Global Warming Media Scam

Reduce, reuse, and recycle! The catchy 3Rs used by environmentalist worldwide to save the shrinking forests, to keep our airs free of pollution, to prevent our ice caps from melting. The theory of humans burning too much fossil fuels, cutting down too many trees, releasing tons and tons of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causing our precious little planet to heat-up and leading to impending doom has become so widely accepted that it is almost sacrilegious to challenge.

How did it all started? Was it a prophecy foresaw by some divine being? No it was media! The scientific community could not have commanded such power to influence the entire world, earning the support of authoritative figures like Singapore’s very own Minister Mentor to US President George Bush. The media has become the new-age god! Everything it says is the truth and the only truth, and those who deny it would be branded blasphemous!

Luckily for humanity, we humans are born with an abundance of curiosity. So for every prophecy foretold, there would bound to be skeptics and disbelievers. And this was how the controversial new documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ all started.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists – attempts to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.The programme, screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, depicts a series of respected scientists attacking the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.
Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. However, there were many that saw the 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' as another media scams as well, an attempt by the producers to attain higher ratings.

Personally I believe that there maybe a certain degree of truth on the documentary. Although I have not watched it (which maybe a good thing as my opinions are not swayed by it), I too have some doubts about the “greenhouse theory”.

For years, through textbooks, magazines, news, encyclopedias and even movies like ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ we have all been warned that the North Pole might become iceless during the summer months at the end of this century and sea levels would rise, flooding low-lying countries and eradicating much of mankind!

But is this really what is going on? Or just a scam, perpetrated by scientists with selfish personal interests and thus providing the media with a new scare story, which has been gladly picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, threatening that a nightmare would come true if we don't all change our ways.

Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also studies that show the exact opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice concluding that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.

So are the ices growing or melting? That would be something for the scientists and environmentalists to argue it out among themselves. But what counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting only the most distressing, shocking and attention-catching studies and seldom report of studies that go against the popular consensus that human activity leads to global warming. So as a matter of fact, the news, the theories are all actually one-side views and beliefs.

Global climate is certainly an important issue to debate, but it is unfortunate that the news communicated to the public is so often shifted towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by just giving them only one side of the argument. ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, be it true and revolutionary or just a production for fame and money, may just become the first step whereby views opposing the current consensus could be built on. It could serve as a motivation for those skeptics who are against the ‘greenhouse theory’ to search for new evident, as well as a guild for the public to gain a better view of the current issues on global climate.

Information from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html