With almost only one side presented on Sunday night's "fifth" I almost felt like I was reading some left-wing BLOG on the internet. Unfortunately I had hoped that the CBC would not insert their age-old 'agenda' into this documentary. I was wrong.

The show implied that consensus is 'truth'. However, remember in the ages before Columbus, there as a 'consensus' that the world was flat. At one time before Galileo there was a 'consensus' that the earth was the center of the universe. If global warming is in fact 'truth' it is not because of the 'consensus' of 2000 scientists agreeing. How do I know what THEIR motives are? Are there not more than 2000 scientists in the world?

Also, some of the anti-global warming crowd was accused of 'paying off' individuals to preach a certain message. You mean to tell me that NONE of these 2000 'global warming scientists' have not been paid or funded in some way by the leftists of our world?

How can we so blatantly ignore earth's historical science record? Scientists are so good at telling us where we came from and (for example) how and when the dinosaurs lived. But when they look at good data from the last 1000 years about periodic warming and cooling, somehow that gets overlooked.

Unfortunately, this 'cause' is nothing more than a leftist movement to
1. increase the size of governments,
2. give leftists more of what they want: power,
3. punish capitalistic societies by 'wealth spreading' to poorer countries,
4. ensure job-preservation/justification of certain scientific communities, and
5. further isolate the USA from the rest of the world though the use of propaganda.

I'm always curious as to why the USA is almost always painted as the enemy? It must be little man syndrome or something.

Can we expect the 'other side of global warming' from the CBC?

I think most have misinterpreted the underlying subject of this documentary. While admittedly both Gore's Inconvenient Truth and CBC's Denial Machine are somewhat extreme within the context of climate change, they have both highlighted the media's, societies, and politician's movement to politicize environmental issues.

It is true that small groups of scientists and experts dispute/question the fundamental causes of climate change, they are nonetheless the minority. Given that a majority of the world's experts, scientists, politicians, persuaders and those persuaded are in general agreement as to the negative effects of pumping excessive amounts of CO2, Methane, etc...into the air, it should make no difference that a few disagree. Since when did a democracy become a 'minority rules'. Unless our basic political institutional framework changes, 'majority rules' will continue.

Regardless of it all, it is never pointless to question authoritative arguments or theories, as ignorance is humanity's greatest flaw.

The CBC is nothing more than a group of propaganda schills acting for a particular flavor of globalist interests, acting so as to confuse the issue as much as possible.

I am a professional engineer, with several years of experience working in the oil and gas industry, and am totally opposed to the environmental catastrophe unfolding in Alberta's tar sands. It is a national disgrace. Nonetheless, the entire point of the fifth estate piece is off the point, terribly misleading, and bogus reporting that will do nothing in the end to stop the rape of the (Canada's) environment.

Here are some ideas that might be of interest to those who truly are interested in understanding the real issues behind the global warming debate.

1. Why are the other planets in our solar system exhibiting massive climate change, and why is this being totally ignored by the mass media? Why are we instead forced to consume this mindless drivel?

Has the electromagnetic field around our sun increased by a factor of 100 times in the last 20 years or so? If so, why should this be ignored by Al Gore?

Apparently, the ice caps on mars have mostly melted, or soon will be completely melted. The atmospheric pressure on the outer planets has increased as much as 40% in the last 20 years. There are no SUVs on Ur-anus. Get real! GET IN THE GAME, CBC!!!

2. This global warming piece is every bit as disingenuous as the CBC's treatment of another favorite UNTOUCHABLE AND RELATED TOPIC - PEAK OIL. IF the peak of world oil production was 2005, then the decline in global oil production from now on will have a far greater impact on reducing green house gases than any globalist motivated carbon tax. Gee whiz CBC, any idea as to why the price of oil is pushing $100 a barrel?

Duh!

Mark Tompkins B.A. B.S.M.E. P.Eng.

I an earlier post, someone commented that gravity is a theory, comparing that to the theory of global warming. It's a lack of understanding of what constitutes theory and fact that concern me. This applies equally to the film in question.

Gravity is NOT a theory. Gravity is a force that acts independently of what any human might think. As the poster advised, if you don't believe it, step off a building. If you took every human off the Earth, gravitational force would still exist. With the human mind removed from the equation (ie. belief, opinion, theory) what is left is reality. Gravity would be left...it is real.

The entire science of global warming, however, is a theory. It is opinion, no matter how well informed. Testing for global warming is far more complicated than sticking a thermometer in a convenient orifice and watching it for 100 years. Global warming theory is based on computer programs and involves many different variables. It is not possible for any human to accurately measure a change in global temperature. There will always be arguements as to how accurate the computer programs (models) might be. That's what makes the process theoretical.

Who is right? The IPCC has shown itself to be shaky on this subject. There was the huge gaffe on the Hockey Stick Graph, and there's the hot spot projected by the computer models in the troposhere that has not materialized. The IPCC has not been quick to admit they were wrong. Instead, the IPCC has questioned the veracity of actual temperatures measured in the troposhere by conventional methods such as weather balloons.

The problem with questioning the conventional measurements, which are NOT theory, is that the computer models were programmed with data taken from conventional methods. So, the IPCC is saying on one hand that the measurements were good enough for data input to their models, but not good enough when the data showed their theory to be wrong.

The more I read about the IPCC, the more I am beginning to realize we are being advised by a body prone to error, and which has an agenda.

In the film, The Fifth Estate was quick to assassinate the likes of Fred Singer and Tim Ball. Those men are experts in climatology. I don't care when they last published a paper. When was the last paper published by David Suzuki or Al Gore? Even if Suzuki published a paper, he's a geneticist.

I'm suprised that The Fifth Estate didn't manage to dig up dirt on the current guru of climate change, Richard Lindzen. He's a professor at MIT, and no one gets into MIT without a degree in rocket science. He's teaching the rocket scientists. Lindzen is taking bets that the Earth will cool by 2020. He's probably right; there has been no increase in global temperature for 6 to 8 years. Who are you going to listen to, him or Al Gore?

So many documentary and investigative journalism shows have recently pitted corporate interests against those of the electorate. It has become clear to me that corporations, although able to act in many ways as individuals act, have no moral obligation to the betterment of society.

Corporations, like most any entity, will do what it takes to survive. That is the only compass that guides their direction. The feelings or benefits of others are never a concern unless they align with the survival of the corporation. Governments need to stop giving corporations a voice equal to that of the single citizen.

Sunday night's Fifth Estate was propaganda masquerading as journalism. It used innuendo to attack the integrity of some who oppose the Gore/IPCC political machine, but it only adduced two 'facts' relevant to the actual 'global warming' debate and it got both of those wrong.

Specifically:
1 - The Fifth Estate claimed 'a majority of climate scientists endorsed the IPCC Report.'

But actually, of the 2,500 names identified with drafting the IPCC Report, only 51 actually signed the document and some of the 2,500 named by the IPCC as "supporters" had actually opposed the Report's conclusions, but were named as 'endorsers' by the IPCC.

Yet 17,500 climate scientists have signed a statement opposing the IPCC Report!

Some "majority"!

2 - The Fifth Estate said the IPCC Report was the work of a panel of 'climate scientists'. Wrong. The IPCC is a political consultative body; the 'supporting report' by scientists, promised by the IPCC for release in May of 2007, has still not been released.

I disagree with most of what the science community has to say on this subject but its very /extremely compelling to see whats next, thats all.

You should just ask yourself "what does the CBC have to gain byeputting out "propaganda" about the truth of global warming?" and then ask "what would oil industry have to gain from denying global warming?". I think that the oil industry probably genuinely belives that by denying global warming they are doing whats right and stimulating the economy but when you really take a hard look at who has what to gain, I don't think there is any argument as to where there is more of a chance of bias.

In case anyone cares, here's what I emailed to the Fifth Estate:

"I had lingering questions about global warming science and watched your journal anticipating insight. Instead what I witnessed was muckraking (with dramatic visuals and action music). It wholly failed to address the science and demonstrate the "deniers" as fraudulent, though that be implicit in the show's title.

Your "unique brand of original journalism" appears designed to titillate rather than inform. Indeed, your claim "to challenge assumptions and question conventional wisdom" looks suspect. I will make a point of informing myself of the role played by the CRTC, in light of what was aired this evening."

I am not denying global warming. It is quite obvious that there is some warming in SOME parts of the world.
However, I do not believe that reducing emissions and making the car the evil on this planet is the right way to go.
Most of the environmentalist that I have spoken with are the same people who are also fighting for human rights and who would like to feed the world and make poverty history.

It is an undisputed fact that the world population has more that doubled in the past 20 years. Even if we reduced our emissions by half, the population will double again in 20 years, and if we help everyone fight poverty and become more like us, emissions will eventually increase in such number that no one can predict.
It is very simple math.

I firmly believe that we should let nature take its course and let the law of the jungle control the human population.
We shouldn't forget this very important part of the equation.

Ex: If 1 000 000 people produce 10 000 000 tons of CO2, imagine how much emissions 100 000 000 people would produce. Even if everyone reduced their CO2 by 50%
Chances are that emissions will keep on rising.

The biggest problem in my opinion is not increased emissions of CO2, but over population of the earth that is causing deforestations and over use of the earth's resources.

In other words, we wouldn't be talking about global warming today if we were half the population living on this planet.

As much as I hate saying this, we should stop trying to save every human being on this planet and at any price, and we should let some of the world's people eliminate themselves.

Let's face it, our planet is like a very small house and we are too many people living in it.

It is hopeless.

For those people that did not agree with the bias in the Fifth Estate episode "Denial Machine", I suggest taking a look at the resource links for this "Denial Machine" site.
In particular, have a look at the link "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" at http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
which can be found through the David Suzuki Foundation resource link. All of the typical global warming denial arguments are discussed there.

To the Fifth Estate I offer my thanks for an informative and well presented show. Perhaps it is not as in depth as some people in this forum might want, but it gets the viewer thinking and (hopefully) incites them to seek more information on the topic.

If the CBC prides itself on balanced reporting and journalism than I would love for the Lens (or any other doc program on CBC) to show the documentary which asks hard questions on the issue of global warming. One such documentary is called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

All we seem to get on CBC news and other related documentaries is that global warming is an absolute truth when ironically it can't be because the "evidence" is based on science and very few absolutes exist when it comes to scientific research.

For the record, I DO believe the Earth is warming but I do NOT believe it is entirely caused by humans (anthropogenic sources).

The documentary questions the idea of whether or not anthropogenic sources are the cause of global warming and discusses other alternative drivers of climate.

We need to hear the voices of real scientists that are opposed to the idea that global warming is cause by humans instead of just environmentalists and scientists that agree with the idea (or for that matter politicians that think they are scientists).

The documentary also highlights how badly politics and the bureaucratic system has distorted scientific findings. There seems to be no real public debate on the validity of the science which is disconcerting and in itself goes against what scientists do: test hypotheses via experiments to support or refute (not prove) their ideas and DEBATE their findings.

Ultimately, our policies on the environment may be affected and we may end up spending billions of dollars in trying to "reverse" the effects of global warming without really knowing what is actually causing it. We may end up bleeding away money for a futile cause, instead of tackling real problems such as water and air quality and the health care system.

I would love for the CBC to show the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle for the sole purpose of showing an alternative view on what the real science tells us on global warming and why some scientists' voices who disagree with the idea of global warming have been suppressed or misrepresented, especially in the IPCC reports which claims 2500 scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans.

To those who say that global warming and its causes are "Just a theory.", I say; Yes. So is gravity. So jump off a building and test it. So make an attempt at least to understand a bit of the real science before forming an opinion.

To those who say that the scientists were predicting a coming ice age, I say yes they did and still are. But ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth's orbit. This is known as the Melankovich Cycle. We are indeed headed eventually towards another ice age in the next few thousand years due to this. The ice age blather is just a distraction by the deniers. We really can't affect the Earth's orbit.

As to the deniers motives, just follow the money trail. Some of these media gadflys have not published in the scientific literature in years. Instead their platform is the media. By the way I seem to recall that one of these deniers' Ph.D. was for research into old historical weather records compiled by the Hudson Bay Company.

I'm waiting for the follow-up program. Hopefully it will ask questions like:

What happened in the decade before Bush and Harper were in power?

Why didn't the US ratify Kyoto while Gore was VP, and in charge of the senate?

Who funded his film and concert?

"The deniers" seem to be conservative. What are the political leanings and motivations of Gore and the Greenpeace spokesman?

Where do they get their money?

"The deniers" are all allegedly paid for by big oil. Who pays for all of "the consensus" research? Are they not also motivated by money?

I think the 5th Estate should have taken the advice given by the political consultant at the end of the story, rather than dishing up another anti-Bush/Harper/corporate hit piece. The program simultaneously criticized the politicization of the issue, while wallowing in yet another example of it.

Fine work CBC. You deserve a Gemini, or maybe a Peace Prize for it...

regardless of who is right in this "debate" I think it is worthwhile that we all remember that we live in a finite world with vast but limited abilities.

the question of global warming is but one thread in the net of human impact. the same practices that are causing the current crisis affect us, the Earth, and all its inhabitants on many, sometimes hard to see, levels.

we interact with nature on four fundamental levels, the air we breath, the food we eat, the water we drink, and the soil for which we depend on for so much including the aforementioned items. without going into great detail it will suffice to say, to affect the natural world ( thats the place, the ONLY place, we have the present option of existence ) in any negative way will negatively affect its inhabitants. ( thats us! )

so any policy or technology that allows us to steer away from these immoral and ultimately self destructive practices should be thoroughly studied for long term sustainability and barring any ill effects, implemented a.s.a.p! to take any other course of action is illogical.

I thought 'Denial Machine' was excellent. It talked about the foundations of support born to purposely confuse us all. It was not meant to be a scientific documentary on global warming.

As for Cameron, the story was not about Gore or the Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS). And since he raised the subject of MBH98, then how come Jones 1998, Crowley 2000, Briffa 2001, Huang 2004, Moberg 2005, Oerlemans 2005, D'Arrigo 2006, Juckes 2006, Hegerl 2007, Esper 2002 appear to support the Hockey Stick graph on their own (CO2 vs temperature).

There are of course other factors that interfere with the relationship, such as aerosols and sulphates, and to some degree the solar cycle length. The latter certainly died a rapid death, but not after it was given great promotion in the GGWS whose creator stated it 'had fluff.'

And Rick A, George Monbiot in his book 'Heat', discusses the very issues raised by The Fifth Estate. He says the deniers look for contradictory studies such as the tropospheric cooling report. It was corrected by the author John Christy, when mixed satellite data was re-calibrated. The deniers still quote the original misleading results. Monbiot demoontrates how people like Singer promote their cause to the detriment of truth, and when caught, persist in spreading the same lies. Only a fool would support Singer, I hope you don't.

Well done CBC.

Your "Denial Machine" program gave the impression that all those who question the "man made global warming" phenomenon are funded by the oil and gas industry.

That is not correct. You must know that too. So, by intentionally twisting the truth, you are acting in the same way as the tobacco CEOs did.

Your program also gave the impression that all scientists who question the "man made global warming" phenomenon are inactive.

That is also not correct. You must also know that too. So, by intentionally twisting the truth, you are acting in the same way as the tobacco CEOs did.

Your program also gave the impression that all scientists who support the "man made global warming" phenomenon are unbiased.

That is not correct either. As you must also know, many of those scientists receive funding from environmentalist organizations that collect money from the public by promoting catastrophe scenarios. Those organizations are run by people who receive salaries from them. Thus, they have vested interest in promoting the catastrophe scenarios to continue raising money, and more of it, so that they can get paid, and more of it. Similarly, the scientists who receive money from these organizations have vested interest in turning up the rhetoric to receive more money.

So, as much as the oil and coal industries can be accused to be self serving, so can the environmental organizations, and the scientists who receive funding from them. They are all the same, what drives all of them is self interest, as self interest drives you in making your programs.

Furthermore, you must also know that the oil and coal industries do not have much to worry about regarding loss of sales or revenue. Oil, coal, and other fossil fuel industries are unlike the tobacco industry because smoking is/was a discretionary activity, but using energy is not; or, more accurately, largely not.

Of course, it is possible to use less energy, but that will mean a reduction in the "quality of life" as people perceive it, and clearly no one wants that. So, as long as people have a need to use energy, and until such time as there is a replacement for fossil fuels, fossil fuels will be used, and the appetite of the world for fossil fuels will not decrease any time soon, especially as developing countries gain more momentum.

Since renewables such as wind and solar have many problems including availability, cost and reliability, and nuclear is still down for the count, fossil fuel industries don't really have much to worry about. And you must know all of these too. But, your program gives the impression that the fossil fuel industry is involved in a conspiracy, because it is in your self interest to make your program to sound as dramatic as possible so that people will continue to watch it, and consequently you will continue to collect a good salary.

After seeing this program, and observing how you twist the truth to serve your own purpose, I will never be able to believe any story that you present, unless of course you could convince me that you did not twist any truth intentionally. But, then a different but equally important question will arise: if your understanding of issues is so superficial, what is the value of your programs?

Finally, a personal question: In your program, you warn of an imminent catastrophe due to man made global warming, and severely criticize those who speak against it as well as the governments for not acting to stop it.

We would like to know what you are personally doing to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that you are personally responsible for. Did you stop driving a car and flying in airplanes? Did you stop living in a house and moved into a small flat? Did you turn your thermostat down all the way and wear a heavy coat at home when it is cold? Did you stop using your air conditioner when it is hot? Did you get rid of your electric appliances? Did you stop taking showers every day? Did you stop eating oranges and bananas and other fruits and vegetables that are not produced by your local farmers? Did you stop eating meat? We would like to know because if you haven't stopped doing these things, which are all unnecessarily generating greenhouse gasses, you don't have any right to criticize others.

Governments do not use energy, people do. There is no point in criticizing governments for inaction. As long as people, and that includes you, do not take action to reduce their own energy consumption and their own greenhouse gas emissions, there will be no reductions.

I am still appalled by the fact that so many people deny the existence of global warming as well as denying the fact that humans are contributing to this catastrophe. One does not need to be a scientist to figure out that all the polution caused by humans is bound to have a negative effect on our environment

And in case anyone's wondering, the funding for my project comes from NSERC. Yes, it's a federal organization. It seems federal scientists are (gasp) a little more educated than Mr. Harper and thankfully get to decide who gets the money.

In response to Maddy R who says "Lastly, in the extremely unlikely chance that climate change is not happening or is no big deal, isn't it better to be more environmentally friendly anyway?"

Of course everyone is in favour of reducing pollution. That's very different than the politics around Global Warming. However, your statement is like saying "isn't it better to believe in God because there is a chance religion might be true"?

Everyone, I would venture, agrees in pollution reduction. However, not everyone agrees that man-made CO2 emissions is the causing of accelerated global warming. The science is simply not there from what I can tell.

I work in a field of applied science and also encounter my share of nay-sayers. I was naive when I started, believing that information would mean education, and that would be the catalyst for change. I've changed: my delivery, not the message.

The environment is too important for those of us on this side of the equation to quit just because it's hard. But money and power make good partners. It's too bad that they don't also have good morals and ethics in that bed they're in.

Just imagine all that money and effort being channeled into protection rather than destruction, avarice and hording. Who gave them the right? We did, and still do, everytime we buy their product, use their service, or vote for them. As a Canadian, I am not very pleased to see my leader playing the dummy to the USA ventriloquist.

Speak for us here in Canada who pay our taxes and who have given you the exalted position of being our spokesperson, guardian and global representative. I never authorized you Mr. Prime Minister to say that garbage. I want a leader who will protect me and my family, and that includes protection from pollution and microorganisms, as much as from terrorists if not more.

If ever I thought a program would take a look at the facts of this situation I thought it would be the Fifth Estate.
The only proof your reporting gave was that "thousands of scientists" believed this was going to happen and you repeated this over and over.

Besides the fact that throughout history temperatures have risen when co2 levels have also, doesn't mean this is theory. Alarmist like Al Gore have taken this point and won peace prizes with it. Does anybody know for sure, is there hard factual evidence? Or is this just a good guess?

Climate changes have occurred throughout history is this a bad thing? Pollution wise I think controlling co2 emissions is obviously the right thing to do but to blame this only for the downfall of our planet is wrong.

I like to stay in the middle and look at both sides of the argument and judge for myself, but I have yet to see the media or even one scientist that doesn't have ties to one side or the other.

So please somebody explain the theory behind this and let me judge for myself. And can anybody tell me what happened to the ozone layer end of the world hype?

Thank you for making the connections between PR firms, fossil fuel funding, and the small clique of scientists who are willing to lend their names and reputations to foster the denialist machine.

It is way past time for us to stop wasting time listening to the likes of Fred Singer and Tim Ball and get serious about a sustainable, ecologically-based economy that does not require trashing global ecosystems in the interests of endless growth.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of both the federal and provincial Greens.

A long-time watcher, I have to say I'm (very) disappointed in the objectivity and intellectual honesty of the show's reportage. In particular, the whole Bush/Republican/Tobacco insinuations angle is logically empty as refutation of "denier's" scientific arguments (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

Please point out the flaw in the following and I'll recant:

Few will deny that climate is changing (always has, always will) but is it anthropogenic (man-caused)?
- CO2 accounts for 3% of the overall greenhouse gas effect, and we (humans) account for 3% of *that*, for an overall .1%.
- Water vapour (naturally-occurring, and absolutely NOT in man's control) accounts for about 95%, and even methane (mostly bubbling out of the oceans) at 5% is much more significant
(U.S. Dept Energy figures: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

So, from a STRICTLY mathematical perspective, how does changing our emission of CO2 going to have a significant effect???

I await any reasoned refutations.

Ingnore everything the 'scientists' on both sides of the global warming issue say. Just watch and report on what they do (as well as their bank accounts) and the truth becomes apparent.

As an MSc student who's studying greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian rivers, I want to say thanks for a great show. It's very frustrating that the denial "scientists" have gained so much headway and that people with little scientific training believe them (as seen on this message board).

I wish the show would have called some of the denial people on their bad science, though. When one of them said that there was no proof that CO2 causes global warming and not the other way around, I was hoping the host would point out all the lab experiments and models that have shown otherwise (see the newest IPCC report).

Lastly, in the extremely unlikely chance that climate change is not happening or is no big deal, isn't it better to be more environmentally friendly anyway? It kills me when people cite the economy as a reason for unsustainable growth. Without a healthy planet, there is no economy. Continual growth within a finite system with finite resources just never made any sense to me.

I have listened to all they comments for the so called deniers of us being responsible for global warming and wonder what they see as the downside for trying to clean up the air we breath.

Even if global warming is not as big a problem as some claim the benefit of reducing our use of oil seems to be worth while for many reasons with no downside except that there may be some oil left for our granchildren.

Having watched the Denial Machine I cannot help but wonder how our politicians appear to know a lot more about global warming than our distinguished scientists who have been studying this for years.

Again it's all about power and big money and Mr Harper appears to be playing along with his US counterparts. Do these people not stop and think about what will be left for their children or grandchildren?

How these people can sleep at night with a clear conscience is beyond me.

I just watched this over the Internet and I don't get it.

Is Bob McKeown trying to blame the tobacco or oil industry for the fact that lower tropospheric temperatures have been flat for the last 5 years?

Surely McKeown knows that if that's what the data shows then it doesn't matter where a scientist's funding comes from, not even from the big bucket of taxpayers money.

Maybe next time McKeown will try looking at the scientific data and the scientists' arguments rather than just try to denigrate those he doesn't agree with. Then again perhaps he won't because the data might not support his beliefs.

Total rubbish and biased reporting by the CBC once again. Using former tobacco spin doctors to discredit the skeptics is just plain wrong. What about the thousands of other scientist who are not on the payroll of big corporations who are questioning the science and methodoloy behind it? Where were they in this report?

We could also ask who is paying the salary of those scientist who are in the impending calamity camp?

I really have to question the motives here and am myself a skeptic and although I do believe the climate is changing I do not believe that it is entirely caused by human activity. My history tells me that very few any any Hummers and 4X4's were plowing thier way through the snow durring the last ice which resulted in it melting.

Very disappointed in the CBC and it's FOX like reporting.

Thankyou for your wide angle view of this story. Do you plan any features on Alberta's tar sands? How they can justify wasting clean Natural gas, pure Athabasca water, pristine Boreal forest in exchange for toxic 50km wide tailing ponds and Bitumen would be interesting to watch. Maybe someone there will wake up and re-invest in their clean resources.

Yawn, just another hit piece on Bush, the Republican Party, the big bad USA, oil companies, those who refuse to swallow the koolaid / bow down and worship at the alter of glowbull warmongering and with even a little bit of a swipe at Harper just for good measure.

Nothing unexpected here from the libs and all those obviously 'bitter scientists' who just hate it when a threat emerges to that much coveted silver lined funding that should take them into retirement. And of course if someone had anything at all to do with the oil industry, that automatically disqualifies them from having any scientific knowledge whatsoever as their obvious bias has pushed out their brains and these folks don't even breathe the same air as everyone else anyway. All that was needed was an angle in the storyline that tied in Iraq, Katrina and even the wildfires in California - just like Harry Reid did today.

Give me a break.... there wasn't a single legitimate scientific question raised by the 'deniers' that was even allowed to be asked to put the GW 'promoters' on the hot seat for a change. Could you not have found the time to interview Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick to hear what they have to say? How about a balanced approach next time, eh?

It would be great if you could look into why the auto companies do not make hybrids plus cars that plug into the power grid.

I would also like to know why the electrical distribution companies do not encourage reidents to use solar cells and other renewables and conected them to their grid, while they ask us to conserve enery.

The deceit involved in the use of "intensity targets", which are not understood by the public at large, and perhaps by many politicians, which permit increases in the absolute amount of emissions whenever production is increased needs to be widely explained, so that the public information swindle that is being perpetrated is exposed.

So tell me why the fifth estate can pick apart US Government verbatim regarding climate "intensity", but fails to research and examine alarmist rhetoric concerning glacial recession and one-off cataclysmic events.

I've seen it all now.... bottom line is that the "science" is not conclusive when you have political organisations such as greenpeace involved. It is far more political than scientific.

I've written to our incompetent government, Prime Minister (who's also my MP unfortunately), local newspaper, and Environment Minister, on this issue many times. It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculously blind the powers that be seem to be.

Global Warming is a painstakingly obvious fact of life. You simply have to fly over the arctic to see the proof. Yet, despite all the evidence, big oil continues to line the pockets of our government, and thus nothing gets done. The conservatives ran on a platform of "cleaning up corruption". They should give their collective heads an excellent shake, stop listening to Exxon Mobile, and do something before it's too late!!! (which it might already be)

This show was touted as being "timely as ever" and with new updated information. That was severely lacking. Instead what was shown was the same hit piece focusing on easy targets to negate any opposition to the "scientific consensus".

If Mr. Mckeown should interview some of the many scientists with valid arguments. Talk to John Christie, Richard Lindzen(both IPCC authors) Nir Shaviv, Ian Clark, or Syun-Ichi Akasofu who were all featured in the UK's channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Perhaps he could talk to some of those interviewed in "Global Warming; Doomsday called off".

The truth is that there is no "consensus", it is an open debate and the "skeptics" are not receiving equal air time. For the most part when they are acknowledge they are shown as a rogue few spouting propaganda for the oil companies.

As for Mr. Gore, it would have been much more informative for Fifth Estate viewers if Mr. Mckeown had discussed the 9 scientific inaccuracies present in his film. For instance he uses the MBH98 'hockey stick' graph depicting temp. and CO2 increases(though he refrains to call it that) despite it being thoroughly discredited by peer studies and even eliminated from IPCC reports. He claims sea level rises of 20 feet, though in the 2007 IPCC report the committee only predicts a change of 23 inches.

Gore claims that Nairobi and Harare were founded above the mosquito line (2500m)to avoid diseases like malaria although both cities have an elevation of about 1500m. As well there have been many cases of malaria have occurred below this "line" and it is known to be more of a socioeconomic problem than anything to do with global warming.

The most ridiculous claim Gore makes is that he was able
to see with his naked eye when the U.S. passed the clean air act. Well apparently Al should be the newest star of "Heros" as his superhuman sight allows him to detect changes in parts per million of CO2 molecules. Not to mention the fact the "clean air" travels through most of the northern and southern hemisphere (thus mixing with air and pollution from many places) before making its way to Antarctic.

Al Gores film, as well as this episode is nothing more than political jabs. The only difference is Gore depends much more on media fear-mongering and overstatements to make his inaccurate points.

If you truly wish to create an informed public with your work you should research both sides in a rational manner and present them both neutrally. Look into the many MANY scientists who oppose the media driven consensus, including former and current IPCC members.

I'ts real, it's happening global warming is no longer something you can ignore. The bee's are disapearing at a alarming rate, the farm over the mountain in to Saint Jean Baptiste tells me he lost forty percent of his bee's last winter and this summers crop is more bad news and no one seem's to have any answers.

The politions are going to be out of office people need to demand change and stop the greed.Pick up a bicycle ,ride, it's good for you. Grow a garden you can taste the difference.

Great piece, thanks for laying it out in such stark terms. It constantly amazes me how much disinformation is out there, and how many buy into the false debate, as though the mainstream scientific community is far from any consensus.

Every rogue scientist, or dissenting theory is elevated and it spreads like wildfire through the online community and right of center media outlets. Those with a tertiary interest are presented with conflicting signals, and too often the arguments are framed within political boundaries.

We are now in an unprecedented environment, wherein the objectivity of science is undermined by the lens of partisanship. I suspect that those that are inclined to deny, will find reasons to ignore the facts you have presented, because the real casualty in this debate seems to be reason.

The CBC story was informative, but lacked the real objectivity that most people (well, myself at least) would like to see in this debate. There are three people in this world who shouldn't be trusted at face value: politicians, religious leaders, and lastly, scientists. Science can be skewed to conclude almost anything, and the general public often lacks the skills to distinguish between fact and fiction.

One crucial item which was not discussed in the CBC report is support for the the correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature. Decades ago some scientist concluded that Venus suffered from a severe greenhouse gas effect due to its 97% carbon dioxide content. However, it is 50% closer to the sun than the earth! Hmmm, I'm not convinced. Global warming, unfortunately, has become like religion: people shout its mantra like it is god's truth.

By the way, the fact that the same PR company is being used by the oil companies only means that it is a good PR company with a proven track record... who wouldn't use them? I'm sure GreenPeace would use them if they had the cash.

Don't worry about your family. Assuming the earth is in a warming trend (whose effect is very likely not man-made), then countries like Canada will enjoy prosperity due to increased growing seasons and warmer temperatures. Sounds like a good thing to me!

I found it quite interesting (and not surprising) that the oil companies have been using former tobacco spin doctors to 'put our minds at ease' on this issue.

Based on this fact I find it difficult that anyone would believe anything these people have to say based on their past involvement with big tobacco. Given the number of prominent scientists coming forward on the issue of global warming, I don't understand how and why anyone would dispute the fact that something has to be done to protect the planet.

I'm not an environmentalist, but I am a father of two young children and I'm concerned about their future. Trying to stop and/or reverse global warming is essential and I think individuals, businesses and governments have to work together and stop passing the buck.