Global Warming Swindle Debate

Whether you believe in global warming or not, this is an interesting video. The link is to part one of eight, not counting part zero, which isn't working anyway. Be advised--this will take roughly an hour and a half.

Some things to take into account while watching these.

First of all, something I noticed right away is that the ratio of skeptics to supporters of global warming is skewed in favor of the supporters. In an unbiased debate, shouldn't those numbers be equal? Besides that, the host himself appears to be in favor of global warming. Is that really conducive to an open and scientific debate? A mediator should be exactly that; a mediator.

Second of all, rarely is it possible to have an open discussion, especially a scientific one, when someone is told they are wrong or false immediately after they state a fact. By all means, correct them but what good does it do to interrupt them? Even if they are basing their stance on incorrect facts you might still learn something valuable in the process of listening to them that will better help you understand your own viewpoint. Isn't the point of science, to better understand the world? Far better then is to let them state their point, and then correct them. You're far more likely to receive a favorable reaction this way as well.

There are a couple of points I found were rather eloquently delivered. At about 1:40-2:10 in part 3, 1:20-1:35 in part 4. Notice in part three the host has no way to actually answer the question leveled at him, and so goes back to the old standby. "We don't have enough time," despite the fact that this is only about a half an hour into the program.

Something else, the range of data given in this video is rather narrow, both in favor of and in opposition to global warming. A few of the same works are cited again and again, leaving out the vast depth of arguably more viable papers and findings.

Whatever your viewpoint on global warming this is a video I would recommend watching. Good points are made on both sides of the issues. The question then becomes, what do you agree with? Which side seems more logical? Why do you think global warming has become such a mainstream issue, and why are arguments against it quashed so religiously by the media? Isn't that contrary to the scientific process?