I disagree

I think the programme was useful in as far as it presented the counter arguments to what it is increasingly being presented to the public as concrete fact - when it isn't.

Most of the general public are completely uninformed as to how scientists model climate change - they use computer models called general circulation models - and given that scientisits do not understand the feedback effects between different atmospheric particles, then how can they produce an accurate model? Throw in the fact that computers are not actually powerful enough to model the global atmosphere then you realise that what the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change says should not be taken at face value. And in their recent report they said they were 95% certain that man was causing climate change - that smacked of a political statement to me, rather than a scientific one, but then enough people have been persuaded that they could get away with it.

That's not to say climate change isn't happening. It's just that there are credible arguments against it.

Personally I think encouraging people to use less fossil fuels and to innovate by creating new energy technologies is a good thing, as it reduces our dependence on a finite fuel (we need something new eventually) and the Middle East.

Posted By: Poirot, Mar 11, 11:45:58