Global warming a political propaganda?

Question

i dont really know what he fuss about global warming is. there has been numerous scientific evidence that suggest that c02 is not the reason for the increase in temperature and that ocean/volcanos/organisms produce waaaay more c02 than humans ever will. theres a great video called the great global warming swindle that completely destroys the global warming debate. So i guess my question is why isnt the media trying to debunk the global warming situation. Also changes in temperatures are not uncommon if you look at the history of earth. In fact there was a global freeze scare back in the 70s.

Answer 1

Remember, it was Al Gore who invented the internet and now this fallacy.

Answer 2

I am mid way through watching that documentary actually, and it's quite eye opening. However, there are reports that some of their information is misinterpreted and misleading.

Many people suffer from a confirmation bias. They are trying to prove that global warming exists and is man made; this is an impossible task. What they should be trying to do is discounting the possibility that it is human-caused.

I personally am not convinced that it is human-caused. However, there is not enough evidence to fully support either side. Many scientific studies make conclusions based on their evidence, which is then discounted at a later date by a different study.

What I understand is that there have been many warming and cooling trends in the past that have not been driven by humans. This to me, and for now, is enough to discount the fact that GW is human caused. However, at the same time, it is not enough to convince me that we have not contributed to GW in any way.

In response to the post about causing controversy: it seems this documentary has caused a lot of controversy, and that is a good thing. Media and the government have been smothering us with 'facts' about global warming for years, causing a global fear of something that isn't even close to being scientifically supported. There is just to much variation in the studies that have been conducted so far, and too much evidence to support each side of the argument.

In response to post about judges ruling: I'm sure there are many scientific studies that have found evidence suggesting that global warming is caused by humans; but think about the sheer amount of money being invested in this research. Money is being invested in "proving" that global warming is human made not disproving it. There are studies out there that have evidence to the contrary.

Answer 3

"has been numerous scientific evidence"

First time that I've heard "none" being interpreted as "numerous". Or do we have a inability to understand English? What is your native language?

Answer 4

you are starting to think for your self, watch out, you will get in big  do do for that.

Answer 5

No doubt in my mind that this ozone layer BS will eventually be proved to be perhaps the largest conspiratorial  device the world has ever know. (apart from religion of course)!!

                                You have a good point with your political idea, there are many 'green' folk out there that actually believe all this cr*p, the politicians need their votes and so they must pay lip services to these tree huggers.

                                At the same time what a great way to collect cash?  Increase fuel taxes , this will stop folk driving? Will it really, I dont think so.   Airline taxes up this will stop folk flying? Will it really? I dont think so.

                                    Apart from all the usual arguments about this BS , which could go on for ever, here is a very simple one. All these taxes which are raised to prevent 'global warming' what is this money being used for?

                                      Is that a difficult question to answer?

In the UK we know what our road tax is for , it's supposed to be used to pay for road repairs.

                                       'Green tax' What is that supposed to be used for? Blast a hole in this 'ozone layer'???  Where is the money going??  My money!!

Answer 6

what does the goverment get out of it

Answer 7

There is one problem: you are wrong. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's a simple fact. You are wrong. I know what video you are talking about. Guess what? It was funded by oil companies. No joke. Guess what else? 99% of the experts in the field disagree with you. The 1% that agree with you? Funded by oil companies.  What is more, they pay for a lot of NON-experts to say the same thing. So who should I believe? 99% of the experts? Or the 1%? So pro-global warming is political propaganda? I'd say you have this argument backwards.

Answer 8

Actually, another doubter just brought up the fairly recent judges ruling on the movie Inconvenient Truth in the UK.  A lawsuit was filed to try and keep the movie out of the schools, claiming it was political.  Here's a key part of what the judge found and wrote in the ruling:

[QUOTE]

        "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

        (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

        (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

        (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

        (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

[END QUOTE]

So while there may be some individuals who will use the reality of global warming for other political goals, that doesn't in anyway discount the mountain of scientific evidence that demonstrates that it's real.  How we address it, is a political issue, it's reality is purely science based.

Answer 9

I want to make a comment about this remark

" I remember that Newsweek article about 'Global Cooling"

1)  Lowell Ponte wrote a book in 1976 suggesting we were entering another ice age.  The book was called "the cooling".  I read it, and also saw Ponte on the Tonight Show.  The book basically challenged Global Warming Theory which was the conventional wisdom of the day.  Ponte was not a climatologist, unemployed, recently off the payroll of the CIA from his job supervising cloud seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail and looking to make a little cash.

2)  The book made the Times Best Seller List, and Newsweek reviewed it and wrote one of their usual sensationalist articles, as if Moses had just brought it down from the Mountain.

3)  Sometime later that decade the Government released the one and only government report for that entire decade that discussed Climate.  The National Research Council issued the report at the request of Congress and the President, probably due to the controversy Ponte had stirred up.  

4)  The report said there was not enough data known to predict or discredit either theory.  They itemized what would be needed to be able to do that, mainly a global network of satellites and better computers.  I quote from the report

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

5)  Following that report, the National Geographic Magazine had an article about the NRC report, summarizing both theories and stating the NRC's conclusion that both were unprovable at the time.

6)  The book itself was pop science, published in the popular press, not any scientific journal, and written by an uncredentialed author.

For the millionth time, what in the world is the ozone hole supposed to have to do with Global Warming?

Answer 10

Nope.  The swindle video is nonsense.

The British press tore it apart:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

History of the director.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durk...

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

Answer 11

I don't trust everything I hear either but there is still an element of truth to the fact that we humans haven't been good stewards in the caring for of our home, planet earth. So even if what your saying is true we still have to take care of our planet. I am fully aware that no matter what happens our government will either hide it or blow it way out of proportion to meet their own greedy end.