(Untitled)
I've been thinking about spin and misrepresentation. And now I'm going to write about it. Wit' mah fingerz!
The recent Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was a 90 minute debunking of the concerns that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are heavily responsible for global climate change. It was presented and polished in a very ( Read more... )
The recent Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was a 90 minute debunking of the concerns that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are heavily responsible for global climate change. It was presented and polished in a very ( Read more... )
You're right, the damage is now done and it'll probably take months or years to undo it, if it ever is. And even if we assume for a moment that human-made global warming is bunk, it's not like reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would be a bad thing.
Channel 4's website for the documentary is ... interesting. Several very cautious statements ('some evidence to suggest', 'doesn't seem to support') and some important points ignored, such as animals' contribution to greenhouse gasses being significantly increased by humans farming them in unnatural numbers, on land cleared of trees. The sum-total of the Arguments section of that site seems pretty weak to me, including a very strange account of cloud formation.
Did the documentary ever answer the questions 'Why is such a fuss being made about global warming if it really is a swindle?' and 'Who stands to gain from having people believe that their actions are causing global warming?' Seems to me that second question is a fairly good way to get to the truth of a matter. Strangely, clicking on the link 'The Politics of Carbon' at that site, which you'd think would lead to an article investigating the eco-political machinations of the green/left/global-warming-is-real bloc, leads to an article at Channel 4's site which takes human-caused global warming for granted and fears (rightly, I think) that not nearly enough is being done at the national government level to prevent it.
(sorry for error. fixed)
Reply
That's a very good question. They seemed to be suggesting that we were being misled about it to suit various high-up agendas, but surely the opposite is true? It's large, industrial, Capitalist machines that would benefit from people not caring about pollution. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of the programme on the net somewhere for the benefit of readers who'd like to see or re-see it...
Reply
Leave a comment