Monday, 25 October 2010

Who's afraid of the big bad global warming crisis?

Not me, not since I saw the Channel 4 documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle some years back.

I've edited the rest of this post as when I wrote it last night I had it in mind that volcano's played a big part in the documentary but watching some of it this morning that has proved wrong!

You can watch the documentary online through this link:

Just finished reading Michael Crichton's State Of Fear novel. I can't believe how many references he included, now I'm going to have to look them up!

Anyone else read the novel or have a take on global warming?

Just for the record, I would abandon all legislation surrounding reducing carbon emissions; would concentrate on improving efficiency and reducing pollution and waste to as close to zero as we can get; and stop interfering with how other countries use coal, oil or wood. Probably. I have no idea what I would do if I had any power to change legislation. That's not totally true, I would want to question and research it myself.

And as I got the topic of volcanoes wrong I did a quick online search. While looking up volcanoes I found a few interesting links. I love the Information is Beautiful website. This page has a link to a spreadsheet that implies volcanoes come nowhere near mankind in generating CO2:

1 comment:

  1. Hi Mark,

    I've just finished watching that documentary and there was some stuff in it that sounded convincing but I didn't think that over all it sounded like a carefully considered and well balanced assessment of things.

    The film caused a lot of controversy (as you're probably aware?) and was ruled against by Ofcom on a few points. There's a pretty good article on the program (which is also seems quite balanced to me) on Wikipedia here:

    I'm definitely in the reduce carbon camp on this one. I watched An Inconvenient Truth a few years ago and found it quite convincing at the time. This view is also supported and promoted by several campaigning groups I have a lot of respect for, including Tear Fund of which I'm a big supporter.

    I particularly think it's nonsense to suggest that anti-carbon campaigners are out to prevent undeveloped countries from developing. Often it's people in developing countries who are complaining about the effects of climate change and campaigning groups who work on their behalf (such as Tearfund) who are campaigning for carbon dioxide to be reduced. One of the central (and I think very important) tenets of these campaigns is that rich countries owe under-developed nations a "climate debt" - because of the damage we've already done through our emissions, we owe it to developing nations not only to reduce our emissions, but also to support them financially, both so they can adapt to climate change and also so they can avoid making the same mistakes we have.