beat the Third World with. Vested interests are hyping the AGW argument as a key strategy in hindering industrial development and economic and social progress in the Third World because it threatens the economic well being of the West. The fear of the rapidly developing Chinese, Indonesian and Indian economies is tangible-note the recent run on the world stock exchanges following the Chinese crackdown on tax evasion and corruption. Big business hasn't been tempted to form cartels - they always have had them. Its second nature to them; its an integral part of their philosophy. ''We've had our turn but you can't have yours, Africa'' seems to be the mantra. First World businesses actively conspire to promote this type of strategy - the very practice that Smith descibed all those years ago. This doesn't mean I endorse the anti-AGW argument but it does incline me more favourably towards it through sheer spite, loathing and bile. Also, Mondy is very persuasive!

The second point addresses the very real issue of deception: deception by others (in particular, the media) and self-deception. Whether one subscribes to the AGW theory or not, either point of view requires a great deal of intellectual and emotional investment, to say nothing of the time involved. AGW is after all a highly contentious and emotive topic and one would expect nothing less from people who take the subject seriously. However, as anyone who has ever bought a fake picture knows, the more one pays for it the less inclined one is to doubt its provenance. Whether the dealer happens to be an art dealer, a newspaper magnate or a television channel is incidental. We all pay for our sources of information and that transaction makes us culpable if we believe the peddler , if we accept the story unconditionally, if we pat him on the back and say ''well done'' for re-inforcing our prejudices without question-like a serf, in fact. (Atlantic Flame Thrower, please note). Also, if the first point I made above proves to be true, then the AGW argument has the potential to make certain interests a great deal of money flogging earth-saving technology to the Third World (and to us, too, of course). Who would dare to say that they're not prepared to do their bit to save the world, no matter which side of the argument they take? Who would not feel a certain frisson of excitement installing a solar panel? It's comforting to think that we're scoring a few ethical points by being kind to the planet by driving our hybrid car. Unless, of course, we're not. Unless, of course, it's unnecessary. Unless, of course, we have been totally deceived. This is the centre of a very, very clever knot, in my opinion. Either side of the AGW debate stands to make an enormous amount of money. If the pro-AGWers win, there's a new Klondike out there in the form of the sale of 'green' technologies, particularly to the Third World (and the cheap spin-off: being nice to the natives-more ethical points). One only has to look at the conduct of pharmaceutical companies in the African continent to understand the immense gains to be made from cheap R and D at the expense of human life. If they don't and AGW theory turns out to be false, they'll be crying all the way to the bank. Nobody wins except powerful industrial and financial interests. As I've said before (if you'll allow me to indulge myself by quoting myself), human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth. The only difference today in this age of GW/AGW is that the stakes are enormously higher. There's an awful lot of money to be made and an awful lot of people are going to suffer, one way or another. China, that most oppressive communist state, has embraced the concept of globalisation and the worst excesses of capitalist practices. It's only a question of time before they run out of the one precious natural resource vital to all industrialised societies - water. Venezuela, on the other hand, seems determined to ensure that its naural resources are used for the benefit of its people. As the head of a socialist state, Hugo Chavez isn't going around destroying his country's industrial base and saying that economic growth is bad for the environment. All he wants for his countrymen is a fair shake of the stick, something the western media seem determined to undermine by casting him in the role of new demon, a threat to 'world peace' and 'western security', whatever those things might be. He's not opposed to the despoilation of the planet. Nor is Castro, Gaddafi or Hu Jintao to the best of my knowledge.(Atlantic Flame THrower, please note)

You've probably gathered that I get frustrated when people seem only too willing to hide behind their Guardian, Morning Star or Daily Mail and take instruction from them. However, I make no apologies for the fact that I am a critic of complacency: I'm emphatically not a conspiracy theorist and I am emphatically not a capitalist or communist apologist. I'm just a ''little man using up the air''.*

God! Don't I go on !!!

Thanks for your time,

Kind regards,

Mike.

* 10 virtual pints if you can name that tune! P.M. me if you can!!

[Stratos Ferric]

Or...

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

Mahatma Gandhi

Ah, but the induction there is NOT that because we are one we are correct. Proof is less likely to be proven by a minority view than it is by a majority view, particularly as understanding matures. It's not that long ago that a nazi apologist was released from prison for denying the holocaust (on one level I thought that punishment rather harsh); I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have mustered much support were he to have hired a hall for a meeting of like-minded village idiots.

[Mondy]

Mondy:

this week I got up at 04:45 on Monday to fly south to my client at Heathrow; in the evening I was in London for a meeting. On Tuesday I was up at 6 to fly to Madrid, returning by 10 the following morning. I then worked all day to around 0130 prepping for a client off-site meeting that ran right through Thursday. Between 630-830 last night I was with the client team making samba music before having dinner with them then retiring with my team until 1245 this morning to prep today's activities.

It is not, therefore, a matter of whether or not it was above my level of understanding, so much as one of being too busy to be able to find out. If it was as good as that google video link you posted at the head of the thread then I suspect that my current point of view would not have been much changed. I do not detect in any of the "enthusiasts'" support any sea-change in the wider community's understanding of the matter. What I HAVE seen today is Tony Blair on stage hailing more EEC action re CO2 emissions. Presumably he missed the programme last night as well.

An argument posting an alternative point of view re GW has no more veracity for the fact that it's on TV. In recent years there have been documentaries asking whether the Princess of Wales' death was really an accident, whether or not man really landed on the moon, whether Kennedy was killed by the CIA / FBI, whether the CIA/FBI (they get around) blew up the WTC; whether sugar is bad for us (like water, salt, iron, and pretty much any other mineral, in excess the answer is yes)...there's an industry in conspiracy theories perpetuated in no small measure by individuals predisposed to a point of view that "they've got it in for us".

Thanks for reply. I only asked a simple question, yet your rambling thereafter fills half a page.

Interesting to note, as i type this, and review/refresh the page, two of the most ardent supporters of Gw are actually tearing apart a post with sound reasoning(AFF). Why?

I say this (yet again ). The trouble with some GW lobbyists is that they're never wrong and, even if they are, will never admit it. Infact some try fudge the issue.

Brilliant thread and a big well done to the mods who have left us alone here contesting the whole agenda..

Edited March 10, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

The trouble with some GW lobbyists is that they're never wrong and, even if they are, will never admit it. Infact some try fudge the issue.

I presume the pain killers are wearing off, then Mondy? Which issue was it that was being fudged, again? The solar theory? Come on; what have we missed?

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi, ACB and thanks for the considered reply; ...

Kind regards,

Mike.

* 10 virtual pints if you can name that tune! P.M. me if you can!!

Winston,

In my humble an excellent post; I don't agree with all that you've said, but the knot you allude to is, for the time being at least, somewhat gaudian in nature. The money to be made from green tech is, arguably, one saving grace IF there is anything in the AGW case; without that there would be no commercial or political incentive to invest in alternatives as a "just in case" position.

From a different perspective you have illuminated a point I make repeatedly in these NGW/GW/AGW threads: a lot of positions are actually being taken on the basis of avoidance of consequences rather than assessment of facts on their own merits to develop hypotheses.

[Michael Winston]

I'm pretty sure he (David Irving) wouldn't have mustered much support were he to have hired a hall for a meeting of like-minded village idiots.

Well said, SF. Freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to shout ''Fire!'' in a crowded theatre.

Regards,

Mike.

P.S. Thanks for taking the time to read - greatly appreciated!

P.P.S. Mondy's right too- this is a really interesting (and censor - free) thread - a testament to everybodys' moderation! I'm genuinely enjoying being a part of it.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Winston

[pottyprof]

When acid rain was proven as being caused be coal powered power generation, we didn't suddenly ban electricity.

No. This is true. We placed thousands of people on the dole and built gas fired power stations instead.

Potty... Ex lab technician. British Coal.

[parmenides3]

That's it for me for the night. Back soon, as Owl said.

:)P

[Mondy]

I presume the pain killers are wearing off, then Mondy? Which issue was it that was being fudged, again? The solar theory? Come on; what have we missed?

:)P

Not quite. Have a look at your own IPCC. Fudging appears rife within that organisation

[Stratos Ferric]

...

I say this (yet again ). The trouble with some GW lobbyists is that they're never wrong and, even if they are, will never admit it. Infact some try fudge the issue.

Brilliant thread and a big well done to the mods who have left us alone here contesting the whole agenda..

Mondy, in order to be wrong I have to be demonstrably wrong.

As an example, there is on an occasional route home for me a roundabout at which the outside lane in the approach splits into two: this lane has a road marking showing an arrow for ahead or right, yet very few drivers use it for the ahead option even though it shortens queueing time - albeit only by four or so cars. On some occasions when I do use it I seem to invoke the ire of drivers queueing around the roundabout (which they ought not to be doing because they are blocking entry from the right) from the inside lane of the pair, even when I wait to be allowed to re-enter the flow as the two lanes merge back to one in the exit.

I am sure they are filled with a sense of being absolutely right, but the disadvantage that they have is that they are not aware of the fact that they are not in full possession of ALL of the facts.

I will be the first to put my hands up to you when yo prove to me you're wrong. I know you get frustrated by not winning the argument, but might it not just be that your arguments aren't actually correct? Chelsea could line up against my old Sunday league club every day for the next hundred years and would win every game; I'm sure I'd find it frustrating, but I wouldn't deny that the better team was winning. That may seem harsh Mondy but of the two of us only one has at any point said that nothing could be presented that would change their view re AGW and climate change! Not a sensible position to take if you're then going to try to complain that the other side never gives ground. It's rather like the burglar complaining about the "reasonable force" law.

[clue: for those who didn't see the said interchange of views, the "guilty party" was not me]

No. This is true. We placed thousands of people on the dole and built gas fired power stations instead.

Potty... Ex lab technician. British Coal.

No bias there then? As I have argued vehemently in another thread in another place, I wonder how history will judge us for arguing for the right for legions of men to go deep underground, in filthy, hot, inhospitable and dangerous conditions, and for their sons to have the same "right". For that ever to have ben thelimit ofd some people's ambition is a sad indictment of our society on many levels. Not to decry the workers, or rights to a job, but such is the stuff of progress. Life isn't all upside.

Anyway, the move from coal to gas was largely Arthur Scargill's fault. A less militant leader would not have catalysed the policies and tactics that Thatcher adopted in order to avoid another 1973/76.

Thanks for reply. I only asked a simple question, yet your rambling thereafter fills half a page.

I merely traded what I sensed was one form of sarcasm for another, but I know that you know that!

Here, here. My point exactly.

The downside, however, is that the volume of pro-GW is vast and the volume of other theories is slim. It's a little difficult to make a balanced judgement based on an uneven argument.

BTW, greetings P3. I hope I didn't cause you any offence last night?

That's like saying it's hard to vote Lib Dem because they don't get as much air space as the two other parties. Or it's hard to support Bury as opposed to Man Utd because their ground is smaller. Or it's hard to appreciate the merits of Hardy alongside JK Rowling when she outsells him by, probably, 1000:1.

No sound mind was ever disadvantaged by the relative mass of argument; though many have been rightly changed by the weight of argument.

P

...when I told them the truth that 90% of Anarctica has been cooling for 40 years and the ice on the continent has been thickening...irrefutable evidence and evidence that is being ignored. Antartica melting is only the sea ice and only 10% is warming....

BFTP

there are also lots of truths about Tibet being warmer than ever, and I was talking to a friend over dinner in Madrid on Tuesday night who was telling me that the weather there is now much warmer and drier than it used to be (they now have serious problems with water supply in summer), and we all know the run of months we've endured here, and Russia has been warm...

It's a bit silly of you to argue a case against misuse of point data and then to do precisely the same yourself as if disproving the whle AGW treatise by doing so. As my facts clearly show, you cannot extrapolate from some of Antarctica to the whole global climate and expect to be taken seriously.

[pottyprof]

Anyway, the move from coal to gas was largely Arthur Scargill's fault. A less militant leader would not have catalysed the policies and tactics that Thatcher adopted in order to avoid another 1973/76.

I merely traded what I sensed was one form of sarcasm for another, but I know that you know that!

He didn't help. I really do think you need to watch the program. There is a lot of truth behind the demise of the coal industry and what is explained. Working in the lab, I got to know a lot of things behind the markets. We were constantly told that our sulphur levels in the UK were too high but yet UK coal has some of the lowest levels in the world. As the number of pits dwindled, we started to hear twitterings about CO2. So then the sulphur problem wasn't the issue. Or was it ever??

I feel that I was lied to back then and after watching the programme, seeing things that I had some information about, I feel that I am being lead up the garden path, through the gate and down the M1.

edit. A little snippet from the DTI report in 2004 shows the potential high sulphur bracket facing the coal industry now. This appears to be down to the lack of accessible low sulphur coal. Why did they shut the quality mines??

Most UK produced coal will fall in the high sulphur band between 1.4-2.2%, with the average around

1.7-1.8%. There is little prospect of this being significantly lowered given the lack of accessible low

sulphur reserves in the UK and the high costs of washing fines to remove sulphur. Average sulphur

grades could be reduced slightly if Scottish opencast reserves can be heavily exploited, as these have

sulphurs of 0.9-1.2%.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Come on, AF, you can do better than this! There's more evidence in support of GW than against it because nobody will pay for the counter-science? How about there's more evidence in support of GW than against it because it supports the evidence, i.e., because it is basically correct?

Do you deny that the Great Swindle raised some interesting questions? I think not. Therefore it is for you to answer how a producer on shoe-string budget landed one, or two, on a multi-million dollar industry with thousands of PhDs and supercomputers.

Scientists don't get together and conspire with each other to agree. They spend most of their time competing with each other for publication and funding and looking for flaws in other people's arguments. Your complaint is really only a disguised version of the 'conspiracy' theory again.

You must be really short on material if one cannot make the observation that HGW science is funded more than NGW science without being called a conspiracy theorist.

The producer says he wanted to call the programme "Apocalypse My Ass." It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" because the film is a work of journalism that requires a story, and conspiracy theory gets bums on seats.

I don't know whether Martin Durkin really believes in a conspiracy among governments to promote GWT. I don't. There is no conspiracy just an awful lot of stupid, ignorant people willing to take statements of politicians like Al Gore at face value.

Has it also occurred to you that consensus can occur where there appears to be no falsification or counter-argument?

What bunnies and rainbows world must one live in where there is no counter-argument, alternative evidence or scientific dissent to ones own pet interpretation of reality? One of the IPCC scientists is on record stating his opposition to the conclusions of the latest report. He went to court to prove his case. Ground control to major tom??

you and Mondy are becoming a case-study in the type of behaviour that allows cults to form and sustain. Your ingenuity in finding no end of arguments as to why your position is the right one, even in the face of all and any evidence ot the contrary, right upto Mondy's refusal to acknowledge warming at all during his mid-winter madness, really is classic stuff.

I forget whose "rule" it is, but it's just possible that it applies here: when all is said and done the obvious answer very often is the answer.

There is no organised conspiracy to push HGW and censor rival work, though groups and individuals do try (evidenced in this thread). The C4 programme is proof of the freedom to publish NGW views. The lack of NGW mostly reflects ignorance of which we are on the cusp of a correction. People don't have words or knowledge to frame a counter argument. This programme is part of a trend of increased awareness of the problems of the hugely expensive science of HGW by the scientists, and importantly now by the public. This programme will help calls for funding of NGW research. In Europe the political debate may be over which may still retard progress here relative to other places, but in America contra-the Goracle GWT-skepticism is all the rage(pdf).

Well said, SF. Freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to shout ''Fire!'' in a crowded theatre.

It does grant us that right. Because, you know, sometimes the theatre is on fire. But if we don't use our rights responsibly, we shout fire so we can enjoy a laugh while everyone hurries to the exits when there isn't even any smoke, there are laws which can remove our freedom, or signficantly deter our intention, to do it again. More often than not though the person who shouts fire when it's obvious there isn't one is ridiculed by other theatre goers for being an idiot who says things when there's no reason to say it. Unless they are crazy Bobby won't need to give the miscreant so much 'clip round the ear.

Laws and official bodies are not always necessary for justice.

If the Great Swindle production team is so completely wrong to shout "Swindle!" without evidence they will likewise be publically ridiculed. Yet the responses of those in this thread do not seem to suggest this is the case. The Great Swindle may not be made by rocket scientists but it is recognised they have raised legitimate evidence-based questions about the science/politics of HGW.

For example, the evidence from Vostock ice cores that CO2 historically lags the rise in temperature. This might not be enough evidence to say HGW is not happening, as the Independent pointed out in its pre-review, but it is a legitimate critique of Al Gore's statements in The Inconvienient Truth in which he had been praised for stating the opposite for the general public in politicians speak.

Edited March 10, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[disco-barry]

....The trouble with some GW lobbyists is that they're never wrong and, even if they are, will never admit it....

...And they fly a hell of alot