Global Warming Doco Invested Interests?

Just wondering if anyone knows the background to "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
www.channel4.com...

I find it interesting that Alex Jones is supporting it when he usually is very anti anything that would be supported by the "Neo Cons"

www.prisonplanet.com...

So basically I'm wondering if anyone knows who funded it, what political interests may be being served and whether the info is propaganda or holds any real weight?

There are numerous refutations of the information the programme broadcast already. Most of it is distortion, strawman, and lie by omission, par for the course really.

scienceblogs.com...

inthegreen.typepad.com...

ateasepolitics.blogspot.com...

www.realclimate.org...

www.jri.org.uk...

The guy who made it previously made one on enviromentalism, and he had to make official apologies to certain people he interviewed for misrepresenting their arguments.

ABE: Looks like he did it again with Carl Wunsch in this new docu of his...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Wunsch"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Just wanted to check something

Dave,
I've not seen it and the context was not at all what we
had agreed on. Was billed as a balanced discussion of the
threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program, I realized I'd been duped. I'm wondering if there's some way I can get to see it. If you do register some kind of complaint, can you let me know what it says?

Carl

scienceblogs.com...-367476

Not sure of the veracity of that though.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]

Thanks for that. I had read that the doco maker was fairly suspect. What I'm more interested in is where did the funding for the doco come from? I'm heading towards conservative political parties or companies reliant on fossil fuels.

[edit on 9/3/07 by mustbebc]

Originally posted by mustbebc
Thanks for that. I had read that the doco maker was fairly suspect. What I'm more interested in is where did the funding for the doco come from? I heading towards conservative political parties of companies reliant on fossil fuels.

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea who funded it, but he certainly has a grudge against all forms of environmentalism.

But at least you know it holds little weight.

Here's some info I came across...

Having seen the programes in advance, the Guardian's Environment correspondent, John Vidal, sought to identify the perspective from which the programmes had been made, 'I only know of one broad group which consistently uses this sort of argument about "environmentalism''. The Far Right. In the US, the Wise Use Movement is linked to the militias and its members beat up environmentalists who they call ''commies''. In South America and Asia, corporations and landowners spend millions killing them and bribing or influencing politicians against their arguments. Against Nature appears to peddle their line, yet C4 either can't see it or approves.'

Vidal's conclusion was understandable as the series provided a platform for a whole string of contributors from the Far Right but those behind Against Nature were not the usual right wing suspects. Rather, as Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted, the critical links were to a network then centered on the magazine LM, formerly known as Living Marxism , the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Monbiot writes, 'The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM: that greens are not radicals, but doom-mongering imperialists; that global warming is nothing to worry about; that "sustainable development" is a conspiracy against people; while germline gene therapy and human cloning will liberate humanity from nature.'

www.gmwatch.org...

Seems he has a marxist persepctive. Which is interesting, as contrarians usually pose a "teh enviros are commies" line.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]

Hmm,

Just don't know why some serious conspiracy theorists are getting behind this theory. Alex Jones, Michael Rivero....

I usually see sense in a lot of the more tame theories these guys have. Of course some of it is extreme but this just seems to be the opposite of what they would normally believe.

Any thoughts on how to find out who funded this doco?

"Seems he has a marxist persepctive. Which is interesting, as contrarians usually pose a "teh enviros are commies" line. "

I'm having some serious issues wrapping my head around all this. So now the radical hippies are actually disinfo agents for some global conspiracy. It seems a lot easier to believe that political proponents and the fosil fuel companies that bankroll them would have much more resources and reasons to want to make global warming go away.

I heard one theory that it was China somehow making all this happen so that they could somehow become the world's superpower.

[edit on 9/3/07 by mustbebc]

Originally posted by mustbebc
I usually see sense in a lot of the more tame theories these guys have. Of course some of it is extreme but this just seems to be the opposite of what they would normally believe.

Many conspiracy theories are against a mainstream position, and I guess AGW has now slowly become mainstream. I can remember 20 years ago when things were rather different.

Any thoughts on how to find out who funded this doco?

All I know is that it was made by 'WAG TV'. I'll keep an ear to the ground though.

ABE, OK, here's a bit more...

Last night Channel Four kindly gave an hour and half and a large budget to the international network of professional climate change deniers. ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was a propaganda gift to the various vested interests who seek to undermine the fragile political and social will to take action on this global action.

And it was sometimes very convincing, as strongly worded opinions often are when they are not subject to any verification or external challenge. For example, there are excellent rebuttals against the contention that global warming is correlated to cosmic rays (for example see… )

There was only one scientific advisor on the programme, Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is that he is the Director of a web-based think tank, The Scientific Alliance. The Alliance was set up by in 2001 by Robert Durward, the fiercely anti-green director of the British Aggregates Association, and Foresight Communications, a Westminster public relations and lobbying company, to “counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby”. (For more…)

The Scientific Alliance has no affiliation with any recognised scientific body but, like most of the contributors to the programme, it does have very strong links with the US public relations and lobbying organisations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change.

The writer and presenter of the programme was Martin Durkin. Although it was written in a highly personal and opinionated style- speaking freely of “lies”, and the “shrill frenzy” of “scare stories” – we never saw Durkin or discovered his personal credentials. As George Monbiot has revealed Durkin is closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party which has a strong ideological opposition to environmental science (more on Durkin and the RCP.

climatedenial.org...

One intriguing element to the whole affair is the link to the Revolutionary Communist Party, also known as the Living Marxism group, also known as the Institute of Ideas, also known as Spiked Online, also known as Sense About Science. Phew! It’s hard to keep up, even for an ex-DL member, so for an introduction to the bizarre and murky world of this sect which went so far left it came out the other side, check out George Monbiot’s pieces and ‘The Revolution has been Televised‘ and ‘Invasion of the Entryists‘, as well as Nick Cohen’s ‘The rebels who changd their tune to be pundits‘. All of these pieces highlight the role played by RCP members and friends in Durkin’s films and, while it isn’t claimed that Durkin is a member of the RCP, an article on the group by What Next states that “The day after (a piece on Against Nature appeared in The Guardian), the paper reported Martin Durkin, the Against Nature producer, saying that the RCP had been dissolved a year previously. Not known as an RCP member or supporter, it’s not clear how he was privy to such information”.

It’s hard to do justice to the sheer strangeness of the ideology behind this group in its various guises. Essentially, it presents an uber-libertarian view of the world, where everything suggestive of state intervention in private lives, or which might limit scientific exploration or experimentation to any degree is charged with being ‘politically-correct’ or totalitarian, part of a creeping statism which aims to control the actions of everyone on the planet. Whatever you’re for, these professional controversialists will be against it. Indeed, if John Waters scrubbed himself up a bit, he might even be admitted as a member.

cedarlounge.wordpress.com...

Lots of links to other versions of the RVP group via the second article link ('spikedonline' etc).







[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]

Thanks for your replies. Much appreciated

Originally posted by mustbebc
Hmm,

Just don't know why some serious conspiracy theorists are getting behind this theory. Alex Jones, Michael Rivero....
this just seems to be the opposite of what they would normally believe.

What do you mean 'the opposite' of what they would normally believe?
The truth is what the truth is.

I will give you my take on global warming, and look it up for yourself, its all true as AJ would say.
1. Its not global, the entire universe is heating up.
2. Its not caused by humans, its solar.
3. The earth goes through cycles. It gets warmer and colder.
This is just another cycle.

Now on to why the global elite would push the idea of global warming.
If you can convince the world that you driving your car is causing the earth to become unlivable, then we must limit your ability to drive your car.
If you can convince the world that having electricty is causing the earth to become unlivable, then we must limit your usage of electricity.

Its all about freedom.
You see, we have to limit your activities because YOU are causing the earth to heat up and we will all die if you dont accept our rationing.

Originally posted by 11Bravo

What do you mean 'the opposite' of what they would normally believe?
The truth is what the truth is.

I mean it isn't the exact opposite of what the Neo Cons believe

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Now on to why the global elite would push the idea of global warming.
If you can convince the world that you driving your car is causing the earth to become unlivable, then we must limit your ability to drive your car.
If you can convince the world that having electricty is causing the earth to become unlivable, then we must limit your usage of electricity.

Its all about freedom.
You see, we have to limit your activities because YOU are causing the earth to heat up and we will all die if you dont accept our rationing.

I see your theory. this was what was missing for me is the 'why'.

Why then though would Australia's John Howard be such a "climate change skeptic" when he is clearly linked to the globalists? Are you saying publicly they pretend to be global warming skeptics but reallyt they are the ones who have created the whole idea??

Originally posted by mustbebc


I mean it isn't the exact opposite of what the Neo Cons believe

Its not about being against what anybody says, neocons or demoncrats, its about speaking truth.

Are you saying publicly they pretend to be global warming skeptics but reallyt they are the ones who have created the whole idea??

Its impossible to make a blanket statement, but the leaders of different countries have to have different opinions on things or we the people would notice that they (the elite) are all on the same team.
There is no need for Mr. Howard to toe the party line with global warming just yet, but I assure you if the temperature keeps rising he will be 'forced' to taked drastic rationing measures to help reduce the CO2.