The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Lost Login]

That may be the case but I have no real problem with him expressing his opinion as long as it is obvious that he is expressing his opinion. Where I do get a bit more concerned is if I think his opinion then reflects how he interviews or presents a news subject. Sometimes I get the impression he is happy to bang something off quickly if it is something he agrees with before checking into it particularly deeply. This appears to have been the case with this programme which many had already marked up previously as being made by a guy who had a dubious reputation. If I do you an injustice Stu I apologise.

 

Stu's shown in this very thread that his knowledge of the subject stacks up to about fuck all, which is why his comments on air are particularly irritating.

 

I do not particularly expect Stu to change his opinions on the subject of global warming as I get the feeling they are fairly deep rooted. What I would be interested to know though is whether his views on the specific TV programme have changed though as I would have thought that even if you question mans effect on global warming there has been enough in the press etc to discredit the specific programme.

 

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...

[Slim]

Nah Ans, I did understand the humour behind the post but was simply saying that although Stu Peters expressed his opinion, there is also plenty of time dedicated to people who think on the contrary.

 

And he's of course welcome to his opinion, I'm just not sure as a presenter of the news he should be expressing it and influencing the stories.

 

How would Christians feel if a satanist was reading manx radio news and putting his own slant on church related stories? "The HappyClappy methodist hall in lonan are having a tea and cake morning on the 18th, just after that I SHALL EAT THEIR DOOMED SOULS AHAHA"...

[starchild]

I see your point!

[Manxman27]

How would Christians feel if a satanist was reading manx radio news and putting his own slant on church related stories? "The HappyClappy methodist hall in lonan are having a tea and cake morning on the 18th, just after that I SHALL EAT THEIR DOOMED SOULS AHAHA"...

 

I think it would balance the happy clappy thought for the day rubbish we have to endure.

[Slim]

I think it would balance the happy clappy thought for the day rubbish we have to endure.

 

That's a fair point, but the news wouldn't be the appropriate place for it, an alternative view on another show might be.

 

Anyway, it turns out Stu doesn't read the news, so I must have caught him laughing at the death of millions through global warming at the end of some other feature, which is all ok apparently. Sorry for the misunderstanding Stu!

[Albert Tatlock]

Polar bears were just Brown Bears that moved north and adapted 250,000 years ago. More recently, the Vikings settled up in Greenland too, but now their settlements are buried under a mile of ice. What is this stupid, arrogant, human 'Canutish' belief that we can control nature? Does it really matter if polar bears become brown bears again?

[Slim]

Polar bears were just Brown Bears that moved north and adapted 250,000 years ago. More recently, the Vikings settled up in Greenland too, but now their settlements are buried under a mile of ice. What is this stupid, arrogant, human 'Canutish' belief that we can control nature? Does it really matter if polar bears become brown bears again?

 

As has been said in much of this thread, the evidence suggests it's not nature but humanity that's causing the warming.

[Lonan3]

Polar bears were just Brown Bears that moved north and adapted 250,000 years ago. More recently, the Vikings settled up in Greenland too, but now their settlements are buried under a mile of ice. What is this stupid, arrogant, human 'Canutish' belief that we can control nature? Does it really matter if polar bears become brown bears again?

Have to challenge that one, Albert. The Viking settlements are certainly not buried under a mile of ice in Greenland - they have actually been extensively examined by archeologists. The most fascinating thing about them is that, even though they were surrounded by waters that were teeming with fish, the Greenland Vikings refused to eat fish! In fact they starved rather than eat them - which suggestst that there must have been some sort of 'taboo' (even though it certainly didn't apply to Vikings elsewhere).

Ultimately, it was their refusal to accept existing conditions and adapt to them that was their downfall!

[Albert Tatlock]

Polar bears were just Brown Bears that moved north and adapted 250,000 years ago. More recently, the Vikings settled up in Greenland too, but now their settlements are buried under a mile of ice. What is this stupid, arrogant, human 'Canutish' belief that we can control nature? Does it really matter if polar bears become brown bears again?

Have to challenge that one, Albert. The Viking settlements are certainly not buried under a mile of ice in Greenland - they have actually been extensively examined by archeologists. The most fascinating thing about them is that, even though they were surrounded by waters that were teeming with fish, the Greenland Vikings refused to eat fish! In fact they starved rather than eat them - which suggestst that there must have been some sort of 'taboo' (even though it certainly didn't apply to Vikings elsewhere).

Ultimately, it was their refusal to accept existing conditions and adapt to them that was their downfall!

An ice core drilled from the island's massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.

 

For several hundred years the Vikings lived side by side with the Inuit, who came to Greenland 4,500 years ago. A mini ice age may have caused the Vikings to leave or perhaps they succumbed to the harsh living conditions.

[VinnieK]

Polar bears were just Brown Bears that moved north and adapted 250,000 years ago. More recently,

 

Which is a super argument for evolution, less so one against climate change.

 

the Vikings settled up in Greenland too, but now their settlements are buried under a mile of ice.

 

No they're not. The Vikings settled on the southern coast which isn't covered by glacier (and is actually quite green), and within the western and eastern fjords, similarly not covered by glacier (otherwise excavating them would have been a bit difficult, wouldn't it?).

 

Opinion varies, but generally it's considered that the name "greenland" is either a mistranslation, or was a bit of early advertising mischief on the part of the founder of its settlement.

 

What is this stupid, arrogant, human 'Canutish' belief that we can control nature? Does it really matter if polar bears become brown bears again?

 

No more stupid or arrogant than to think that decades of climate research can be countered with petty slurs and erroneous clichés about vikings. I'll look forward to seeing "on the relationship between the stupidity of climate change theories and viking settlements of the medieval period" in Nature, I'm sure you'll single handedly manage to expose all those hundreds of frauds and incompetants currently taking up space in research institutes and environmental science departments around the world.

[VinnieK]

An ice core drilled from the island's massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.

 

If you've gone to all of the bother of looking up the Medieval warm period, and subsequent cooling, then you'll in all likelyhood come across numerous sources detailing how these periods are already taken well into account and are explicable within the confines of contemporary climate change theory.

 

How're you enjoying those cherries, Albert?

 

In any case, you're changing the subject just a little, aren't you? The point is that you said their settlements are under a mile of ice or so; they're not.

[Albert Tatlock]

Nevertheless - they were still stuffed by the climate

 

If you are arguing about the depth of the ice (and many glaciers are a mile or so deep) then you are deliberately missing the point.

[VinnieK]

Nevertheless - they were still stuffed by the climate

 

If you are arguing about the depth of the ice (and many glaciers are a mile or so deep) then you are deliberately missing the point.

 

Nope, I'm arguing that your claim about their settlements being covered in ice is rubbish, which it clearly is.

 

Also, no doubt their agriculture was destroyed by the little ice age, but that's not important. What is important is that the little ice age (and the medieval warm period) does not contradict global warming (not least since there's powerful evidence that this was localised, not global, climate phenomena. But then you probably already know that, since searching for information on this period would in all likelihood have yielded all manner of sources explaining how and why these earlier phenomenon do not impact the current theories regarding climate change.

[Chinahand]

Summing up the cliches Albert Tatlocks throws out when he's feeling grumpy:

 

Control of CFCs, Closing Ozone holes, Getting rid of London Smogs, Introducing Clean Air Acts or International Conventions on Pollution or International Conventions on Climate Change, the Kyoto agreement, the negotiations on Kyoto 2 etc etc

 

Stupid Canutish attempts to control nature.

 

Humanity's unsustainable abuse of the planets resources, humanity's undoubted - come on Albert do you really doubt we don't - influence on the World's eco-sphere.

 

Something we shouldn't attempt to examine methodically and take action to reduce the impact. Its just natural polar bears are declining, and tigers, elephants, sundry other charismatic megafauna and the far more important micro-fauna, -flora, and -ecosystems that support them.

 

Stern said about 5% of world GNP is needed to address climate change, the IPCC says 3% ish. This will involve innovative new technologies, new investment in infrastructure etc etc - things Albert Tatlock usually jumps up and down about and claims the UK should get more involved in.

 

But on this topic it's all just a Canutish waste of time. Does not compute - Ah Tatlock has a bad head and its Monday mornig - Grumpy sod!!

[Lonan3]

Greenland:

"I set out to stroll among the Norse ruins..... Fortunately, the ruins lay amidst lush meadows of soft grass over a foot high, growing up out of thick moss and dotted with abundant yellow buttercups, yellow dandelions, blue bluebells, white asters and pink willow herbs."

The mystery of their [the Vikings] disappearance is symbolized by the stone church at Hvalsey. Lying in meadows at the head of the long, broad, mountain-rimmed fjord, the church commands a gorgeous view.... Its walls, west doorway, niches and gables of stone are still intact: only the original roof of turf is missing. Around the church lie the remains of the residential halls, barns, storehouses, boathouse....." Diamond, J., Collapse (2005) P211-212.

He must have incredible sight to be able to see that through a mile of ice!

 

For several hundred years the Vikings lived side by side with the Inuit, who came to Greenland 4,500 years ago. A mini ice age may have caused the Vikings to leave or perhaps they succumbed to the harsh living conditions.

 

No, they didn't. The 'Dorset People' occupied Greenland from c800 B.C. to c300 A.D. The Inuit arrived around 700 A.D.

The Vikings were contemptuous of the Inuit. They called them 'Skraelings' (wretches) and, despite the fact the Inuit were able to adapt to the conditions, the Vikings simply refused to learn from them.

It was, above all, religious fundamentalism and ignorance that destroyed the Viking colonies there.