BBC Global Warming Doc.

[Tashtego]

Has anyone else watched this? I'm shocked that it is the BBC that produced it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831

I need to figure out how the evil US oil companies got them to do it.

[Accept2]

Im glad people are starting to wake up..................

[xenophobe]

30 years ago, scientists were claiming 'the end of the world' with global freezing.

Wasn't it like 10,000 years ago when there was an ice sheet covering North America that was a mile thick?

Amazing how much harm we've caused.

[fett]

Fact or fiction, the Global Warming issue is here to stay. It will impact all of us. Governments will legislate changes. So, it really doesn't matter whether we are experiencing a trend that has happened before we kept records (125 years at the most) or a "Doomsday" based on our 100 years of petroleum use. The bottom line is there will be changes in how we live. So get used to it.

[SeventhSon]

30 years ago, scientists were claiming 'the end of the world' with global freezing.

No they weren't. That is a well known myth.

Just stick to the science which supports your side a lot better.

[Tashtego]

I never would have guessed the BBC would allow such a production to aired on a station they controlled. My world view is in crisis. It does seem to indicate that the fallacy of unanimous scientific agreement is starting to crumble. I haven't read about any reaction from the advocates of MMGM but I imagine there will be hell to pay.

[fett]

I am "THE" BBC guy. They play with a non-corked cricket bat. The news I get from the radio is nothing like our news. I just hate it that they broadcast at 1AM, my time. But, I love it. Why would they not broadcast it? If you go way back in my threads, I brought up the fact that the BBC was all over global warming. Now, they are just bringing it out regardless of the point of view. NPR and the BBC rule the waves.

[Tashtego]

I have always considered the BBC and NPR bastions of leftist orthodoxy. I listen to NPR and BBC radio mostly for the off beat stuff, but the news is tiresomely predictable in the slant they invariably put on it.

[xenophobe]

No they weren't. That is a well known myth.

Bullshit. I was ALIVE back then.

[SeventhSon]

Bullshit. I was ALIVE back then.

And you probably read the Newsweek or National Geographic article that was written by journalists. There were no scientists who published a paper predicting an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Did you watch the program? One of the main points of the program were how climate journalists were predisposed to report gloom/doom often in direct conflict with scientific views.

So your beef is with the journalists, not the scientists. Whatever. We are splitting hairs. I watched this program and thought it was great. Completely eye opening.

[xenophobe]

And you probably read the Newsweek or National Geographic article that was written by journalists. There were no scientists who published a paper predicting an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I was alive when people were spouting that BS. My dad had several books on the matter and was one of them.

Oh, and nice Wiki article. Did you fail to read the other accounts of where it was pushed publicly? Hmmm... No? Guess not.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...fireandice.asp

Did you watch the program? One of the main points of the program were how climate journalists were predisposed to report gloom/doom often in direct conflict with scientific views.

So your beef is with the journalists, not the scientists. Whatever. We are splitting hairs. I watched this program and thought it was great. Completely eye opening.

Yes, I did, and I'm pointing out only that 30 years ago science and the media were BOTH pushing the Big Freeze/Big Chill bs.

And if you watched that program, you would even see where this was addressed.

[Bert]

This is something to consider if you're inclined to take that documentary seriously.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...unsch-responds

[SeventhSon]

First and foremost I believe your position is much more credible than I did in the past. So congratulations. I'm not sure why we're still arguing lol.

The program would have been excellent with just the presentation of the science. Apart from the science, the program made 3 (maybe more) main points about why global warming is treated as dogma today. 1. margaret thatcher's nuclear power agenda 2. the end of the cold war and communism 3. journalists predisposed to sensationalism.

I was alive when people were spouting that BS. My dad had several books on the matter and was one of them.

Oh, and nice Wiki article. Did you fail to read the other accounts of where it was pushed publicly? Hmmm... No? Guess not.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...fireandice.asp

Yes, I did, and I'm pointing out only that 30 years ago science and the media were BOTH pushing the Big Freeze/Big Chill bs.

And if you watched that program, you would even see where this was addressed.

The wiki article (which i read) says this:
"However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports."

None of the scientific reports predicted an ice age. And global cooling had its fair share of skeptics in the scientific community.

I am not doubting that you and your Dad read about global cooling, but it wasn't because of a general scientific consensus like there is today for global warming (i know...the program disputes that there is even a consensus on global warming).

And the 2nd link you provide again is a list of the popular press' sensationalism over the cooling theory.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better I'll say you're right...scientists and journalists were both complicit in creating a global cooling hysteria 30 years ago. For me it's not a point worth arguing.

But fwiw, talking about the global cooling hysteria 30 years ago to support your position about why global warming may be wrong is quickly dismissed by anyone who supports the global warming theory. while it may support point 3 above, its existence doesn't actually falsify the scientific theory of "global warming caused by humans". And global warming proponents will correctly note that. That is why I was saying the science itself is a more effective tool to discredit the theory of "global warming caused by humans".