Great Global Warming Swindle

The 'controversy' about Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle (and here) leads to a potentially dangerous situation: that the 'scientific consensus' is the only opinion that counts. The only place that the 'correct' answer will be found. The whole point is that an alternative view was aired. That it is NOT the approved view and is, therefore, to be ignored, is of great concern. Good balance of views is essential or dogma sets in. There are a number of other factors that are rarely mentioned and in maintaining silence, or attempting so to do, is tantamount to a deliberate suppression of the facts. It seems that the public should only be informed of accepted and approved dogma. It sounds like the medieval attitude that you will accept that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Or else. Arrogance has no place in science. An opinion is nothing more than opinion and every opinion is based on the same information.

ALL THE INFORMATION

A different interpretation of all these facts can produce a different outcome. In the same way that legal argument can be selective in reviewing only favourable 'facts'. Ignoring or suppressing? These amount to the same thing. Professor Carl Wunsch claims that he was "totally misled", allegedly into denying global warming and that man's CO2 was not to blame. This combination of concepts is designed to trap objective thinking into dogma.

Connecting global warming with
man's excessive CO2 production

This totally ignores the evidence of earlier periods of global warming (and cooling) before man started to burn fossil fuels. This doesn't favour the political argument whether it's pure conservation or, more likely, based on money. Consider a distance tax. Alternative views must be disclosed to the public to promote balance. But scientists cannot be seen to have doubt. Absolute assertion must be seen as the only approach whether it's right or wrong. Professor Peter Cox (University of Exeter, Climate System Dynamics) states: "I am hopeful that most of the UK public remain convinced of the reality of climate change." This smacks of attempted mind control. To think as directed.

The reality of climate change isn't at the centre of the argument. This is not being challenged, only the causes of the change.