Lost Login Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Err have you read past the headlines on the links as your statement is the most misleading I have seen on here for a long time. The Telegraph one after the headline goes on to have other scientists questioning the findings due to other factors being ommitted and even those that say it may have foundation still say it is linked with CO2 increases The second link says the Pluto warming is likely to be a seasonal event and due to Pluto's eliptical orbit. One Pluto "year" being 248 of our years so 2 measurements 14 years apart do not really tell you that much. So it is not the sun. The third link on Jupiter does not even mention the sun! Yes there is a new hot spot and the temperature is increasing around there but not I understand on the planet globally. The Fourth I coud not open The fifth details a storm on Saturn but in the report no reference to the sun or any global warming! The sixth in respect of Triton is says their are two possibe reasons for the warming both related to the Ice patterns on Triton again nothing to do with the sun I have to admit I stopped after that but I did briefly look at the last link which starts to quote Tim Ball who to anybody who has done any research on the topic is a well known lobbyist on the issue backed by Mobil Exon and not a figure that anybody should really want to quote if they really want to have much credibility I have to admit I expect few on the forum to follow the links and I would expect that many who have just read want you wrote would have believed the links to at least back up what you say and so believe that there might be some credibility in your statement. At least even Albert's link even if he cherry picks and takes from questionable sources with questioning back up his statements! For those that like links this is a fairly interesting one. It is written by a non scientist so is not to complicated and although written by an individual who I expect believes in the "majority" view point on global warming does so in a fairly fare way. It debunks many of the points raised above but then you will often see a follow up debate on the issue so you see it being questioned from both sides rather just a ball statement of fact which you have to accept or reject http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...ng-sceptic.html The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame Nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 It must be daunting if you are studying for a degree with Climatology as one of your options - if there is no definitive answer. However for anyone who is interested there is another showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" on Monday 19th February at 7.30 p.m. at the Palace Cinema. This is sponsored by the Arts Council -Arts/Science co-operating! Another sheep bible is born...and hey! ...so what if it is factors of X (times) 10 out? I still say dump "An Inconvenient Truth" and go for something a lot more realistic and updated. If this was being shown to my kids I would withdraw them from the showing, even just for the simple reason that it does not even approach the scientific 'consensus' of the current IPCC February report represented as the 'current world approach'. I'd want my kids seeing the truth - not some political-pseudo-science that is at least 18 months away even from the IPCC 'reality'. Anyone pushing this movie is not a scientist - they are a disciple. The truth in this debate is difficult to find. In the meantime all we can do is pick up the crumbs from various sources and try and distill our own - what is true for each of us. I suspect none of us have all the answers- some are completely misguided, some are a tiny bit wiser but that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm quite surprised that no one has yet mentioned this SUNDAY TIMES article on this subject. I've been wanting to reply to this for days, but have just been too busy, and I've not enough time to really give it justice, but RealClimate the climatology blog site has two articles discussing the research this article is hyping. The thing that annoys me about it is that that Mr Calder is wanting to sell a book and hence is getting as much rhetoric and flowery biased language into his article as he can. He denegrates the mainstream work of thousands of scientists and makes out he and Mr Svensmark are the only people who understand the problem. This article goes right to the heart of his claims. The Climatologist reviewing the work admits its interesting, but shows that its got a long way to go before it can make any real insight to climate change, plus the fact cosmic rays have NOT increased over the last 30 years makes it difficult to attribute to what is currently happening. As well as the above this article puts a good explanation of the misconceptions commonly made by people claiming it was warmer in the past so there's nothing to worry about and claims that the sun is the cause of the problems - the use of the TV series CSI and Cold Case are a clever gimmic to explain the issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm quite surprised that no one has yet mentioned this SUNDAY TIMES article on this subject. I've been wanting to reply to this for days, but have just been too busy, and I've not enough time to really give it justice, but RealClimate the climatology blog site has two articles discussing the research this article is hyping. The thing that annoys me about it is that that Mr Calder is wanting to sell a book and hence is getting as much rhetoric and flowery biased language into his article as he can. He denegrates the mainstream work of thousands of scientists and makes out he and Mr Svensmark are the only people who understand the problem. This article goes right to the heart of his claims. The Climatologist reviewing the work admits its interesting, but shows that its got a long way to go before it can make any real insight to climate change, plus the fact cosmic rays have NOT increased over the last 30 years makes it difficult to attribute to what is currently happening. As well as the above this article puts a good explanation of the misconceptions commonly made by people claiming it was warmer in the past so there's nothing to worry about and claims that the sun is the cause of the problems - the use of the TV series CSI and Cold Case are a clever gimmic to explain the issues! Hardly 'independent' - especially since most of the replies are from Gavin - whose models and livlihood are inextricably linked to the IPCC. Whatever the outcome, it's essential we have this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hardly 'independent' - especially since most of the replies are from Gavin - whose models and livlihood are inextricably linked to the IPCC. But couldn't his views, as a climate modeller, be informed by independent and comprehensive review of the available scholarly literature on the subject? It should be noted that he started out not as a climatologist but an applied mathematician, suggesting that he was able to come to the subject in his professional life with an independent mind unswayed by the dark intrigues of the pro-energy efficiency conspiracy of foreigners and evil wizards who apparently have perverted environmental science curriculum to their fiendish aims. Also, it should be remarked that his livelihood is inextricably linked to NASA, not the IPCC - even if that does rather ruin the little suggestion that he's a grafter working complicity with the sinister forces pushing low energy lightbulbs into our homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hardly 'independent' - especially since most of the replies are from Gavin - whose models and livlihood are inextricably linked to the IPCC. Whatever the outcome, it's essential we have this debate. Albert, I realize you don't want to take anybody's word for anything, but I think you should acknowledge that Gavin Schmit is qualified to comment on these issues. Link to his Profile Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases. Solar irradiance and aerosols (cloud nuclei and volcanos) are directly the issues you think are so important - he is directly working on these issues. Also concerning the livelihoods being linked to the IPCC this comment from this blog entry is relevent: [A]... comment taken from the leftist rag the Guardian, "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today"... Hmmm, so what did the IPCC pay people who for the most part aren't scientists to come up with this myth called global warming? [Response: Indeed an intellectually brilliant conspiracy theory... But in case anyone seriously wants to know: the 600+ scientists working on the IPCC reports do this for free in their spare time. That involves lots of hours wading through review comments (the report attracted over 30,000 such comments), and evenings and weekends away from the family. A voluntary effort I right now don't feel like ever doing again, once seems enough for a lifetime... -stefan] Comment by juandos — 2 Feb 2007 @ 2:08 pm Not only do the scientists do the work for the IPCC voluntarilary, but the idea that being a maverick, doing work contrary to the consensus, destroys someone's career - if they are correct in the science they do - is just bull - the primary example is the scientist who discovered prions - the "establishment" ridiculed his ideas - but he did the science, publishing over 250 scientific papers, and won a Nobel Prize. The idea that Global Warming is a myth being foistered on us by an unthinking scientific establishment, who surpress good evidence to the contrary, is crass in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Albert, I realize you don't want to take anybody's word for anything, but I think you should acknowledge that Gavin Schmit is qualified to comment on these issues. I do think he is well qualified - I was just illustrating the point, as others have done on most 'sceptics', that it's easy to write a disparaging remark about someones alleged involved with an organisation, or their motives. Constructive scepticism is a mainstay of the scientific method. Without scepticism there is no debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 This BBC news story is very interesting news: the G8 plus plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa have agreed in principle to CO2 emission caps and carbon trading on the excess. Without this kind of global concensus tackling climate change would be impossible. Obviously there is many a slip getting it implemented and what actually gets implemented will more than likely be flawed, but it is the start of a necessary process and as long as none of the big players pull out that process can be improved overtime. Good news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxmedia Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 A Channel 4 spokeswoman confirmed the broadcaster had won the rights to the film and said it would air in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I watched this film a few days ago. I have to say, as a sceptic, it did make me think. But I don't agree with some of the arguements he presented and the extent to which he went. I agree on the general gist, that we can do something to lower emissions etc. ....but i don't believe everything will happen to the extremity that scientists predict. On a more serious note, from watching "The Day After Tommorrow" I learnt that when the world freezes over, if I camp into a building and burn books for heat... I will survive. And then, after it all (just a few days actually) the world will be back to normal. With that in mind.... i have no fear with this global warming wahalla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 A Channel 4 spokeswoman confirmed the broadcaster had won the rights to the film and said it would air in 2008 Long before that, however - on Thursday - Channel 4 will screen what it calls a "polemical and thought-provoking documentary" - The Great Global Warming Swindle - by one of the environmentalists' favourite hate figures, film-maker Martin Durkin. INDEPENDENT ARTICLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 A Channel 4 spokeswoman confirmed the broadcaster had won the rights to the film and said it would air in 2008 Long before that, however - on Thursday - Channel 4 will screen what it calls a "polemical and thought-provoking documentary" - The Great Global Warming Swindle - by one of the environmentalists' favourite hate figures, film-maker Martin Durkin. INDEPENDENT ARTICLE Was about to post that Channel 4 Link In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired... ....In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.' About time that someone slows down this political avalanche and looks at all angles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 The Independent article is hardly a ringing endorsement of the programme or film maker! To quote one part "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." Obviously it would be unfair to comment to much in advance but it does not give you much confidence given the guys past record. Channel 4 is getting a bit of a poor reputation for putting on & letting guys like this spout whatever they like as fact. ITV with the Trevor MacDonald slot is getting eqully poor at letting any old guy with a theory state it as fact unchallenged. It is a bit of a shame when there is a debate to be had that you lead it with a guy who previoulsy has been found guilty for misleading and misrepresenting and then knowing this you state that before broadcasting you are not going to make any special effort that to ensure that such problems are repeated. It just seems an abdication of responsibility by the broadcaster to me to ensure that they transmit a reliable factual documentary. Presumably they hope instead for loads of controversy to push up the ratings? Channel 4 Link In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired... ....In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.' About time that someone slows down this political avalanche and looks at all angles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I take it that C4's excellent programme aired last night was well received and viewed as posing a plausible counter to the Co2 lobby. For those of you that missed it, the basic tennet is that the earth's atmosphere IS warming and that levels of Co2 ARE increasing - but the Co2 lobby has looked at the relationship from the viewpoint from 'Co2 is increasing therefore it is that which is causing the temperature increase' instead of the alternative 'temperature is increasing and as a result so too is Co2'. That temperature increase can be directly correlated to sunspot activity so it is the sun's activity that is driving overall atmospheric temperature changes over which we have absolutuely no control whatsoever. This issue has to be got right for all our sakes and the fact that the STATE has now unquestioningly sided with the Co2 camp means that the prospects of getting any pause for thought from them is now going to be very difficult if not impossible. Environmental pollution must be reduced for the sake of everyone on the planet but there is a great danger that we are all going to be forced into wearing proverbial 'hair shirts' when there might not actually be a need to do so when it comes to Co2 emissions. Before the Co2 supertanker's rudder breaks and it can't be turned if it needs to be we need an objective re-evalution of the evidence. Many of the scientists interviewed for the programme had made contributions to the IPCC report with views contrary to those which the report clearly wished to promote (now where have we seen that happening?) and were expunged (the comments that is, not the scientisits!) If you missed it, try and get a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I take it that C4's excellent programme aired last night was well received and viewed as posing a plausible counter to the Co2 lobby. Um: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...c=16743&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.