Posted by TryingToSnowUsAllAgainEh?, a resident of another community, on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:12 pm
This "documentary" is just the next wave of disinformation put out by the oil industry through their academic flunkies:
After arguing all along it wasn't really occuring, now they've retreated in the face of overwhelming facts and say, well OK it's occuring, but it really isn't our fault, it natural - but even if it is our fault, we can't do anything about it, so we'll all just have to sit back and take it like a man.
What a load of BS!
Just more "political science" floated as "real science."
Posted by Snowman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Yes, the BBC is known for it's extreme right-wing views and for being flunkies of the oil industry.
Seriously, just watch the piece. It addresses and refutes all of the (predictable) accusations made by the previous commenter.
Never forget that global warming is a multi-billion dollar industry (research grants, environmental journalists, government analysts, etc) and many people will lose their jobs once it is generally accepted to be nonsense. So we can expect a lot of kicking and screaming as this happens. The sooner the better, especially for the hundreds of millions of desperately poor people who will benefit from electricity and development despite the best efforts of the Warmies to prevent it.
Posted by GlobalWarmingMeltsSnowmen, a resident of another community, on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Oh, yea, I forgot the other "argument" - that the environmentalists are somehow now an "industry" (imagine that, after fighting industry all these years, they've somehow become one!) and a "multi-billion dollar" one at that - now that's "rich" (pun intended). Just how many BILLIONS was it that Chervon made just in PROFIT alone last quarter, Snowman?
Posted by WeReportYouDecide, a resident of another community, on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Just checked on this "BBC Documentary" - yes, it's being shown on the BBC, but barely - it's on BBC 4 (the main BBC channels being 1 and 2).
And while BBC 1/2 get a combined 27% share (with viewers watching on average 8 hours per week), BBC 4 pulls in at a less than impressive 0.4% share (with viewers watching on average just a pautry 6 minutes a week), although that is higher than Fox News, which pulls a 0.1%, for an average viewer time of just one minute per week (which, coincidently, is about all I can take of Fox myself!).
Posted by Sunshine, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 12:09 am
I don't have a dog in this hunt, WRYDecide. But does the viewership of BBC 4 have anything at all to do with the study or its bonafides????
You know the Journal of Climatology has a minuscule circulation...but that doesn't (to me at least) say anything about the veracity, or lack thereof, of what's reported in it.
Why don't we just stick to the facts here? Some of us actually would like to learn from a reasoned debate - not watch some ad hominem fight about the oil industry, the environmental industry and how many people watch TV in Great Britain.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Mar 14, 2007 at 6:47 am
Channel 4 in England has the reputation of employing people who are too far to the left to be employed by BBC. So, it is quite a shock that they are the ones who actually put together such an informed piece. Everyone is scratching their heads.
As for the Fox analagy, guess you haven't read the actual reports. Don't want to turn this into a viewer war, but last I read, Fox pulled in more viewers than all the other alphabet soup news stations COMBINED. So, don't know where you are getting your stats, and makes the rest of your "facts" very suspect.
Try watching it. Or are you too afraid, as a friend of mine actually admitted to me once, of learning something that might change your mind and have you on the "wrong" side, thus threatening everything you believe? Easier to just follow the crowd.
Posted by edwin, a resident of another community, on Mar 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm
You lot suprise me. i don't see any debate of the theories raised or dismissed in the program. I personally am on the fence in this debate as all the information i have to go on comes from the media, which very likely is the same for you. Although the main conclusions may not be true, there are some very valid points raised in this film. It makes you realise that which ever side you take it is because of how you've been influenced by the media, after all, the media isn't interested in the facts, it is out to make money, fact. if a story sells then why not make money out of it, i know i would.
having two sides to a story is never a bad thing. It helps to initiate healthy debate, and of course to get people to think for themselves. Something, i may add, that is lacking in american society.
Watch the film, make up your own mind but make sure you have an open mind before hand. Most importantly, just have a quick think about why your opinion is how it is?? Have you personally seen the raw data used in many of these assumptions?? bare it in mind that if it the money was to made by disputing global warming, the media would jump on it and many people would believe them, purely because everyone was saying the same thing.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Anyone who doesn't believe man-made global warming is a dangerous reality is irresponsible, lazy and thoughtless. Global-warming is a far cry from the Salem witch hunts. With the Witch Hunts, our direct involvement led to countless deaths. With global-warming, it's our NOT DOING ANYTHING that is leading to deaths and environmental disaster. Posts such as this launched by greedy Republicans (correct me if I'm wrong Snowman, but you are Republican, are you not?) eager to believe that the environment is immune to our presence only support the fact that there are people out there who care far more about their pocketbooks and SUVs than the planet or human life. For shame.
Posted by Cold Enough in Menlo Park, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I love how some of you continue to listen to Al Gore as he flies from $50,000 a night presentation to presentation in his private jet only taking time off to stay in his mansion.
Records show that last year Al and Tipper Gore paid a monthly average of $1,359 in electric bills and $1,080 in gas bills for their 20-room Nashville mansion and poolhouse. Averaged together, the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric bills in 2006, the equivalent of 221,000 kilowatt-hours and more than 20 times the national average.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Something as unique as the suggestion that the intensity of solar radiation has no effect on the temperature needs something more than It's all Exxon's and Bush's fault for an argument. I have followed a few of their arguments back and it is just more my cat ate my homework.
Who was it that said "The more he praised his own virtue, the quicker I counted the silver."?
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm
RS - To me it's just a matter of common sense. Basically, whether or not global-warming is real is inconsequential. This is all about living a healthier life (for ourselves) and respecting the planet. Our own experiences teach us that virtually everything is vulnerable. We as human beings get sick constantly, from the common cold to lung cancer. The best way to stay healthy is to live healthy, and that goes for the planet as well. I'm hard-pressed to understand why there's an argument, actually. Doesn't it stand to reason -- based on experience, science, logic and consideration -- that it is in the planet's best interest (therefore ours) to avoid spewing too many unnatural chemicals into the air we all breathe? And that goes for everyone from GW Bush to Al Gore. These leaders need to set good examples by respecting the planet. Maybe then we as citizens would be more prone to follow suit rather than argue. I mean really, does it matter? Isn't it simply better to consider and respect our planetary home, as we all deep down know we should?
The AAAS BoD in Dec approved the following statment:
"A Growing Threat to Society"
AAAS Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society." The statement was approved on 9 December 2006 and released on 18 February at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
Then follow the various links and references and decide for yourself. There is much hype on both sides and much at stake. Make up your own mind with the primary literature or as close as your understanding can take you. We only know what we can test and measure, the science behind global climate change indicates that there is a change and that humans have a measureable effect on that change. Sure it could be wrong, science is like that. More likely it is missing some elements and will be modified as we learn more. I for one, think there is enough evidence to support that there is global climate change and we have played a role in it.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 6:53 pm
A far greater threat to civilization is the pricing of energy out of reach. Energy makes the difference between civilization and savagry, and any disadvantage of the means of producing and delivering that energy must be measured against the absolute need of that energy to keep most of us alive. Greenies invented the term externalities to ovrcome the failure of their nostrums to pencil out in cost bnefit analysises, and yet they segue past the externalities of following their demands.
Posted by Jake Hoffman, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I have been researching both sides of this issue.
I have found temperature data that says the troposphere measurements by satellites and balloons from 1979-1997 show no warming. This data actually shows very slight cooling of the air temperature at these altitudes. This data has not received much publicity.
I believe solar activity and cloud cover can be the biggest driver of our temperatures. Small changes to the earths axis and orbit are also very significant.
Warmer temperatures have many beneficial effects including better growing seasons and less fuel needed for heating.
Posted by Gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 14, 2007 at 7:26 pm
When the only argument you have against scientists who disagree with the greens is, you suspect they're being sent money from the oil industry; you don't really have an argument. Do you really think Al Gore doesn't have his own agenda, pa..lease? Do you really think the other groups (I won't go into the list) don't have their own agenda? Look at all the money and power involved here.
I thought this program was very well done, and a badly needed view of the other side of this issue. Seems there are some very big things at stake here, yet it's so politically incorrect to even suggest Global Warming might be a load of BS that we don't dare speak of such things
for fear of being branded as some type of selfish, uncaring, (dare I say it) supporter of the evil energy industry... Yes, supporting the companies that bring us lights, warmth, transportation and generally make our lives really good has become a bad, bad thing..... Pa..lease...
It makes me shutter to think of the politcal, social and economic cost involved in pressing forward with these half-baked plans to reduce CO2, and for what? Global Warming is more likely caused by the sun, not man. You people who say press ahead anyway, just to be sure. Do you really understand what you're saying? Do you have any idea what types of changes we are taking about? We're going to fundamentaly change everything for an unproven theory...That is insane.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online.] you've been lied to by a self serving politician, a few self serving scientists, and some self serving news organizations who know all too well sensationalism sells. Now that you've bought into the lie, take your family into the mountains for a few weeks, with no power for heat or lights. When you come back tell us again how evil those bad energy companies are... Maybe then you'll think twice about buying into the age old business of selling fear as a motivator, from who ever is selling it, for their own personal gain.
It's one thing to learn this lesson on your own; however, please don't pull the rest of us through your lesson.
Posted by Snowman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Danny: not that it matters, but I'm not a Republican. I'm also not affiliated with oil companies, other than being a grateful consumer of their products.
My interest in this matter is to get people to think critically about whether human caused global warming (which I will abbreviate as AGW, short for anthopogenic global warming) is real and poses a great risk to humanity. I think the evidence for AGW is very weak. And I find it appalling that a much needed scientific debate about the causes and effects of climate change is being suppressed, with honest scientists and others who are skeptical of AGW being compared to Holocaust deniers, accused of being shills for oil companies, and in some cases even receving death threats. This topic is too important to allow a political and social crushing of dissent.
The strongest scientific argument against AGW presented in the film is as follows. The AGW theory says that increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased atmospheric temperature. But the historical record shows that although increases in CO2 and temperature are correlated, the temperature usually increases first. This evidence contradicts AGW (unless you believe that cause can come after effect), and supports the hypothesis that increased temperature causes increased CO2. And, as the film points out, there is a simple explanation for why increased temperature would cause increased atmospheric CO2 -- as oceans warm, they emit more CO2, and as oceans cool, they absorb CO2.
Therefore, it seems that the best explanation is that something besides CO2 levels is responsible for temperature variability, and that C02 levels vary based on temperature. As Walter Wallis and others have pointed out, many scientists believe that variations in solar activity are largely responsible for variations in terrestrial atmospheric temperatures.
Now, some will say that even if the AGW theory is wrong, we should still takes steps to reduce the use of fossil fuels for energy. I am all in favor of alternative energy sources, and I hope they become cheaper than fossil fuels as soon as possible. What I don't want to see is a regime in which, due to taxation or regulation, energy is priced out of range of more people.
Currently more than 1 billion people live without electricity, and their lives are miserable and for the most part short. These people are suffering greatly, right now, unlike the far-future, speculative harm envisioned by AGW adherents. I would rather see humanity focus its energy on providing electricity and clean drinking water to our poorest fellow humans, rather than scheming up new ways to impede their progress towards a civilized life, in the name of a highly
Posted by SI Reader, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Hey, Sports Illustrated had a cover story on global warming this week. Of course, they also had the Barry Bonds steroids story as well, so I guess if you don't believe in global warming, then you don't think Barry did 'roids either!
Posted by More to the story, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:53 am
Ahhh, yes, Swift boaters to the rescue. Nothing like telling half the story.
First it's more like 12X the typical Nashville household. Secondly it's purchased from green energy suppliers at a premium cost:
A Gore spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, said the former vice president pays $432 a month for 108 blocks of "green power" at $4 a block. That's enough to pay for 16,200 kilowatt hours a green power each month.
From the Associated Press:
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.
But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that "sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."
Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.
Gore, who also owns a home in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:36 am
Gore is just reinventing himself so that when he does run for political office next (and he will) he will be thought of as the good guy doing so much for global warming and not the also ran with Clinton.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:45 am
I attack Gore not because he is a hypocrite but because he is wrong in his assessment of GW. His pitch for carbon neutrality does, however, point out the goal of the warmies, taxation of our productive efforts. While Gore can afford to buy indulgences from the Church of the Warmies, the burden of this additional tax will fall disproportionately on the lower income folk, a group in which I am, alas, numbered. Let them blithely discuss the efficacy of energy taxation in forcing us out of our cars and un to public transit while they soar above us. Malthusian Luddites will be the death of us yet. Why we pay heed to a tribe noted mostly for never having got it right is beyond me.
Posted by more to the story, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 11:52 am
Cold Enough, I don't understand your point. Gore has been very upfront about saying that he has taken a pragmatic approach to "leading a carbon" neutral lifestyle. His contract with Paramount requires that they purchase offsetting high quality carbon credits for any flights that he makes in promotion of the movie. He has said that he personally does so for his personal travel. See carboncounter.org. I'll try to dig up a specific reference if that's what you require.
Wrt the Swift Boaters, my you're touchy. Must have stepped on a nerve here. My comment certainly was not intended to be pejorative towards our armed services who voluntarily put their lives on the line but rather towards the specific mannerism of either wholesale changing details or ommitting information that was a hallmark of the swift boaters for "truth" political distortions. By the time that they finished with Kerry, one would have thought that it was George and Dick who were on the ground in Vietnam while Kerry was defending our coastline ensconced on a coast guard cutter. And no, that's not a dig at our Coast Guard, who do an extraordinary job daily.
Posted by Cold Enough in Menlo Park, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Riddle me this More to the Story....
How does paying for credits reduce the amount of polution generated by above referenced private jets? It sounds like a rich man's (Gore) attempt to avoid the issue. I guaranty that this "use of credits" will be a widely used method to bypass the point of the process.
Conservation means "do not use", not "how much more do I need to spend to make my jet fuel appear 'green'".
If I start a wood burning fire in my fireplace and pay to buy credits, am I carbon neutral?????
Posted by Gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Danny, I'm doing this for your own good, please listen. Do you really think CO2 is an unnatural chemical? We are talking about reducing CO2, aren't we? Do you know CO2 is a natural chemical that is very common in our autmosphere, regardless of man being on the planet or not, and the levels have been going up and down since the begining of time? [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Sorry to sound harsh, but this misinformation is what gets us in trouble as a society.
Is this debate about Greens vs greedy Repulicans (who only care about their pocketbook)? [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] You are very fortunate to live in the most prosperous place that has ever existed. Bad policy decisions based on faulty scientic information will not only have a negative affect on your life, and others you care about, it will literally kill others who are far less fortunate then you.
Go watch Al Gores movie, then watch the movie mentioned here. In the second movie, notice the 800 year lag from temp to CO2 level. Interesting Al forgot to include this in his movie because it's really the killer fact in this debate. It proves CO2 levels follow increases in temp, not the other way around. Debate over! Nice try Al.... I see why everyone with a stake in Global Warming has been trying so hard to stop other scientists from speaking out on the issue. Everyone should be outraged these people have been trying to shutdown debate with misinformation and fear tactics.
Posted by K Lam, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Gary the debate is far from over, the 800 year lag wasn't properly explain in the "Channel 4" Great Global Warming Swindle documentory.
What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years.
Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend."
The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
Posted by So What, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:48 pm
High priced energy doesn't shut down civiliation as we know it - in fact it has another economic effect - which is to drive supply and demand.
If existing energy sources become too expensive, then the research and development on new energy sources becomes a more 'affordable' path.
And I do believe oil consumption is going up in the world (with China and India entering the global economy on a grand scale), and oil supply is going down.
So what's the harm in raising oil prices to the point where some smart industry, scientists and engineers finally get together and come up with an alternative energy? (Governments will follow the money...)
And what's so wrong with convincing the next generation (our smart Palo Alto kids) to be motivated to make sure that alternative energy economy will be an environmentally friendly economy?
I've heard my kids comments on fear of global warming, much as we used to get fear of nuclear war drilled into our heads in elementary school. I've thought about countering this a few times, but then I thought - well - maybe my smart cookie is going to be the one to figure out the next big energy breakthrough.
And so, SO WHAT if there's a big false hype on global warming? Bitch and moan all you want, but the fact is that the economics of the issue are that eventually someone's going to be first out of the gate with an exciting, viable, cheaper, green energy alternative, and that someone is going to rule the world (much as big oil, Bush, and his slimy buddies rule the world today.)
So we might as well stop complaining and get going. Even if there is no problem, lets get the US out in front on the energy problem. I'd rather not have China beat us to this (then we'll for sure be teaching all our kids Mandarin.)
Posted by That's What, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 2:06 pm
"So what's the harm in raising oil prices to the point where some smart industry, scientists and engineers finally get together and come up with an alternative energy?"
For those of us rich enough to live in Palo Alto, the answer to the posed question is "not much". An extra $50 or even $100 dollars per fill up isn't really much in the general scheme of things.
For those living, say, in rural Alabama, not to mention rural China or Africa, raising the price of energy would have significant effects on not only lifestyle, but consumption of basic needs of life.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online.]
It is quite true that raising the price of current energy sources would increase incentives to find other sources over time. But it's likely not true that these new sources would be cheaper than what we now have. "Cheaper alternatives, competitive with (let alone less expensive than) current sources likely do not exist. If that were so, they'd already be "discovered" with the existing price structure.
" SO WHAT if there's a big false hype on global warming?" Anyone who would reduce living standards of the nation's or the world's poorest people on the basis of some mere hype that might be false is incredibly self-centered and selfish. You better be mighty sure you're right before you start reducing poor people's income.
Posted by gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 15, 2007 at 2:42 pm
K Lam, Thank you for bringing that up. We know the first 800 years of warming (in each warming cycle) was not caused by CO2, and was more then likely caused by changes in the sun, correct? Where are we now in the current warming cycle? Are we in the 800 year range? We know the sun has been getting hotter; at least that's what I've been hearing in the news. Can we assume this warming cycle is based mostly on the sun, since we know it's getting hotter? Do we have any evidence CO2 is responsible for this warming? We do have evidence the sun is responsible? Okay, that's all we know about that. We won't go into all the other contributors to CO2, and other more effective green house gases that we can't control.
I'm no scientist, but I do know how to make a decision based on the information at hand, and I also have a pretty good nose for a fear based scam that's been purposely manipulated to scare. History is full people using this tactic for their own gain.
Now, based on this information, let's tax energy to the point only the rich can afford it, let's cap economic output of the US by placing some type of carbon penalty on economic output, forcing the US to pay a tax to other countries who have less emissions (sounds a lot like global socialism to me). I wonder what that will do to your taxes.... Then let's stop developing countries from producing any CO2, so they can spend eternity living in the dark, with no heat, or chance of developing their own economies. I wonder how many more of these people will die or live with aviodable heath problems as a result. Oh, let's not forget to spend Billions more on this particular science while every other problem gets placed on hold. Let's not forget to elect Al Gore to the White House too; we all know Al's the only person who can save us.....
For us to make these drastic economic and social changes (with the information we have) is insane. Yes, debate over...
By the way, there's many worse things then Global Warming facing human civilization. in comparison, I'd put gobal warming on the bottom of the scale. Check out the Discovery or science channels for a good look at other disaster possibilities. See asteroid, cosmic rays, earth quakes, volcanos, pandemics, etc.
Posted by fedup with conservatives, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm
1) One day we will run out of oil, so we'd better prepare ourselves for that day.
2) In the meantime we have to import much of our oil from regions of the world that cause us many headaches... and cost us billions of dollars in wars and terrorism... Getting off our oil addiction will actually make us safer.
3) And pleaaaaase, stop complaining about the price of oil. Gasoline in the US is about the cheapest in the world (in relation to our income). It is also half or less the price of gasoline in Europe. If it increases we will still be fine, maybe we'll have to use public transportation a bit more or, more likely, just stop using smog spouting gaz-guzzlers. Anyone who is annoyed by this is just acting like a spoiled 3 year-old.
Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I've spent time learning the backgrounds of the people in this documentary. Some of the have some serious issues in their scientific backgrounds. One claims to have been misrepresented by editing of this piece. Some have no experience in this field of science at all. A few appear qualified.
I dont know what the truth is about why the earth's surface temp is going up, but doing a few google searches on the people highlighted in this documentary has me questioning the quality of this particular presentation.
Anyway don't take my word for it, do the searches for yourself.
Posted by klam, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 3:36 pm
RS, yep Martin the film maker of the documentory has run into trouble with the UK's Independent Television Commission for distorting participants views in his previous documentories.
Please read my posts above and the links provided in them that describe the flaws in the programme and the complaint made by Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
I have no problem with hearing alternative global warming theories but
the this program unfortunately was agenda driven and an inaccurate piece of propoganda.
If someone really has got a good alternative theory let's here it, but please make an proper programme without any agendas and include much more solid accurate science.
1. The debate over whether humans are causing global warming is not over. How could it be? I think the general rule in science is that nothing is considered settled until it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Its just a THEORY right now.
2. Please, Al, stop claiming that this is the most important "moral, ethical, spiritual" issue of our time. That sounds like a politician talking. Oh wait...you ARE a poliitican! Can you explain why its the most important issue? Why is it more imporant than anything else?
Added to what's already been exposed in his new documentory "The Great
Global Warming Swindle" you have to ask if there are indeed credible alternative theories to the Global warming argument, then there surely must be a better way to present it than this agenda driven propaganda.
Posted by gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 15, 2007 at 4:25 pm
>1) One day we will run out of oil, so we'd better prepare ourselves >for that day.
Yeah, but do you know that (not including our oil reserves) we (US)has a 400 year supply of Coal that can be turned into oil? Believe it or not we have a lot of untapped energy in this country. We import oil because it's cheaper; but there's enough energy here to keep us going for a long, long time. I think it's safe to remove the "we're running out" argument from the table. Any energy problems we have are self induced by our eco community.
>2) In the meantime we have to import much of our oil from regions of >the world that cause us many headaches... and cost us billions of >dollars in wars and terrorism... Getting off our oil addiction will >actually make us safer.
I'm all for this, it's a great idea, however, it's more complex then that. Have you thought about what would happen to these countries if we stopped purchasing their oil? You think they have problems now, wait until there's no more money coming into them. "Safer" is a pretty short sighted view of this; especially since some of them have nuclear weapons, and some of them want to kill us all, just because they have different views then us. By the way the total percent of GDP for defense in the US is currently about 3.8% of GDP. In comparison, it was about 9% during the cold war. It's probably best we try to bring these folks into this century while they still have oil to sell. Ignoring them will only lead to more trouble for future generations.
>3) And pleaaaaase, stop complaining about the price of oil. Gasoline >in the US is about the cheapest in the world (in relation to our >income). It is also half or less the price of gasoline in Europe. If >it increases we will still be fine, maybe we'll have to use public >transportation a bit more or, more likely, just stop using smog >spouting gaz-guzzlers. Anyone who is annoyed by this is just acting >like a spoiled 3 year-old.
"Three year old". Wow! Thanks for being so willing to toss our high standard of living out the window. I don't suppose those high energy prices will affect you; however, I guarantee it will make life very difficult for others who are not as fortunate. The lower classes can ride public transportation, ride a bike or walk and wear thicker clothes while indoors; who are they to be able to drive anyway?.....Is that it? Well, there's a lot of us who like the way we live. The suggestion to lower our standard of living has no valid reason behind it; thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Ah Gary, how you make a simple issue so complicated. While you sift through scientific papers on CO2 and watch disputing films about global warming, I'm pedaling my way to work on my bike every day. When I get home, I only have the lights on that I need. I drive my car only when absolutely necesary and I don't use hair spray or other pollutants.
Now really, who's the lazy one? Let's pretend for a second that global warming isn't occurring. That Al Gore is merely a political braniac hoping to push forward his career. That the planet is healthier than ever and all of us are worrying for nothing. Does that mean I shouldn't ride my bike every day? Does it mean I should get stock in spray paint, buy a Hummer and drive as much as possible, even when I just need to go half a block?
Come on Gary -- you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't do the research because I don't need to. It has nothing to do with laziness. I KNOW riding my bike instead of driving is better for me and the planet. I KNOW it's in my best interest to keep my electricity bills low. I KNOW there are little things I can do -- such as recycling -- that will only benefit the planet.
This isn't a political issue. It's a health issue. By all means, keep driving your SUV. Stay seated on that couch and watch documentary after documentary about how global warming is real, or it isn't, back and forth until you're blue in the face. I'll be the one on my bike, enjoying the warm sun, feeling the blood flow throughout my body, and watching my bank account increase while I save money on gas and electricity.
I may have to look up "lazy" in the dictionary again. Because that sure doesn't feel like the best word to describe me.
Posted by fed up with the...., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Well, Gary of Woodside, it's simple. It's a matter of supply and demand. We have an ever crowded world with a finite amount of resources. We feed our life style here by using about 25% of the world resources for roughly 5% of the world population. And the rest of the world population is growing relative to us. Something is going to have to give or else be ready for more wars regardless of the amount of coal we have... We would be much better off being proactive in finding new sources of energy than conservatively hanging on to an ever more fragile status quo.. This is the country of innovation and risk-taking. It seems that we have forgotten this.
As to coal, it is an even worse pollutant than oil... unless you store the emissions produced by its burning, which is also a new technology...
Yes, we are acting like spoiled 3 year olds when we don't realize that something has to give and we can't go on like this using 25% of the world resources for 5% of the population and still being the worst polluters in the world as of today.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:46 pm
25% of the world's resources? Negatory. 25% of the world's productivity? Yes, and good for the world. Anyone who believes that if we cut back our use of the world's resources to 5% it would improve the lot of the world is lacking understanding of what makes the world turn. Cut us and the world bleeds.
Posted by Snowman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:10 pm
klam, you are correct -- Channel 4 is not a BBC station, although it is a British public-service TV station. I was misled by the title of the Google video page for the film. My apologies for this mistake.
I don't see a way that I can edit the title to the post. If anyone from the Palo Alto Online staff is reading this, please change delete the word "BBC" from the title of this posting.
Posted by Days of Reckoning, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Channel 4 is not a British public service TV station. It's a commercial station, and thus subject to producing contoverisal documentaries to generate revenue. It's a good try at distortion, and diversion. It's also quite effective at deflecting attention from the truth. Reminds me of the Lamarkians.
The bottom line about global warming is that we will either adapt, and do what we have to do to change the human contribution to warming, or it will cost our species. Most commercial interests don't want to hear this, because like some patients who don't want to know the truth about their health, these commercial interests don't want to know about their contributions to global warming, which would mean they'll have to take some medicine. The medicine? Investment in new products, and enterprise change. They're in denial, and they're buying opinion to prove it to themselves.
Let's see how they fare 20-30 years hence. Whether they're here or not, by then we'll be in the throes of warming and all its deleterious effects. Then, guess who people are going to blame?
Posted by gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 16, 2007 at 10:45 am
>Well, Gary of Woodside, it's simple. It's a matter of supply and >demand. We have an ever crowded world with a finite amount of >resources. We feed our life style here by using about 25% of the >world resources for roughly 5% of the world population. And the rest >of the world population is growing relative to us. Something is going >to have to give or else be ready for more wars regardless of the >amount of coal we have... We would be much better off being proactive >in finding new sources of energy than conservatively hanging on to an >ever more fragile status quo.. This is the country of innovation and >risk-taking. It seems that we have forgotten this.
Okay, let's try not to confuse the issues, or put words in my mouth. No-one is saying we shouldn't look for better forms of energy. We are talking about the real or manufactured threat of man made global warming. The US is under no threat of war because we currently consume oil for our energy. The amont of energy the US consumes is not a bad thing for the world. You've got your economics upsidedown. When the US consumes oil from other countries, we pay them, and their economies are stimulated. This is a win-win. So, if the real issue is not man made Global Warming let's stop pretending and bring out the real issues. If it's over population, then we'll deal with that in another debate.
>As to coal, it is an even worse pollutant than oil... unless you >store the emissions produced by its burning, which is also a new >technology...
Looking back in history we have a lot of proof that technology will constantly improve. We will find more sources of energy. Rest assured the energy market will do just fine without some man made Global Warming hoax to push it along.
>Yes, we are acting like spoiled 3 year olds when we don't realize >that something has to give and we can't go on like this using 25% of >the world resources for 5% of the population and still being the >worst polluters in the world as of today.
This statement just kills me because it's so wrong in so many ways. Why is it you feel so guilty about your lifestyle? It is that you've had everything handed to you, and you don't feel worthy? Well, there's a lot of us who are not spioled little brats. A lot of us have had to litterally climb through hell to achieve success. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
As far as this % of world resources goes, see my first paragraph for an explination of how that benefits everyone. Like someone else said, it's a measurenment of production, not available resources.
One last thing: The glass is half full, not half empty....
Posted by Snowman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Days of Reckoning, you state that "Channel 4 is not a public service television station", and accused me of distortion and diversion. To prove your point, you provided a web link to the Wikipedia page on Channel 4.
The first sentence of that Wikipedia page is "Channel 4 is a public-service British television station, broadcast to all areas of the United Kingdom, which began transmissions in 1982."
I agree with previous posters who've stated that the content of the film is more important than its source. But most of the Warmies on this thread seem unable to make any substantive comments about the content, so instead they sling mud at the director and the broadcaster. Since the film dares to disagree with their sacred religious beliefs, the director and broadcaster are apparently heretics who must be burned at the stake.
Posted by ruckrover, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2007 at 4:48 am
For a start it was NOT the BBC. It was independent TV channel 4 that always tries to run provocative programs (even if loose with the truth) - they themselves say so and are proud of it.
Also the producer, Durkin, has been in trouble for distorting facts in previous channel 5 documentaries and editing interviews to make people seem to say things they weren't. Already one scientist, Carl Wunsch, has said he was "duped" and "embarrassed" by the way his interview made him seem like a total skeptic when in fact he agrees with manmade greenhouse gas theory like most scientists.
The Great Global Warming Swindle apparently looks impressive, and I have to confess to not seeing it yet. But I've read oodles to virtually know the transcript. And read rebuttals on the mainstream science sites like realclimate.org
Basically the fall in temp after WWII can be related to the production of sulphur based aerosols on a massive scale with industrialisation. The same mechanism creates the Asian Brown Cloud that drops temperatures in India and China at present. This masked the temp effect from increasing CO2 until increasing CO2 pushed the temp up despite the aerosols and was reason why this argument held no sway in the debate in the IPCC. Mainstream science says if we stopped all industrial pollution tomorrow (eg with a bird flu epidemic) the temp would spike by up to 1C in a few months as the air cleared and more sunlight came in.
The lag in CO2 at end of ice ages was already known, ice ages broke not because of dinosaurs or primate ancestors of ours burning petrol - they did so because of variations in the earth's axis and orbit of the sun. Increased CO2 perhaps comes from a thawing globe allowing more life to produce it and then feedback speeds up the exit from an ice age. But there's been no variation in orbit or axis to explain the current warming. And changes in solar radiation whilst a matter of debate were considered by the mainstream consensus IPCC as insufficient cause for the rapid warming currently happening.
We can go with perhaps 5% of scientists and a polemical dodgy documentary maker, or we can go with 95% of scientists who say Al Gore by and large got the mainstream science right in his doco. If we go with the latter and are wrong we'll "waste" money but end up with a cleaner environment. If we go with the former and are wrong we will cook civilization .
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2007 at 5:52 am
It is probably worth your time to take a look at the documentary. You would at least get a challenge to your notion that no harm would be done if we follow the Warmie agenda. The effects on development in Africa, in particular, could be disastrous.
A question for you: Why do satellite microwave measurments of troposhperic temperature show little, if any, increase over the past 30 years?
Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2007 at 10:27 am
The piece on Africa is pure speculation just like the piece of massive flooding in "An Inconvenient Truth". Neither outcome was derived by any scientic method. They are just there to scare people into action.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I thought the African critic of the Warmie approach asked an important question: "How do we (Africans) run steel mills on wind and solar power?".
Much of the world needs major development. This development will only come from coal/oil/nuclear (take your pick). Condemning the undeveloped world to only limited and low level development is tantamount to cultural fascism.
Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 2:17 pm
So many things are wrong with that Africa presentation. I'll try to cover a few.
African countries are sovereign nations, what is going to compell them to withhold energy development?
There are a number of existing non-energy related issues slowing development
There are a number of corrupt governments taking donations from agencies and not passing it on, just using it to enrich themselves personally.
In many areas AIDs has decimated the adults that would normally be the bulk of the work force.
In some areas tribal warfare is killing off the adults that would normally be the bulk of the workforce.
When you place an electrical service, its not just the cost of the plant, its the distribution system you need to put in place. I have a friend that runs a 1000 acre farm and farmhouse on the central coast completely on Solar. It has a 4 day reserve with a propane generator for back up. He put this in place not because he thinking green, he was thinking economics. It was cheaper for him to put that in place than have PG&E drag wires to him and give him service. I have a neighbor in the Santa Cruz mountains where I own property that just did the same, the cost to have PG&E pull lines into a rural area were cost prohibitive over solar.
So build a power plant for industry, it makes sense, but it does not always make sense for rural like the facility that was highlighted.
Now they spent a large amount of time showing how an undersized solar installation only ran a refrig or the lights, so double the size of the system. If I recall right, that was one or two panels on a roof, they should buy a second panel, but I bet they dont have the funds. Well if they dont have the funds to buy a second panel, then where are they going to come up with the funds put up polls and drag wire from a power plant.
Also just having energy does not mean a country will prosper. Iran for example has tons of energy, yet it has a large population of poor citizens. It's government is getting in its own way.
The documentary is trying to make the viewer feel guilty at this point. I just think they are being a little intellectually dishonest about it.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm
" African countries are sovereign nations, what is going to compell them to withhold energy development?"
Answer: UN sanctions. Once the Gore Warmies get their way, there will be more and more Kyoto treaties. These restrictions will prevent the sovereign undeveloped countries from using coal to develop their steel industries (for example).
Solar energy is great for small projects (like residential utilities). However, try powering a fleet of vehicles on solar panels. Does your friend with the farm use solar powered tractors? Irrigation pumps? Does your farm friend store energy in batteries? If so, how expensive are the batteries?
Cutting to the chase, it is none of our business telling others how not to live. We should be trying our best to help the undeveloped world develop - that would be the best conservation policy (for many reasons). If this involves dirty energy, like coal, so be it. A well regulated nuclear program, world wide, would probably be the best approach. Nuclear is carbon-free and low cost.
Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The UN is a pretty disfunctional organization, so I dont see that happening. I dont see a developing nation not getting the infrastructure that it can afford.
I never said solar is a 100% solution, but it works better than they portrayed. Thats part of the intellectual dishonesty in the piece.
On his farm, anything that traditionally uses electric, except the front gate, is powered by solar. The front gate is powered by PG&E because PG&E has a pole there and in that case it was a cheaper solution. I am telling you what he told me, it was cheaper for him to install solar than what PG&E would have charged him to pull power lines and that included the cost of the battery setup. Anything that is traditionally gas or diesel, still is.
For him, it was about the cheapest solution, not being green.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 5:52 pm
"I dont see a developing nation not getting the infrastructure that it can afford."
If these developing countries are subject to a carbon tax, they will be priced out of the market. The current 'carbon neutral' trade offs (the kind that Gore likes to tout) are thinly veiled wedges leading to direct taxation of carbon useage. Once the developed world taxes istelf for the majority of its carbon use, it will then demand that the undeveloped world do the same thing.
Unless a very clear and convincing case can be made for dangerous global warming caused by anthroprogenic CO2, it is indeed dangerous to be proposing restrictions on carbon. The argument that there is no harm to the Warmie agenda is nonsense.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Indirect taxation is everywhere. It crosses borders. If the developed countries impose a carbon tax on themselves, the goods that are bought by the undeveloped world will cost more. If the carbon tax is high enough to change behavior in the developed countries, it will have a severe effect in the undeveloped countries.
If an undeveloped country is subject to international sanctions, because they dare to pollute the atmosphere, this constitutes a taxation on that country. The Warmie agenda has, as a major plank, the punishment of carbon users. The Third World will suffer the most.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2007 at 8:43 am
I understand, RS. The last thing warmies want to discuss is consequences. How about the millions who die of malaria because Europe will not import produce from nations that use DDT for malaria control? There's a tax for you.
Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2007 at 9:26 pm
One of the things I noticed when I started looking into the contributers is that many failed peer reviews, did not allow peer reviews, or were talking on topics way outside of there field of research. Also that the data they used in places was old and inaccurate.
Posted by DontFallForBS, a resident of another community, on Mar 23, 2007 at 1:00 am
Nice pickup, NewsBoy. Here's the key passage for all you too lazy to read through the entire article NewsBoy cites:
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing" (18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
But for the people who commissioned this film, all that counts is the sensation.
Posted by gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 26, 2007 at 2:36 pm
"Cherry pick your results" I've looked into the cricisms of the movie. Some of those things looked pretty minor. Considering all the issues raised in the movie, I thought the criticisms were reletively small. Now let's look into the Gore movie. Gore's movie is full of Cherry picked results, even lies, but we don't hear much about that. Seems the same level of review are not being applied to both sides of this issue equally.
Keep in mind there's a lot of folks in the left who work in print who will do whatever they can to slant the perception of this issue. I think a good example of that is the way these two movies are not being equally balanced with critical review.
By the way, does anyone wonder why Al Gore spent so much time talking about himself in his movie? I wonder if he's as concerned about the environment as he is in his own PR...
"The documentary has not yet been broadcast in America. On March 9, 2007, Paul Joseph Watson (a British reporter who works for American radio host Alex Jones) argued that criticism of the film by Zoe Williams had relied upon ad hominems instead of disputing the arguments. He wrote, "The establishment left has already attempted to savage the documentary, but The Guardian's Zoe Williams cannot address the evidence, instead attacking the messenger by discrediting one participant from Winnipeg University, and selectively ignoring the roster of other experts which included MIT and Princeton professors".
Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, endorsed the documentary on March 18, 2007. He concluded by saying he'd like to see a "movie face-off" between "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle", implying that he thought Gore's film would lose. "Let the public see both sides of the story and then we’ll see who’s believable and who’s not".
 Durkin's response to his critics
On March 17, 2007, The Daily Telegraph published a response by Durkin to what he calls the "feeble" attacks of his critics. In it, he rejects any criticism of the close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, saying that Friis-Christensen stands by his work. He accepts that the time axis of one graph was incorrectly labelled when the programme was first transmitted, but says that this does not change his conclusions. Regarding the Carl Wunsch controversy (see above) he repeats that Wunsch was not duped into taking part in the programme.
Durkin goes on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulphate aerosol cooling: "Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?" He concludes by saying that the "global warming alarm" is "wrong, wrong, wrong".[
Posted by gary, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:26 am
Fair enough. It's good we look at all sides of the issue. The real danger is in this becoming a fear driven issue, and making (well meaning) decisions that end up being big mistakes. In the general population, it's not hard to find evidence of Global Warming being driven more by fear, and misunderstanding then facts. Ask anyone you know to explain their understanding of this issue and you'll typically get a headline response, or something right out of Gore's movie. That headline response is typically not based in fact. Fear can be a very irrational way to make decisions, especially decisions of such magnitude. That animated polar bear (in Gore's movie) swimming in the ocean looking for a piece of ice is a classic. Fact: The department of Fish and Game claims there's four times more polar bears now then there was in 1950....Check it out. The list goes on and on.
Let's keep in mind all the facts Durkin and Gore put on the table, then take them apart one by one. When I do this, I see a self serving politician trying to get into the White House, and I see Durkin taking some of the low hanging fruit from Gore's movie and making a killing. Durkin gave this issue a heathly shot in the arm. This movie should be required for anyone previously seeing Gore's movie.
Posted by Walter Sedriks, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2007 at 10:08 am
To those not familiar with British TV I would add the following:
Channel 4 (which is not BBC 4) has a far more questionable reputation than the BBC, one much more comparable to the UK tabloids in journalistic values – its recent claim to fame is the UK Big Brother reality show which degenerated into a spat with racist undertones.The BBC would never have made such a one sided "documentary" and certainly not one with such a lurid tabloid title as "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
Posted by Walter Sedriks, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2007 at 10:43 am
In my previous post, Web Link #1 comes up witha an URL including ... society's... or ....society%92s.... and goes to an error message. Seems that you need to replace this to read .....society %e2%80%99s....to get to the article. Maybe this would work:
Posted by inel, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 30, 2007 at 11:02 am
Thanks for linking to RealClimate and tamino's blog posts on the swindle, as well as my own copy of the Royal Society's statement. I have a lot of respect for the climate scientists who write for RealClimate, as well as tamino, and also Rabbett Run who wrote in detail on the duping of Wunsch for the infamous Channel 4 programme here:
Also, Sir John Houghton was co-chair of the IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002, and Director General of the UK Meteorological Office, and he wrote an extensive response that is introduced and links to his website from here:
Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, Alan Thorpe, and Sir John Houghton are among the highest authorities in the United Kingdom on climate science research, or scientific issues of national or global importance. They are well-respected internationally and all three are senior professionals in these fields.
Posted by JOSEPH SIMMONS, a resident of another community, on Apr 8, 2007 at 1:18 am
I live in las Vegas. My kid recenlty told me that his health teacher showed him and the classroom the Al Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". I am p/o'ed about this becasue she did so with out consulting parents. I do not mind that my son watched it as we (y wife and I) have always presented a more sound scientific view.
Anyway, I will be challenging the school about this matter, and will propose that an opposing view also be shown.
How can I purchase a copy of the video, "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?