| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 00:22:49
G'day from Aus.
I'm watching a documentary on Google Video that screened in Britain during the week (ain't the Internet a hoot). It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle and it definitely wasn't made by Al Gore. I'm guessing it won't be up for an Oscar but it does show another side to the debate. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 18:13:50
On this subject... |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 20:08:00
Sean - my point wasn't that fish have anything to do with the problem but in that case there are certain species which as they become more scarce become much more expensive and while fish varieties are somewhat a luxury, today people need oil and gas and if those prices continue to skyrocket, and they wil, as new oil is harder to produce, then that enough is reason for us to be more energy conservant - gloabl warming aside. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 06:12:55
Just goes to show that you can slant anything your way, if you just present only the "facts" that support your position!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 03:15:54
I've had a bit of a look around for comment on the Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) programme. Here's a few links:-
Robin McKie, Science Editor in the Guardian
This is quite astonishing. Science is not mentioned at all in his rebuttal. He simply attacks the messenger.
Dominic Lawson in the Independent
Not a scientific commentary, but makes a few interesting observations.
John Houghton in The John Ray Initiative
This one gives a step by step critique of the GGWS, including the scientific issues. This is well worth a read.
Principal points for me:-
a) CO2 levels today are apparently higher than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. GGWS forgot to mention this.
b) He agrees that temperature changes preceded CO2-level changes during the last ice-age. So on this everyone is agreed - historical temperature changes (prior to about 1960) are not caused by CO2-level changes. Naturally anyone who uses the correlation between the two as evidence for historical warming caused by CO2 changes is being totally misleading.
c) Global Warming theory doesn't have a problem with a cooling troposphere.
d) Both camps agree that solar influences were the main driver of temperature rises between 1900 and 1940.
My conclusions? Global Warming theory is based largely on records of climate data from the last 40 years, and large-scale theoretical modelling of the future.
Edit:- Here's more. Figure 2. (2nd page) shows that the solar activity / temperature relationship was shot to pieces in about 1980. And apparently the chart in GGWS ended in 1980. They 'forgot' to show what happened after that....
A good blog on the matter.
Another good one.
Good charts here and analysis |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 02:38:37
Turrell, those are all valid issues, but don't have much to do with 'anthropogenic global warming'. I.e., fish depletion is a fact, as is the finite nature of fossil fuels. It makes good sense to deal with those issues before they become a real problem. The global community would have more time and inclination to deal with those issues if in fact anthropogenic global warming proves to be a fallacy and attention can be directed away from that. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 16:43:42
Even if you believe there is little negative impact on the planet - why not consider what happens when we run out of fossil fuels or when they become more and more expensive as they become more scarce - simply supply and demand economics - this is a similar discussion going on with regards to commercial fishing - by over fishing you will soon run out of those kind of fish and then you can't have them any more at all. Same thing with oil and gas - we don't know how long the current supplies will last and say in 50 - 100 years how will companies survive if they don't have proven back-up plans. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 16:27:03
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
IMO "human-induced global warming" is on hold until someone can do a full rebuttal of the data presented in that documentary. E.g., some of the material pointed to a most serious misinterpretation of the fundamental data from the Antarctic ice core, specifically, which came first, the temperature change or CO2-level change? It's totally fundamental, and misreading the chronology of that data is as serious as reading a left-turn as a right-turn. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have got something presumably simple so badly wrong, and yet someone has to have got it wrong.
So, I'm looking forward to either a rebuttal, or a concession that thousands of scientists have either screwed up or have all been working with a single interpretation of the same data - that someone screwed up. Or something like it.
You could just as easily put it the other way and demand that someone prove all the other scientists wrong, instead. I'm not sure why you've arbitrarily decided to put the burden of proof on the majority of the scientific community while accepting the arguments of this film as fact.
But they've already done this. I'm talking specifically about the raw data and physical processes here. The makers of this documentary claim that the majority of global climate scientists have erred by ignoring or missing the relationship between temperature change and CO2 when they claim that CO2 changes precede temperature changes. The makers of this documentary claim it is in fact the other way around; that CO2 levels change in response to temperature change - this debunks the entire premise of "human-CO2-production-induced temperature rises". The onus is now on the scientific community to show that the makers of this documentary have in fact got it wrong. They can't both be right.
So, in a nutshell:-
- Group A have a widely accepted theory that hasn't really been challenged,
- Group B have now challenged the basic tenets of Group A's theory by providing data and presenting relationships quite incompatible with Group A's theory,
- Now Group A need to respond to Group B's arguments otherwise many of those who have listened to Group B's theory will no longer take Group A's theory seriously.
Gotcha.
But I still think it's a lot simpler when you take the point of view that humans putting large amounts of extra anything into the atmosphere at the very least probably won't do anything positive. That research can be - and is - used by the oil and automotive industry to resist mandated changes to fuel efficiency standards. It's good to point out there's lot's more research to be done, but if we don't know a certain practice is dangerous, we don't know that it's safe either so it seems reasonable to limit that activity.
You can't censor science just because a lobbyist will take advantage of it, but you also have to be aware of the climate in which you're speaking, and without having access to this documentary I don't know if these "wait a minute" scientists have that awareness. I hope they do. Maybe you'd like to fill me in on that.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 14:32:47
I've been doing a bit of trawling to find some informed debate about the sun-spot thing -- which, shame on me, has apparently been a point of discussion for several years, now.
Here is one of the most rational debates I've found. Maybe it will be of interest, especially if you've seen the Global Swindle film.
|
| Mr Savoir Faire |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 06:58:41
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I am no scientist, so I cannot say which party is lying with any certainty, but Occam's razor tells us that the likelihood of the worldwide media swindling the worldwide population is very low indeed. Furthermore, what motive would prompt a conspiratorial puppetmaster to create such a scare? It seems to me that more people in power (oil companies, politicians, etc.) would have more to gain without a false global warming scare.
Scientist make their money researching grants. If there is a scare that threatens the Earth, there is scientific research to be done and scientists have work to do. Hence global warming.
News agencies want it to be true for the sensationalism.
Politicians want global warming to exist because it can control the populace, or give a great campaign platform.
In this day and age it is impossible to tell who is telling the truth. For instance, at the end of the 2004 US presidential election, I had no clue what Kerry or Bush did in Vietnam.
I find it difficult to believe that scientists worldwide have developed the same con to get research grants. Imagine a case in which a good grant writer could con the government and other organizations that give money for scientific research into giving him money to research the existence of Santa Claus. The scientist has sound data that on a worldwide basis, the rate of present recieving among Christian children goes up dramatically on December 25 every year for the past X number of years, therefore Santa Claus must exist. Other scientists would quickly find holes in the logic and this scientist and his theory would be discarded into the "crackpot" dust bin of science.
Technically Saint Nicolas was real.
There are more than enough psuedosciences in our day that get research and funding. For instance, handwriting analysis. Or what about government funded remote viewing or police psychics? It is true that global warming is more credible than these, but even so there is a tendency to overstate its significance.
For instance, a few years ago in the US the media was blasting stories about scientist warning of an invasion of killer bees. Migrations were expected over much of the US, and many were expected to die. Then y2k happened and scientists started working on that. While y2k was real, its' significance was overstated. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 23:39:43
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I find it difficult to believe that scientists worldwide have developed the same con to get research grants.
I don't believe for a second that there is a 'conspiracy', or that anyone needs to be lying or even slightly dishonest. Everyone most likely believes that what they are saying is the truth. This is science here, and climate is a chaotic system, there are many, many factors affecting climate and few absolute rules of cause and effect. Minor changes to a chaotic system can have major consequences later, hence climate models are fallible as they are totally dependent on initial assumptions and parameters; there is no need for 'faked data' to arrive at very different outcomes from different models.
Think of it as two people reading ancient religious scriptures for instructions for living. They may arrive at very different conclusions, but both be very sure that they're got it right. In fact they can be so sure they're right that they will no longer listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter. Would the Pope be likely to listen to a Pentecostal evangelist's interpretation of the bible? Of course not, but that doesn't mean he's right. It doesn't mean the evangelist is right either. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 23:27:17
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
IMO "human-induced global warming" is on hold until someone can do a full rebuttal of the data presented in that documentary. E.g., some of the material pointed to a most serious misinterpretation of the fundamental data from the Antarctic ice core, specifically, which came first, the temperature change or CO2-level change? It's totally fundamental, and misreading the chronology of that data is as serious as reading a left-turn as a right-turn. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have got something presumably simple so badly wrong, and yet someone has to have got it wrong.
So, I'm looking forward to either a rebuttal, or a concession that thousands of scientists have either screwed up or have all been working with a single interpretation of the same data - that someone screwed up. Or something like it.
You could just as easily put it the other way and demand that someone prove all the other scientists wrong, instead. I'm not sure why you've arbitrarily decided to put the burden of proof on the majority of the scientific community while accepting the arguments of this film as fact.
But they've already done this. I'm talking specifically about the raw data and physical processes here. The makers of this documentary claim that the majority of global climate scientists have erred by ignoring or missing the relationship between temperature change and CO2 when they claim that CO2 changes precede temperature changes. The makers of this documentary claim it is in fact the other way around; that CO2 levels change in response to temperature change - this debunks the entire premise of "human-CO2-production-induced temperature rises". The onus is now on the scientific community to show that the makers of this documentary have in fact got it wrong. They can't both be right.
So, in a nutshell:-
- Group A have a widely accepted theory that hasn't really been challenged,
- Group B have now challenged the basic tenets of Group A's theory by providing data and presenting relationships quite incompatible with Group A's theory,
- Now Group A need to respond to Group B's arguments otherwise many of those who have listened to Group B's theory will no longer take Group A's theory seriously. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 21:03:13
The programme is repeated tonight in the UK( Monday 12th March ) on More4 at 10:00pm Freeview13 Sky142 and again on More4+1 at 11:00pm
For what it's worth it doesn't claim that there's no such such thing as global warming. It just questions the link between a rise in average world temperatures and human CO2 production. Basically there is none. The fact is that average temperatures fell in the 4 decades immediately after the second world war, just as the post-war boom meant CO2 production rose exponentially. As I mentioned in a thread a year or so ago, I can remember in the 70's documentaries telling us how we were about to enter a mini Ice Age with wooly mammoths trundling across the frozen wastes of Olde London Towne. The last interglacial was considerably warmer than we are now, and life on earth didn't end then and won't end this time round. There will be winners and losers in any climatic change. Of course, the fact that there are beneficiaries is no comfort if you're one of the losers
As to consensus among scientists, watch the documentary and see what happened to some of those who tried to just say "wait a minute here". This includes the co-founder of Greenpeace.
I'm not saying this is gospel and to be believed unquestioningly. Just don't blame the next forest fire on 'global warming' as a knee-jerk reaction.
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 17:08:02
Downtown is right that global warming is overwhelming accepted by the scientific community and it is very telling that companies and governments, especially the U.S. one, are the main deniers.
The issue cannot transcend politics, since it is states who are going to have to act on this. Individuals can do their bit but it will never be enough.
I take the development point, but on the other hand do countries have the right to damage the world in order to develop? I fully acknowledge that the West must clean up its act first, but there is nothing we can do about the fact that we polluted in order to get to our current position. Anyway, no one is going to force any country to reduce its emissions - that would be impossible. (O.K., I know there can be pressure put on countries...)
On Darwin, the rise of creationism is a disaster. I don't know what is wrong with people.
On Holocaust denial, this is so patently ludicrous that I find it dreadful that this is illegal in Austria etc. I find this restriction on freedom of speech very worrying. France or somewhere made or moved to make denial of the Armenian genocide illegal, but the recently murdered Hrant Dink rightly condemned that idea. However, it is correct to say that Turkey cannot join the E.U. without recognising the genocide (as will very likely be required), so that will sort that out, in principle. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:39:45
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
IMO "human-induced global warming" is on hold until someone can do a full rebuttal of the data presented in that documentary. E.g., some of the material pointed to a most serious misinterpretation of the fundamental data from the Antarctic ice core, specifically, which came first, the temperature change or CO2-level change? It's totally fundamental, and misreading the chronology of that data is as serious as reading a left-turn as a right-turn. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have got something presumably simple so badly wrong, and yet someone has to have got it wrong.
So, I'm looking forward to either a rebuttal, or a concession that thousands of scientists have either screwed up or have all been working with a single interpretation of the same data - that someone screwed up. Or something like it.
You could just as easily put it the other way and demand that someone prove all the other scientists wrong, instead. I'm not sure why you've arbitrarily decided to put the burden of proof on the majority of the scientific community while accepting the arguments of this film as fact. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:35:13
There are documentaries that show "the other side of the debate" on the Holocaust, too. I'll bet the experts they feature have lots of degrees and present very compelling arguments.
The thing about "the global warming debate" is that there's virtually no debate still going on within the scientific community. Yes, those who consider it to be a great lie have no shortage of scientists on their side, but these arguments are no longer going on within the scientific community among their peers. The only place where there's really any debate going on is in the political arena. That should tell people something.
Most of the arguments that man-made climate change is false are based on the fact that there's no proof of it. That is true, there is not indisputable proof that this is occuring, mostly because we don't know enough yet about how the climate works. But Darwinism isn't proven either, and that doesn't stop most of us from accepting the overwhelming evidence in favor of it.
And for me, this is what it really boils down to: if one truly believes that global warming isn't happening, and that there's no immediate danger of it happening, so what? Are they saying that reducing pollution and deforestation are a bad thing? There seem to be those out there who think it's really important that global warming be debunked. Why? Why should one be so focused on disproving it, unless their real motivation is simply to protect the rights of polluters to keep on polluting? |
|
|
