Morosoph's Journal: Critique of Channel 4's "The Global Warming Swindle"

I'm not saying that this is the whole story, but following on from Railgunner's JE, I asked a friend of mine to comment, and he sent me the following PDF, made in response to the video:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf

Following the EU's behaviour with respect to software patents, and the current behaviour with respect to MSOXML, I'm now officially unconvinced by either side. I neither trust government bodies, nor those who are criticising them. Perhaps this was what the programme makers intended. Perhaps it is those with vested interests who are replying truthfully, but misleadingly.

I'd hate to have to make a political decision on the proper response to climate change.

Added footnote (16/Mar/2007): My friend sent me a link to an article in The Independent, and the discussion on the issue on Technocrat is interesting. I would like to see an explanation of CO2 lagging behind temperature increases, as emphasised by eglamkowski, below.

even if..

[eglamkowski]

the maker of the program had his biases, there are still a few things he points out that are trivially true or not true. Either CO2 lags behind temperature increases or it doesn't. All the things mentioned in the swindle can be verified as true or not true. You can find the truth of the matter yourself if you can locate the empirical data.

Bias

[Morosoph]

The PDF concerns itself with facts, rather than bias, but the authour claims (as point #3) that the correlation isn't presented as the main proof (of man-made global warming) by the IPCC.

However, what he says next is a bit weasely:

For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

If he doesn't point out the lag, he could be said to be "leading the jury" by emission.

Interesting

[robi2106]

I do find it interesting that the sources used in the first paragraphs to profile the producer are GMWatch.org are an Anti-genetic modification group, and self professing left-wing political activist George Monbiot. So of _course_ two left wing groups are going to blast a movie producer that makes content that refutes their causes. That would be like asking (right) Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter to describe (left) George Soros. Or asking the atheist Richard Dawkins to characterize the Christian Pat Robe

Thanks for Your Reply!

[Morosoph]

I'd love to hear enough evidence to be conviced by one side, or the other; the risks are such that the truth is paramount. As the programme point out, the precautionary principle gives no guide, since considerably slower development for the world's poorest is not reasonable for an ill-founded fear.

It appears that neither side is above manipulative propaganda, and I'm no magician; I don't know where to look for the "hidden wires" in the arguments. Either side can sound compelling.

It's probably about

Re:

[robi2106]

"It appears that neither side is above manipulative propaganda, and I'm no magician; I don't know where to look for the "hidden wires" in the arguments. Either side can sound compelling."

No kidding. As if I have enough time to investigate both sides to the point where I can make an informed decision. The entire situation just annoys me.

jason