Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment

[Pragmatopian]

I'm glad the IPCC has been jointly honoured with Gore - would rather it was just them.

 

Every issue needs a poster boy, and you can't argue he hasn't done a lot to bring climate change to the attention of a wider audience. Of course, there's also a measure of being in the right place at the right time.

[Roger Smelly]

Well we all know that some belive and some don't, but i want to know why the news always seems to show picture of ice melting when ever they talk about it ?

 

The fact of the matter is the Poles north and south expand during the winter months and shrink in the spring/summer.

 

Why do they always show the summer thaw video we never see the winter shot's of the glaciers.

 

Just look at the deadlest catch in the winter half the bearing sea is frozen in the winter.

 

I tend to use my own instinct rather than listen too the crowd.

[VinnieK]

Why do they always show the summer thaw video we never see the winter shot's of the glaciers.

 

Just look at the deadlest catch in the winter half the bearing sea is frozen in the winter.

 

I guess the scientific community never thought of the differences between winter and summer, or saw deadliest catch when all the papers were being drafted. You should write to the IPCC and the Royal Society with your discovery.

 

I tend to use my own instinct rather than listen too the crowd or expert opinion, scientific research, or anyone else who might know what they're talking about.

[Albert Tatlock]

Climate deniers to send film to British schools

[Lonan3]

Climate deniers to send film to British schools

Wonderful! Employing a flawed television programme to challenge a flawed television programme. That's really what education ought to be about, isn't it?

[Albert Tatlock]

Climate deniers to send film to British schools

Wonderful! Employing a flawed television programme to challenge a flawed television programme. That's really what education ought to be about, isn't it?

Works well I thought - what else would you expect in a flawed target-driven education system?

[Cambon]

I tend to use my own instinct rather than listen too the crowd or expert opinion, scientific research, or anyone else who might know what they're talking about

 

And todays scientific opinion is that having one glass of wine a day is as bad for you as binge drinking, even though doctors often recommend a glass of red wine a day to older people for health purposes.

 

Which scientists do we beleive? The ones who are paid to come up with ideas like links between carbon output an global warming so that governments can keep that industry alive (and it is a massive industry), or those scientists who are independant and and believe there may be a link and would like to study it further, but cannot get government funding basically because they will not state that there is a link.

 

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

[ai_Droid]

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

 

We, as a race, change nature millions of times a day, farming, medicine, selective breeding, deforestation, dams, etc, etc, why should climate be any different?

 

As for your glass of wine, are you talking about this report?

 

Social drinkers who regularly down more than one large glass of wine a day will be told they risk damaging their health in the same way as young binge drinkers.

 

Seems like you're talking rot again eh?

 

 

Roger, the reason they focus on the thaw, is because that's the ice's low point. This years low point has been significantly lower than ever before? How's that hard to understand?

 

Your instincts tell you what scientists can't? What do your instincts tell you about innoculation and medicine? What about nuclear power generation? Why do you trust scientists on other subjects but not climate change?

[Albert Tatlock]

Roger, the reason they focus on the thaw, is because that's the ice's low point. This years low point has been significantly lower than ever before? How's that hard to understand?

You can't say that yet - scientists are up in the arctic doing that research now (i.e. arctic sea-ice research) - to determine from mud samples whether this is a 'blip' and/or when this last happended.

 

If anything, science has so far taught us the world has never been constant and we owe our own existance to that fact - as humans would never have evolved otherwise.

[ai_Droid]

You can't say that yet - scientists are up in the arctic doing that research now (i.e. arctic sea-ice research) - to determine from mud samples whether this is a 'blip' and/or when this last happended.

 

If anything, science has so far taught us the world has never been constant and we owe our own existance to that fact - as humans would never have evolved otherwise.

 

Fair enough, it's lowest since records began, shoot me.

[Lurkah]

If anything, science has so far taught us the world has never been constant and we owe our own existance to that fact - as humans would never have evolved otherwise.

 

Okay, so we do know the earth has gone through major climate changes in the past which have proved catestrophic in terms of mass extinctions of species. So, given we have the ability, you'd think it'd be a good idea to keep an eye out for another one?

 

The reason these ice melt figures are cause for concern is because we have some predicted ranges for it based on best case, worst case and mean climate prediction models. There's a fair amount of scientific weight behind claims that the model was fairly optimistic. These ice melt figures are about the first hard measurable data that shows how we're doing compared to the current model.

 

It's tricky to get across the message because you're talking about measuring things that are quite cyclical anyway but the point is that the multi-year ice and a general reduction in the thickness of ice is proceeding at a greater degree than was even expected. That would seem to indicate the current model is optimistic. That's not great. As the countless arguments from people on this forum proves, it's hard enough just getting people to understand climate change is in the first instance very real, secondly attributable to mankind and thirdly a threat worth countering.

 

Unfortunately virtually all the data in the world wont make the nay-sayers change their view because they pretty much show a lack of engagement with the scientific consensus as it is. And I rather suspect they think stories like this are just more propaganda. Because we all want this to be happening, we're going to get rich off it or something else. Insert conspiracy here.

 

Climate deniers to send film to British schools

 

Right. Let's please be reasonable about this. Gore's Inconvenient Truth had some factual errors in it or more accurately it had some unsubstantiated or perhaps better said, unjustified statements which were criticised, rightly so, when examining whether it should be sent to schools. That's a fair harder level of examination than any documentary normally gets. It specifically does not discredit the film in which the overall message is accurate.

 

Now you're comparing it to the Great Global Warming Swindle. This is gutter documentary. It was flagrantly wrong in virtually everything it said including proper cooking up of data to try prove a point. The only reputable scientists to appear in it ended up being quoted out of context and misled as to what the conclusion would have been. They weren't very happy about it. It was a shocking, shoddy and corrupt production which was produced simply to fill a contraversial mandate by the film maker who basically has made a career out of contraversial films. That's not to say you couldn't make a worthwhile climate skeptic documentary, but this aint it.

 

There's plenty of room to debate climate change. But just yelling rah rah rah we're not listening, you've sent that film so we're going to grab anything off the shelf that says the opposite and send it to schools... well that's just not a reasonable approach at all. And you know what, if that film ends up in the courts like An Inconvenient Truth, it wont come in for a bit of criticism on a few of the points made in the film, it'll outright be banned.

[Dr_Dave]

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

 

Do you believe the hole in the ozone layer just appeared? If not, there's a classic example of mankind "changing nature" on a massive scale.

 

Dave

[Cambon]

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

 

We, as a race, change nature millions of times a day, farming, medicine, selective breeding, deforestation, dams, etc, etc, why should climate be any different?

 

As for your glass of wine, are you talking about this report?

 

Social drinkers who regularly down more than one large glass of wine a day will be told they risk damaging their health in the same way as young binge drinkers.

 

Seems like you're talking rot again eh?

 

The only rot here comes from people like you who believe everything you are told. The way global warming has been protrayed over the last few years has changed from "it is happening and mankind is not helping it", basically to "it is totally mankinds fault". It is not. Even if everyone on earth were to stop producing carbon emmissions and we could undo all we have done, the earth would still heat up. We cannot change that.

 

Quite similarly, the current government has changed the direction of their propaganda on alcohol consumption/abuse so many times that it loses credibility. In your link to the The Times there are blatant lies. For example, they say that alcohol content is higher. That is wrong. The alcohol content of spirits is lower than it has ever been. For example, Gordons Export gin used to be 47.3%, it is now 37.5%. 20 years ago you could readily buy things like Polish Spirit and other similar drinks with extremely high levels of alcohol, but those have been pretty much taxed off the market. Beer and wine are pretty much the same as they ever were. The only difference has been the introduction of tart fuels like WKD. Even the size of a pint is smaller as we no longer have lined glasses. This is not propaganda and it is not rot, it is simple fact.

 

edited for spolling

[Karellen]

Is it human nature to need something to worry about? We in the west live in affluent and (mostly) peaceful times yet we have to worry about something over which we have zero control. It makes me laugh how people worry and delude themselves about changing their lightbulbs "to save the planet", as if it will really make an iota of difference.

 

Wait for the next cold war with Russia to start and we'll forget all about global warming when we switch to worrying about nuclear war again.

[Cambon]

Is it human nature to need something to worry about? We in the west live in affluent and (mostly) peaceful times yet we have to worry about something over which we have zero control. It makes me laugh how people worry and delude themselves about changing their lightbulbs "to save the planet", as if it will really make an iota of difference.

 

Wait for the next cold war with Russia to start and we'll forget all about global warming when we switch to worrying about nuclear war again.

 

Probably the most sensible thing I have heard about global warming yet.

 

In the meantime to those who do things like buying car insurance which includes a "carbon offset" payment, Good luck to you, you will need it!