Stu Peters Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 My naive and unscientific gut reaction to the international hyperbole surrounding the supposed global warming threat was vindicated tonight in what I thought was a great programme on the tellybox. It completely discredited those who expound relentlessly and tiresomely about man-made carbon dioxide emissions being the new antichrist and biggest threat to civilisation - and not using whacko conspiracy theorists - the people they talked to were top scientists and climate experts, even the co-founder of Greenpeace! It was all started by an unlikely coalition (no pun) between Maggie Thatcher (who wanted to reduce dependence on coal and oil and so enhance nuclear power) and the agitprop left who see industry and energy as the new enemy. Now it's a multi-billion industry with too many people feeding at the trough to admit they had it wrong all along, and that it's a natural cyclical event. Trust me - whenever fading musicians and unfunny alternative comedians start wringing their hands about something, you know there's flawed logic involved somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Logic lead me to disbelieve these green fools a long time ago, it was a great programme, to be honest I'm amazed ch4 were allowed to show it what with the global warming nazis taking over the planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Haha i was also proved right tonight. I have been saying for years that this go green thing is just a ploy. The media is to blame for half of it, sorry stu not meaning you Anyone with a couple of brain cells can see that the earth gets all its heat from the sun and if the sun is sending more our way what happens ? Right i am off to fill my kettle and boil it a few times before i have a cuppa. I might even go mad and have some toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I hope some good reviews will be posted up on various climate sites soon, but I couldn't disagree more with you Stu. It was a polemic and that means being partial and fast with the facts when it suits you. It is not controversial that CO2 lags the end of Ice ages - The start and finish of Ice ages are mediated by the cycles of the sun - BUT the depth of the cooling/warming is mediated by CO2 - CO2 doesn't end an Ice Age, but it does mediate how much warmer it will get once the ice has retreated enough to release the CO2 stored by the Ice sheets. This takes about 800 years. The graph of sun spots matching temperature records has been discreted having serious errors - but the film maker still uses it - why use discreted science - cos it suits his argument. When it suits the film maker he is happy to accept lags and positive (and negative) feedback mechanisms - he discusses this when talking about the role of the ocean - storing energy and being out of equilibrium with the current conditions. But rejects this at other points - ice ages again, and time and time again modern CO2 levels. Climatologists do not claim all the 20th century's warming has been caused by global warming - the models only break down (and need anthromorphic Carbon to explain the addtional warming) in the last 40 years - the discussion about warming and cooling up to the end of the 1960s is not a controversey. He's created a straw man in concentrating on the period between 1900 and 1970 and not discussing the period after this time. It is a peer reviewed, repeatably confirmed fact that Cosmic rays have NOT altered in intensity over the last 30 years. I could go on and on - it makes for good TV, but it isn't good science. He interviews multiple scientists - all undertaking research, all getting grants to do this research which adds to the debate on Climate warming - and trys to make out that the debate is being stiffled. The only thing I will agree with is the fact this is now a very politicized issue - which is damaging to science. And I basically do agree with him that the west is being awesomely selfish in its attitudes - BUT just a second - Kyoto puts the majority of the effort on the developed world to reduce CO2 emissions. The climate treaties do acknowledge that stopping the third world from developing is not a way to stop global warming. So even there he's only partially right - the political reality is closer to his position than the Dark Greens - Medievalists who should be made to go and live as they wish to force others to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 China are you a expert in this field ? There was some heavy weights in this film on C4 and thay all said the same thing ? Are they all liar's ? I am all for recycling i think its our duty but when you see how much Co2 nature produces its pointless banging on about it. I read somewhere that Co2 is stored in the soil and when it is disturbed the Co2 is released. If you look at some of the digs that go on they also prove that the UK climate was like the Med a few thousand years ago so it just shows the earth is always heating up and cooling down. Its disgusting to see the western world still treating the 3rd world like they are cave people. Thats to true problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I am all for investigating scientific claims, so I welcome informed debate on any scientific issue conducted by acknowledged experts. However it must be pointed out that one of these nine experts is Tim Ball. He is currently in a lawsuit against the Calgary Herald. The paper in their Statement of Defence state: The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff's reputation are as follows: (a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; (B) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996; © The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and (d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist. All this makes for controversy but does little to add to scientific evidence. As for telling others how they should live - particularly people who are in poverty in the Third World - well it beggars belief that the West is so arrogant. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the various arguments it still makes absolute sense that we should do everything we can to ensure all life on this planet is sustained and our resources are shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Whatever the rights and wrongs of the various arguments it still makes absolute sense that we should do everything we can to ensure all life on this planet is sustained No, really ? I'll start wearing ridged soles to give the ants a chance then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 China are you a expert in this field ? There was some heavy weights in this film on C4 and thay all said the same thing ? Are they all liar's ? Quite definitely the climatologists quoted in the film are in no way liars, but the film maker is not out for objective truth, rather a good story and a controversey and so were some of the non-scientific contributors - most especially Nigel Calder. The film maker is after controversey - there are lots of valid and contentious scientific debates within climatology, but these aren't nearly as extreme as it being a "global warming swindle"; one talking head dismissed totally the role of CO2 in global warming, either that was selectively edited and ignores the context of what he was saying - or he's not a scientist - I'd need a transcript to find which, but this film maker is notorious for selectively editing people. Nigel Calder is trying to sell a book - he edited New Scientist between 1962 and 1966 and has been a scientific publicizer since then. I find it very ironic that the film went on and on about the vested interests of scientists working with CO2, but ignores the same interests of the people it uses. Most interestingly is that they concentrated so much on Calder, while not talking to the scientist - a guy called Svensmark - who's theories and results Calder is publicizing. Why? My guess Svensmark is a true scientist - he knows his ideas are tentative and at the leading edge and so would be more cautious about making extreme claims. (see link here and here discussing Svenmark's theories and Calder's publicity seeking!) Calder - he loves the label heretic - and he loves the publicity for his latest book. This is a link to a science blog reviewing the film: the blogger knows more on the subject than me - he knows the names and personalities of the people involved, but his conclusions are similar to mine - as I said in my first post, I'll wait more detailed reviews and keep posting, but everything so far is confirming my view this was sound and fury, seeking controversey and was selective in its reporting. That goes to the nub of this issue - it has become politicized which is stopping objective science being accurately desiminated to the public and policy makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Rather than jump on the band wagon guys just cos it matches your beliefs how about taking 2 minutes to actually question how much validity should be given to what was presented. The director Martin Durkin does not have the best track record in this field. To quote The Indpendent "Martin Durkin, for his part, achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views". Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme. For his part, the film-maker accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh." It is not his only blemish. The Independent article is hardly a ringing endorsement of the programme as discussed on the Al Gore Inconvenient truth thread http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...icle2326210.ece You question the "conventional" viewpoint how about questioning the anti view point before accepting so readily or at least the vasis of the programme which is an "opinion" piece rather than a documentary reviwing both sides of the argument. It is meant to be thought provoking and provocative rather than balanced. To give you a clue it might be interesting to know that the people behind this documentary are ex members of the UK Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who used to publish the magazine LM, once “Living Marxism”, the official newsletter of the RCP. They continue to push the agenda they promoted within the RCP through the Institute of Ideas and the online magazine spiked. To check them out, try a Google search of “Martin Durkin Against Nature” (the title of another anti-environment documentary by this programme’s director from the 1980s), or “LM group revolutionary communist party”. Some counter arguments to what was broad cast cane be can be found on http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_...ing_swind_1.php In fact you can also find them on the Al Gore Inconvenient Truth thread as much of what was broadcast was discussed there recently. All last night did was give a platform and loads of publicity. I am not saying do not question the conventioanl wisdom but question both sides as it is a develpong subject and over the years as more research is uncovered the debate will rage but lets have at least an informed debate. If not I am going to try and make a TV programme that argues against the conventional wisdom that I am fat because I eat to much but rather that because I am fat the consequences are that I eat a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Watching a documentary that agrees with your point of view does not 'prove you right', especially not one purely designed to be sensationally opposed to the widely accepted view. This issue is a matter of scientific debate, and it's certainly important to challenge scientific principles, but the media completely ignores regular scientific approach and turns these issues into a competative PR excersise. Very dangerous, from both points of view. Roger, you're a fucking genius. The sun makes the world hotter. Why does anyone even bother with climatology school eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Chinahand...I was about to read your counter argument but the first two lines told me all I needed to know, thank you. It was patronising...that means you assumed an air of supremacy over poor Stu... ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I agree that it is "important to challenge scientific principles," and it was good to see a programme that - however flawed - did exactly that. To simply sweep away either side of the argument and decide that the argument is over and the decision made is, in my opinion, both dangerous and ridiculous. We already have a situation in which Al Gore's film - presenting just one side of a very complex debate - is being lauded with honours and is about to be force-fed to our children by being shown in the schools. This seems no better than the way that the church used to force-feed them 'creationism' as proven fact! (Indeed, the common denominator of the 'universal guilt of humanity' seems to be a common denominator) A programme such as this one, whether or not you agree with its methods, statements or form of presentation, is every bit as valid as the counter argument. Personally, I have recorded it. If and when my children are shown An Inconvenient Truth, I will invite them to sit and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle so that they have an opportunity to make up their own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Chinahand...I was about to read your counter argument but the first two lines told me all I needed to know, thank you. It was patronising...that means you assumed an air of supremacy over poor Stu... ...GOMH*... This really does highlight what I'm saying. It's not about the facts, it's not about the peer reviewed papers. It's not about how rightly fucking difficult it is to get a scientific consensus. It's about how you present your argument with flashy graphics for the people who's opinions are swayed by the presentations and not the content. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Chinahand...I was about to read your counter argument but the first two lines told me all I needed to know, thank you. It was patronising...that means you assumed an air of supremacy over poor Stu... ...GOMH*... Oh dear! Just re-read the first two lines. I hope some good reviews will be posted up on various climate sites soon, but I couldn't disagree more with you Stu. It was a polemic and that means being partial and fast with the facts when it suits you. Doesn't seem that partonising - I'm saying I disagree with Stu - is that patronizing? I agree the next sentence is harder hitting, but its aimed at the film maker - are you homestly saying you thought the program was an impartial and factual discussion of the issues? If so where are the counter points of view? Opps - probably being patronising again! Now Slim - I think we'd all agree he's being a bit sarcastic - but Moi - being up my arse - really! Want to read a review of Svensmark's latest research? He's the main person working on Cosmic rays and their influence on climate - Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.