• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

BBC: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Forums New posts
M

musictomyears

Skilled Investigator
I think everybody should know about this. This documentary has certainly helped me with forming an opinion on the causes of global warming.
I have been an environmentalist, all my life. I have worked for Greenpeace, and for Green Parties, in two countries. I think that manmade pollution is dreadful, and must urgently be stopped. However, when it comes to the reasons for climate change, scientific facts do not appear to support the alleged links between carbon dioxide levels and global warming.

BBC: The Great Global Warming Swindle

(Both links are now dead - the Admin)
 
*sigh*

So, is musictomyears really Michael Crichton or what?

Does anyone buy that post or that silly film? It reads like a post I saw on another board:

"I have worked for skeptic's magazines and considered myself a disbeliever but this new evidence of UFO contact has pique my interest and changed my mind, check it out."

Then there was a link to a propaganda film.

The more things change. . .

*sigh*
 
interestedINitall, I mentioned my work as an environmentalist (which is one aspect of my life) to illustrate that I am interested in a debate based on facts, rather than bias or emotion. You obviously didn't get that.
 
musictomyears said:
interestedINitall, I mentioned my work as an environmentalist (which is one aspect of my life) to illustrate that I am interested in a debate based on facts, rather than bias or emotion. You obviously didn't get that.
Click to expand...

Ha!

Oh, no I "got that" all too well. I think YOU don't "get" that this is a message board and none of us here know you from Adam, as they say, and all of your statements about being an environmentalist could just be malarkey offered to bolster your anti-environmentalist bull.

It's an old tactic. I'm a bit surprised it needed to be explained to you or maybe your ignorance is supposed to illustrate your lack of guile.

Good one.
 
interestedINitall, I'd suggest to stop making assumptions, but start discussing the topic - if you are at all interested in the topic. I posted a link to a BBC documentary. The BBC has been accused of being a leftist organisation, and a right-wing propaganda tool. There is paranoia everywhere, it seems.

Besides, do I know you from Adam?
 
musictomyears said:
interestedINitall, I'd suggest to stop making assumptions, but start discussing the topic - if you are at all interested in the topic. I posted a link to a BBC documentary. The BBC has been accused of being a leftist organisation, and a right-wing propaganda tool. There is paranoia everywhere, it seems.

Besides, do I know you from Adam?
Click to expand...


Do you have cognitive problems? Really, you didn't address what I just said. Why is that? Is it because you've thought better than trying to validate your bull with statements about your being an "environmentalist?"

I've read about both sides of this debate, thanks. I don't need "information" from someone pretending to be an environmentalist on a message board.

signed,
A Top Climate Scientist
(see how easy that is?)

Sheesh!

. . .and then there were seven.
 
The Hawk said:
I think this belongs in the Conspiracy forum..
Click to expand...

There seems to be an aspect of conspiracy in it, since it is the big polluters who now try to control the debate. It seems that governments have found a new way for taxing their subjects, and for making everybody feel guilty, just for being alive.

I think that, a lot of the time, humans whip themselves into a frenzy over an issue, and react quite irrationally. For decades, warnings of environmental decline were routinely ridiculed by the mass media. Now, suddenly, the environment makes front page news, on a daily basis.

My take on this subject is - even if global warming has nothing to do with greenhouse gases - if it forces people to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, then all the better. My only concern is that nuclear energy is presented by many governments for a solution, which it patently isn't.
 
There's too much TALK it's ****ing based on a few things CO2 effects warming or it doesn't these thousands of articles and videos out there talk too much, they need to break it down with exact data. I want to hear the counter argument. The documentary has some good points but it seems driven to one side of the spectrum. I'd like to hear exactly how that 800 year delay thing adds up or doesn't add up to pro global warming scientists.

musictomyears said:
My take on this subject is - even if global warming has nothing to do with greenhouse gases - if it forces people to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, then all the better. My only concern is that nuclear energy is presented by many governments for a solution, which it patently isn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that..
 
There's too much TALK it's ****ing based on a few things CO2 effects warming or it doesn't these thousands of articles and videos out there talk too much, they need to break it down with exact data. I want to hear the counter argument. The documentary has some good points but it seems driven to one side of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people lent this same air of skepticism to Al Gore's film?
 
Both sides need to address the data on each side instead of playing word and number games surrounded by storytelling. I don't blame Al Gore for much because his movie is ONE man's plea for the environment (as Al Gore sees it). There's a little bit of difference between that and a one sided documentary interviewing one side of the spectrum; entirely aimed at bashing the CO2 global warming movement.
 
hopeful skeptic said:
I wonder how many people lent this same air of skepticism to Al Gore's film?
Click to expand...

Everyone on the AM radio dial and FOX News. A pretty large group of people actually.

-DBTrek
 
The Hawk said:
Both sides need to address the data on each side instead of playing word and number games surrounded by storytelling. I don't blame Al Gore for much because his movie is ONE man's plea for the environment (as Al Gore sees it). There's a little bit of difference between that and a one sided documentary interviewing one side of the spectrum; entirely aimed at bashing the CO2 global warming movement.
Click to expand...

If I understand you clearly, you're suggesting that the documentary produced (or simply aired - I'm not clear which) by the BBC has a greater responsibility because a number of people were involved in its making, but Al Gore's film doesn't? You don't believe Al made the film by himself, do you? Al Gore received funding from a number of outside organizations and it was promoted and endorsed by several organizations before the final edit had even been cut.

Anyone making any claim has a responsibility to provide evidence to support it, and explain why contrary evidence against it should be discounted. It doesn't matter whether the claim originates from an individual or corporate source.

Is it the ostensibly public-service nature of the BBC that bothers you? I guess I don't understand why a one-sided documentary from Al Gore carries less of an evidentiary burden than a one-sided documentary that disagrees with him.
 
One seldom gets untainted information from any side of this subject. It seems that everyone is "selling" a spin.

Just look at the entry that began this thread. Was it necessary to give us a spiel about being an "environmentalist, blah, blah, blah."? I was waiting for him to ask me which shell the SUV was under.

Just present the information!
 
musictomyears said:
BBC: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Click to expand...

I'm glad you posted that link - I have seen that program, it was aired here in the UK less than 2 weeks ago. I am more convinced by their argument than Al Gore's.

BTW, it was commissioned by Channel 4 - not the BBC. A small point, but there is a distinction between to the two channels; one is commercial (CH4) and one is solely funded by a licence fee (BBC).
 
If it has been shown, beyond doubt, that a rise in global temperatures predates any corresponding rise in CO2 levels by some 800 years, Al Gore's argument is pretty much dead in the water. In fact, I am beginning to feel ashamed for him, for having stuck his neck out without doing proper research. The evidence against his line of reasoning is overwhelming.

I also don't see what facts have to do with spin. Spin starts when people either don't understand, or don't like, the facts.
 
musictomyears said:
I also don't see what facts have to do with spin. Spin starts when people either don't understand, or don't like, the facts.
Click to expand...

More accurately, spin starts when people post links (or present information) accompanied by idiotic pitches like this one:

musictomyears said:
This documentary has certainly helped me with forming an opinion on the causes of global warming.
I have been an environmentalist, all my life. I have worked for Greenpeace, and for Green Parties, in two countries. I think that manmade pollution is dreadful, and must urgently be stopped. However, when it comes to the reasons for climate change, scientific facts do not appear to support the alleged links between carbon dioxide levels and global warming.
Click to expand...


Tell me, does anyone fall for that and respond, "Wow, you were an environmentalist and this documentary changed your
mind!", "I guess I'll give it extra special attention!"

Were they sober?

I suppose in a culture steeped in hypno-garbage like Fox News you can't really be blamed for thinking people would fall for that - but honestly.

Incidentally, I'd think you were selling the same load if you had posted a "CO2" link and prefaced it with something to the effect of: I used to be a logger who owned an SUV and thought Al Gore was insane but this documentary really helped me with forming an opinion on the causes of Global Warming.


For the record, I'm neither denying nor affirming any of the information in that British film. My problem is with the way it, and many of its "CO2" counterparts, are being "marketed" and spun not only by their makers but by people like you.

For you to enter with a line like the one above and then cop an attitude when called on it is indicative of this problem and is unforgivable.
 
Rick Deckard said:
And the point of that link is what?

Did you watch the video posted at the top the thread? What aspects of the data presented do you have a problem with?
Click to expand...

Rather telling that you assume I "have a problem" with any of the data.

I was simply presenting a link without the ridiculous pitch that musictomyears felt it necessary to include.

Now I see why he felt he could get away with it.

*sigh*
 
Back
Top