Have the scientists got it wrong about global warming?

[kwicky]

Today on Channel 4 proof was given that climate change is not related to carbon emissions but instead is a cyclic phenonemon which is due to solar flares.
If we get this wrong in our diagnosis it could lead to the most expensive blunder ever committed by our politicians and environmentalists not to mention the tax burden in trying to control it . Because of the long period of the cycle it would take many years to see the results of our endeavours.
Instead of tackling this like a runaway express train should we instead only take appropriate measures closely aligned with the major polluters?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Is this a thread about the programme by Martin Durkin?

He's an interesting chap, though certainly not what anyone would consider a balanced or impartial film maker.

Last time C4 screened one of his programs, they were forced to make a prime time apology by the Independent Television commission, for distorting the views of the people interviewed on the program. From the ruling:

"Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2lcsvq .html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28 television_director%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_ Warming_Swindle

God bless balanced reporting, eh?

[jump79]

oh ok then kwicky, because channel 4 showed a prog. in which global warming is all about carbon cycles etc, all other research and theories concluded by scientists/experts for the last 20 Years or so must obviously all be Wrong!
People, esp. the guillible lot here, need to get their facts straight, increasing pollution is definitely having some, most likely Negative effect on the environment... and global warming is a by-product of it. Watch more programmes/documentaries about this to get a clearer idea, not just the 1 programme they showed on channel 4.

[Whickerman]

The reason this prog got such a reaction is that it's one of the few to give a different viewpoint, make its case well, and convincingly. Balanced debate needed it, and personally I'm delighted. If every school is getting a copy of 'An Inconvenient Truth' they should also get a copy of this.

[kwicky]

The problem is we will probably never know what causes global warming. If the problem is cyclical a return to the norm will take place in the future. The carbon reducers will claim their policy of taxing everybody to the eyeballs; greatly reducing our powers of freedom of movement and our lower standard of living have reduced gobal warming.

[Shaunus4]

Ok, for a debunking of the (very old) scientific points made in the programme see the excellent Real Climate site - actually written by climate scientists - at: http://tinyurl.com/2pj5x5 (with embedded links for further information if you want to pursue it)

You will also find the oceanographer Carl Wunsch on that site, claiming that he was "completely misrepresented" in the programme and is considering a formal complaint. The Independent reports on this and the fact that Martin Durkin, the producer of the documentary has long been thoroughly discredited here: http://tinyurl.com/2gsc2s

The same Martin Durkin - the man who claims he was just trying to put the other side of the debate - has now emailed a four letter tirade to academics who dared to question the veracity of his programme's claims, as reported by the Times here: http://tinyurl.com/2ujr28

It also turns out that three of the individuals featured in the programme were individuals who are actually no longer working at the universities with which they were captioned, and hence have no academic accountability: http://tinyurl.com/29fpzj

George Monbiot in the Guardian has also now produced a response to the programme highlighting many of these points: http://tinyurl.com/yqlfz7

Amusingly enough, I also noticed that at the programme's own website
(http://tinyurl.com/2b73yx ) there are links such as "GLOBAL WARMING" and
"THE ENVIRONMENT" which connect to other areas of the Channel4 web presence,
where we are implored to reduce emissions etc! So I don't believe even C4 really buy this.

Having said all this I'm actually all in

[Shaunus4]

Ok, for a debunking of the (very old) scientific points made in the programme see the excellent Real Climate site - actually written by climate scientists - at: http://tinyurl.com/2pj5x5 (with embedded links for further information if you want to pursue it)

You will also find the oceanographer Carl Wunsch on that site, claiming that he was "completely misrepresented" in the programme. The Independent reports on this and the fact that Martin Durkin, the producer of the documentary has long been discredited here: http://tinyurl.com/2gsc2s

The same Martin Durkin - the man who claims he was just trying to put the other side of the debate - has now emailed a four letter tirade to academics who dared to question the veracity of his programme's claims, as reported by the Times here: http://tinyurl.com/2ujr28

It also turns out that three of the individuals featured are actually no longer working at the universities with which they were captioned: http://tinyurl.com/29fpzj

Amusingly enough, links from the programme's own website (http://tinyurl.com/2b73yx ) implore us to reduce emissions etc! So I don't believe even C4 really buy this.

Having said all this I think if someone has
valid scientific queries questioning human-caused climate change then they absolutely should
be heard and not demonised, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm
sure Channel 4's researchers are quite capable of doing the research I've
done (it only took an hour or so) and debunking so much of this stuff.