Well, the main problem is that the No Warming side tends to be funded by industrial interests, while the There Is Warming side tends to be either independent or funded by ecological interests.
The industrial interests are less trustworthy because they stand to make less fat loads of cash if they lose their side of the case.
Global warming is true, no one can dispute that, the main question is: Are we contributing? The answer to that is debateable. But the question then remains, to me: Why not make an attempt to halt our possible contribution to global warming? We'll have to switch off fossil fuels anyway once we hit the Oil Peak, so why not get a good head start on that? A lot of things that produce CO2 also have other harmful emissions, so why not just cut down on them Just To Be Safe but also to limit their various other pollutants?
No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer this, except for saying that it would harm the industry. Firstly I'd say it's rather sad that anyone would put harming the industry as more dire than harming the planet or his fellow humans, and secondarily, fact is it would only harm OLD industry and OLD monopolies, new industries would spring up to work on making green energy more efficient, to give us better alternatives, or old industries would have to change to fit new demands.
As for the producer of this documentary you're putting up, maybe you should look at some of his background?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin
(For some silly reason the forum is blocking a paranthesis in the link that would lead you to the right Martin Durkin, but the disambiguation page should leave little doubt about which is the real one.)
Seems like he has a history of ignoring research, misleading his subjects and distorting their statements through clever editing. There's quite probably some of this on the Stop Warming side, too, but in this case I would not listen to this man without taking everything he says with a grain of salt.
Quote:
|
The 1998 documentary on breast implants was shown on Channel 4 only after it had been rejected for broadcast by the BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program. Another researcher hired by Durkin to work on this same documentary allegedly quit her job, claiming that her research had been ignored and that "the published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case." She is also reported to have said: "I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it."
|