The Great Global Warming Swindle

I looked up Martin Durkin and his previous documentaries have been questioned:

• Wikipedia - Martin Durkin (Television Director)
• Channel 4 has hired a charlatan to make its science programmes, (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3)

Points that I agree in part with:

• The social activism of environmentalists - going to an extreme
• Perhaps using a oversimplified solution to the global warming problem - why look at only one factor
• Media blowing things out of proportion, emotional extremes, politicians
• The effect of ignoring cheaper forms of fuels in developing countries and thus keeping these people in the 'dark'

However, with the issue of sunspots -  There are quite a few links citing studies which show the relationship between global warming and the activity of the sun.  Studies are both positive and negative.  The BBC quoted that sunspots have been seen to be at a 1000 year high in 2004 and at the same time to report that sun spots have no effect on the environment in 2000.  It is important for both sides of the debate to be heard. 

Perhaps this is Durkin's aim - to represent the other side of the coin - and we should not get carried away by ourselves and go to extremes.

We are subjects of the media - it does effect our opinions and its generally filled with inaccuracies.  Its always important to return to the books and periodicals and to follow up on any point raised.  Question everything especially if it sounds believable.

The documentary does point out that it doesn't negate the ideas of reducing carbon emissions and that 'to be safe' we should still reduce them - though it does make it significantly minor in comparison to the other points it raises.

 More links:

• Space.com - Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming, 2003.
• Stanford solar center - Global Warming
• Interview of Martin Durkin with Frank Beckmann (News Talk 760, Fri Mar 9,2007)

On a final note - I would say this debate is no different than the one taken on by scientists regarding using embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.  There is no 'right' answer as each set of scientists group in their respective 'camps'.  To question the 'norm' within your camp will bring almost emotional debate or ridicule.  It is silly to jump on one or two beneficial aspects and claim your 'camp' is the best.  Its important to take what is best from both arguments and to realise what are the weak points and to come to your own understanding of the problem at hand and to do your own part to make the world or science a better place.