View Full Version : BBC's The Great Global Warming Swindle - Video Link
Believers in the Faith need not watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Climate+Swindle&hl=en
stevew
03-13-2007, 08:55 AM
Witch
This also got forwarded to me by the requisite Republican in the crew. It's about 75 minutes long and I haven't watched it yet.
Of course, it now has zero credibility thanks to N8 posting it, so really no need to watch...
BurlyShirley
03-13-2007, 11:04 PM
Ok, I gotta say, this was prett well done. Its worth a watch and Im interested to see some rebuttals. Ive been trying to keep an open mind on this one for a while now.
Ive been trying to keep an open mind on this one for a while now.
good idea, tough for some to weed out the politics from the science though.
BurlyShirley
03-21-2007, 05:10 PM
Anyone else take a look at this yet?
Anyone else take a look at this yet?
probably not... when you start debunking someone's religion they usually dont like it.
MMike
03-21-2007, 08:40 PM
probably not... when you start debunking someone's religion they usually dont like it.
and have you watched an inconvenient truth? I thought not.....
and have you watched an inconvenient truth? I thought not.....
i saw it. it was based in fact almost as much as a Harry Potter film.
syadasti
03-21-2007, 08:48 PM
This has been covered several times and its not that hard to grasp. Journalism is not science. I can't find the other meta study (it compared mainstream media articles with variety scientific journals rather than just the IPCC), but it again showed almost complete consensus in the scientific field in regards to global warming and an almost 50/50 split in mainstream media. Mainstream media is made to make money - that is all. Its more interesting to read about/see conflict than everyone agreeing about something.
A TV or mainstream newspaper would be an unacceptable sources of information for even an undergraduate science paper. Only N8 gets his education from the TV...
We only have one chance to find out who is right. Erring on on the side of caution of anthropogenic global warming still has long term payoffs for business as they increase the efficiency of their processes. Throwing it to the wind means if you are wrong you are f*cked for short-sighted very limited gains.
A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias. Despite the consistent assertions of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that human activities have had a “discernible” influence on the global climate and that global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately, “he said/she said” reporting allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have their views greatly amplified…
In 1996, the Society of Professional Journalists removed the term “objectivity” from its ethics code (Columbia Journalism Review , 7-8/03). This reflects the fact that many contemporary journalists find the concept to be an unrealistic description of what journalists aspire to, preferring instead words like “fairness,” “balance,” “accuracy,” “comprehensiveness” and “truth.” In terms of viewpoints presented, journalists are taught to abide by the norm of balance: identifying the most dominant, widespread positions and then telling “both” sides of the story.
According to media scholar Robert Entman, “Balance aims for neutrality. It requires that reporters present the views of legitimate spokespersons of the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with roughly equal attention.”
Balanced coverage does not, however, always mean accurate coverage. In terms of the global warming story, “balance” may allow skeptics—many of them funded by carbon-based industry interests—to be frequently consulted and quoted in news reports on climate change. Ross Gelbspan, drawing from his 31-year career as a reporter and editor, charges in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming:
The professional canon of journalistic fairness requires reporters who write about a controversy to present competing points of view. When the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness—presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight—is a fundamental check on biased reporting. But this canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points of view on a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they do not.
We empirically tested Gelbspan’s hypothesis as we focused on the human contribution to global warming (known in science as “anthropogenic global warming”). In our study called “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press”—presented at the 2002 Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change in Berlin and published in the July 2004 issue of the journal Global Environmental Change —we analyzed articles about human contributions to global warming that appeared between 1988 and 2002 in the U.S. prestige press: the New York Times , Washington Post , Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal .
Using the search term “global warming,” we collected articles from this time period and focused on what is considered “hard news,” excluding editorials, opinion columns, letters to the editor and book reviews. Approximately 41 percent of articles came from the New York Times , 29 percent from the Washington Post , 25 percent from the Los Angeles Times , and 5 percent from the Wall Street Journal .
From a total of 3,543 articles, we examined a random sample of 636 articles. Our results showed that the majority of these stories were, in fact, structured on the journalistic norm of balanced reporting, giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming….
Through statistical analyses, we found that coverage significantly diverged from the IPCC consensus on human contributions to global warming from 1990 through 2002. In other words, through adherence to the norm of balance, the U.S. press systematically proliferated an informational bias.
Anyone else take a look at this yet?
i find the co-founder of GreenPeace's commentary very interesting...
gsweet
03-21-2007, 09:50 PM
i'd like to take a look at it, but i'm afraid that i don't even have time to work out for half an hour these days: full course load and a thesis that needs to be presented in three weeks. on the bright side, if anyone wants to do a quick summary of some of the more substantial (and by this i mean analytically supported) points, i'd be very much appreciative of it....and more than happy to throw out what i know as a geology/earth science person on it.
SkaredShtles
03-22-2007, 08:08 AM
i'd like to take a look at it, but i'm afraid that i don't even have time to work out for half an hour these days: full course load and a thesis that needs to be presented in three weeks. on
Don't sweat it. You'll have plenty of time WHEN THE WORLD MELTS. :p
Don't sweat it. You'll have plenty of time WHEN THE WORLD MELTS. :p
just like it did 8000 years ago from mastadon driven H2's...
Toshi
03-22-2007, 09:16 AM
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
[QUOTE=Toshi;2490296]http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html[/QUOTE}
dont mess with The Church eh?
:p
syadasti
03-22-2007, 09:34 AM
Religion has nothing to do with science.
I suppose N8 believes the CFC ban was for an imaginary hole in the Ozone layer. That NASA stuff is BS :rolleyes:
It seems there's finally some good news for the ozone layer. According to a report that will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, the rate at which ozone is disappearing in the upper stratosphere is slowing. The findings highlight the success of a worldwide reduction in harmful chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for the discovery that chlorine released into the atmosphere by CFCs, used mainly as refrigerants and aerosol propellants, destroyed the planet's protective ozone layer. An international ban on the chemicals followed. Michael Newchurch of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and his colleagues examined data from three NASA satellites and ground stations located around the world to study the state of the ozone layer. "We're not gaining ozone but we're losing it less quickly," Newchurch reports. "And the amount of chlorine in that layer of the stratosphere has not yet peaked, but it has slowed down significantly, so we should start to see some ozone improvement in the coming years."
The findings do not put the ozone layer in the clear, however. For one, improvements were seen only in the upper stratosphere. "We don't see compelling evidence that the destruction of ozone is slowing the lower stratosphere, where 80 percent of the protective ozone layer exists," Newchurch says. That's because factors in addition to chlorine, such as greenhouse gases and changing wind currents, alter the ozone layer at lower altitudes. But Newchurch notes that the results are a promising beginning for an ozone layer recovery.
Effects of ozone depletion
Decreased ozone can have serious environmental impacts by increasing UV radiation at the ground. In humans, this causes eye damage (cataracts) and skin damage (sunburn and skin cancer). It has been calculated that for each 1% reduction in ozone there is an increase in UV radiation of about 1.2%, which could lead to a 2% increase in skin cancers. It also harms plants and animals, and damages materials such as plastics and paints.
Ozone depletion in New Zealand
The most dramatic ozone losses occur in Antarctica, where spring ozone columns can be less than 90 DU. This ‘ozone hole’ lies well to the south of New Zealand and does not pose a direct health risk. However, when it breaks up, filaments of ozone-poor air can sometimes pass overhead.
New Zealand’s summertime ozone has decreased by about 10% since 1970. During the first half of the 21st century it is expected to recover, albeit slowly, because the release of the damaging chemicals is now restricted by the Montreal Protocol on Protection of the Ozone Layer. The rate of recovery may be influenced by the changing climate.
New Zealand’s death rate from skin cancer is about 300 per year, the highest in the world relative to population (and over half that from road accidents). This is due to the relatively high UV exposures and the high number of fair-skinned people. Peak UV intensities in New Zealand are about 40% greater than at comparable latitudes in Europe.
The UV Index (UVI) represents the intensity of UV radiation. A UVI greater than 10 is extreme, and skin damage can occur in less than 15 minutes. In New Zealand, the midday UVI can exceed 13 in summer. In winter, it rarely exceeds 2, although intensities increase with altitude and when the surface is snow-covered, as on ski fields.
The most important factor controlling UV radiation is the sun’s angle above the horizon. At low angles, the rays pass through much more of the atmosphere, reducing the radiation. As a rule of thumb, if your shadow length exceeds twice your height (when the angle of the sun is less than 30°), then there is little risk of UV damage. If your shadow is less than your height (the sun angle is greater than 45°), then protective measures are needed.
Some New Zealand statistics:
* Over 300 New Zealanders are dying from skin cancer every year.
* Skin cancer is by far the most common cancer affecting New Zealanders.
* Of the 3 most common skin cancers, melanoma is the most serious.
* NZ has one of the highest melanoma death rates in the world. The most recent statistics are for 2001, showing 244 reported deaths from melanoma in that year.
* In 2001 there 96 deaths from non-melanoma skin cancers.
* Skin cancer costs the New Zealand health system about $33 million a year, making skin cancer one of the most expensive cancers for the NZ health system (Skin Cancer Costs PDF document - 90Kb).
* It has been estimated that, for every death from skin cancer, an average of 17.4 potential years of life are lost.
* The vast majority of skin cancers are preventable - it has been estimated that over 90% of melanomas in Australasia are attributable to sunlight exposure.
* Exposure before the age of 20 years is a particularly strong risk factor for melanoma incidence.
jibba jabba...
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3081/imgvwqc6.jpg
Toshi
03-22-2007, 09:44 AM
dont mess with The Church eh?
:p
are you even capable of reading?
are you even capable of reading?
do you have a pancake on your head?
gsweet
03-22-2007, 10:54 AM
dude, common; if you're gonna start an argument and critisize every study that's not on "your side", at least take the time to read them. i scanned over that guy's rebuttle to the BBC show and while he's not a climatologist, he does bring up some pretty powerful points. so read it N8; don't be like this guy:
http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2007/03/11/1572.aspx#comments
BurlyShirley
03-22-2007, 10:57 AM
gsweet, after looking over the rebuttals Toshi posted, I found them to be alot less convincing than what the BBC video showed. My personal opinion to date, is that the earth is indeed warming and that humans are likely part of the cause. The only question I have is if the effect humans have is enough to make a big difference or if its negligable. I simply cannot find a way to sort out good data from bad.
syadasti
03-22-2007, 11:39 AM
So if you agree warming is taking place don't think its better to err on the of caution rather than doing nothing while we wait for better data? Its like the federal government bureaucracy skipping over the requested funding for the levies maintenance years ago - short term savings for huge long term financial and human losses.
Current Warming Period Is Longest in 1,200 Years, Study Says
Sara Goudarzi
for National Geographic News
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0209_060209_warming.html
February 9, 2006
It's not normal, a new study says of the current global warming period.
Researchers analyzed tree rings, ice cores, fossils, and other "proxy climate records" and found that the present warming phase has lasted longer and affected a broader area than any other such period in the last 1,200 years.
The two English researchers behind the study reached their conclusion after studying proxy records from 14 sites around the globe. Each of these records shows how its local environment changed over time.
The researchers set out to identify extended periods of warming and cooling that occurred during the past several centuries and affected different regions of the planet at roughly same time.
The study, conducted by Timothy Osborn and Keith Briffa from the University of East Anglia in England, will be reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science...
SkaredShtles
03-22-2007, 11:41 AM
gsweet, after looking over the rebuttals Toshi posted, I found them to be alot less convincing than what the BBC video showed. My personal opinion to date, is that the earth is indeed warming and that humans are likely part of the cause. The only question I have is if the effect humans have is enough to make a big difference or if its negligable. I simply cannot find a way to sort out good data from bad.
:stupid:
Not only that but even if we hobbled the world economy by putting in place all sorts of environmental restrictions, would it help at all?
Toshi
03-22-2007, 11:41 AM
gsweet, after looking over the rebuttals Toshi posted, I found them to be alot less convincing than what the BBC video showed. My personal opinion to date, is that the earth is indeed warming and that humans are likely part of the cause. The only question I have is if the effect humans have is enough to make a big difference or if its negligable. I simply cannot find a way to sort out good data from bad.
what metric do you use when deciding whether a source is credible? i sincerely hope it's not how flashy the presentation is.
Secret Squirrel
03-22-2007, 11:44 AM
what metric do you use when deciding whether a source is credible? i sincerely hope it's not how flashy the presentation is.
I use a scale of shiny-ness. If it's really shiny, then it gets 5 gold stars from me. If it's not very shiny, it only gets 1 silver star. That's just how I roll.
BurlyShirley
03-22-2007, 11:50 AM
what metric do you use when deciding whether a source is credible? i sincerely hope it's not how flashy the presentation is.
Did you watch the BBC video or not? It's not a matter of how flashy something is, but more about how clearly the data is presented. Also, about who is presenting it. There were some points also that your link completely failed to adress, and points that were just blown off because they didnt live up to "go green's" standards. Look who is doing the talking in the BBC doc.
Im not saying its correct necessarily, just that some thought should be given to that POV instead of writing it off as a ploy by big oil all the time.
Toshi
03-22-2007, 11:54 AM
i haven't watched the bbc video, but i will tonight.
syadasti
03-22-2007, 12:03 PM
Did you watch the BBC video or not? It's not a matter of how flashy something is, but more about how clearly the data is presented. Also, about who is presenting it. There were some points also that your link completely failed to adress, and points that were just blown off because they didnt live up to "go green's" standards. Look who is doing the talking in the BBC doc.
Im not saying its correct necessarily, just that some thought should be given to that POV instead of writing it off as a ploy by big oil all the time.
You can manipulate sound bites so it fits a certain POV, one of the scientist quoted in the video has already come out against it:
Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
A Leading climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at MIT, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since WW2.'
BurlyShirley
03-22-2007, 12:06 PM
So if you agree warming is taking place don't think its better to err on the of caution rather than doing nothing while we wait for better data? Its like the federal government bureaucracy skipping over the requested funding for the levies maintenance years ago - short term savings for huge long term financial and human losses.
I do agree with that, yes, and I like to think Im doing my part. However, searching for the truth in something never hurt anyone either.
You can manipulate sound bites so it fits a certain POV, one of the scientist quoted in the video has already come out against it:
duped how? he says what he said.... even written on the subject.
maybe he wants to get some funding from eco-activists or something
So if you agree warming is taking place don't think its better to err on the of caution rather than doing nothing while we wait for better data?
No. That's the same argument religious zealots try to use to make me suddenly believe in jesus. Belief is more visceral than that.
edit: for syadasti's sake, I mean the "aren't you better off believing in hell and being wrong, than not believing in hell and being wrong" argument.
i haven't watched the bbc video, but i will tonight.
I've watched half of it, and hope to catch the other half soon. It's pretty good and the sources are credible. There are a few times where it seems like interviews were creatively editted, but that may be me assuming.
What I'd really like to see is commentary on the documentary from the people that were IN the documentary.
duped how? he says what he said.... even written on the subject.
Heh heh. N8 made a funny.
syadasti
03-22-2007, 06:14 PM
No. That's the same argument religious zealots try to use to make me suddenly believe in jesus. Belief is more visceral than that.
No that would be more like he believes there is a supreme being, he just doesn't agree with X religious group's vision of him/her/it/them.
Climatology isn't an exact science. They give us a trend, not 2.52126F in the next 10 years. I've read that so far the warming is occurring faster than the computer models predicted.
If we know warming is occurring and aren't sure of the portion contributed by man you seriously think its better to wait until we know precision portions before we change our ways? The atmosphere has thresholds that would drive the time and cost up of mitigation tremendously. Increasing the efficiency/cleanliness of current processes at a short term loss will make things cheaper in the long term (along with a variety of other non-economic benefits) even if we find out the problem isn't very significant - what is the big downside other than short term profit?
Not even considering global warming, isn't it better to make business pay the true economy cost of doing business rather than paying for it with lower quality of life, higher healthcare costs, and taxpayer's money in the long term?
Source: Penn State
Date: March 3, 2005
More on:
Global Warming, Environmental Issues, Climate, Weather, Ice Ages, Natural Disasters
Climate Threshold May Alter Economic Picture Of Climate Change
Science Daily — Typical economic analysis applied to global warming may be biased because they neglect climate thresholds, according to Penn State researchers.
"Economic models of climate change typically assume that changes occur gradually and reversibly," says Dr. Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geoscience, Penn State. "However, some environmental effects are not smooth and show a threshold response. For a long time nothing or very little happens and then suddenly a large change occurs."
Keller and William E. Easterling, professor of geography and director of the Penn State Institutes of the Environment, analyze two potential threshold responses to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions a widespread bleaching of corals and a collapse of oceanic circulation systems. These events could happen suddenly and predictions about whether and when they would happen are uncertain.
These potential climate thresholds call into question the results of previous economic analysis of climate change policies, Keller told attendees today (Feb. 18) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
"Economic analyses typically neglect that greenhouse gas emissions might trigger climate thresholds with potentially significant ecological and economic impacts," says Keller. "Analyses neglecting the potential fro negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are biased toward too high greenhouse gas emissions. We need more realistic representations of the potential environmental threshold responses in economic analyses."
The uncertainty about the climate thresholds and the potential for an abrupt response pose special challenges to the design of climate policies. One key question is whether the current observation system would deliver an actionable early warning signal about possible ocean circulation changes.
"Think about the situation where you are in a canoe on a river with a waterfall, says Keller. "You may want to know the location of the waterfall early enough to be able to avoid going over the waterfall. The situation for climate thresholds is similar. One may want to see early warning signals before it is too late to avoid the threshold response."
Key questions are how confident we have to be in an early warning signal before we consider it sufficient to take action, and how to design and implement an observation system that could deliver an actionable warning signal.
"Observation systems that would yield actionable early warning signal about climate thresholds have the potential to improve climate policies considerably. Implementing such observation systems could very well be a highly profitable investment for future generations."
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Penn State.
Toshi
03-22-2007, 07:11 PM
1. dr. tim ball, the very first man who appears oh so briefly, is not a "professor of climatology". he was a professor of geology until 1996. now he is a paid consultant to an astroturfing organization, the "friends of science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science
2. "yet as the frenzy of man-made global warming grows shriller, many senior climate scientists say the actual scientific basis for the theory is crumbling." 1:15 in. unsupported hyperbole. great.
3. "there were periods in the earth's history when we had ... 10 times as much CO2 as today, and if CO2 has a large effect on [the] climate, then you should see it in the temperature reconstruction." 1:28 in. and apparently the answer is that you DO see it. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Sci...249.1382B was he not talking about that particular era, perhaps? well, if so, then it is yet another example of unsupported hyperbole.
4. professor john christy is quoted in a manipulative way at 2:00 in. he helped to draft and was one of the signers of a statement by the american geophysical union that reads, "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
5. roy spencer, phd, is at 3:54 in. he doesn't believe in evolution, and indeed says "that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism". he may be a genius when it comes to satellite measurement but he's a sad, sole dissenting voice on this and on climate change. not that his "articles" on climate change are self-published, as opposed to his strong work within his field, published in nature among other places. if you don't understand the difference between a self-published diatribe and a nature article then you're not my audience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
6. with regard to the point about "global warming big business" around 4:30, one could make the same argument about religion and churches. lots of people would be out of jobs if suddenly christianity was "disproved", not to imply that it has been proved. straw man argument.
7. 5:18. "the environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is to prevent development in the developing countries." that's a nice sounding statement. where is the evidence to back it up? i think it's just as plausible that warfare and big oil funneling money to corrupt dictators who neglect infrastructure development are the "strongest force".
8. lord lawson of blaby at 6:35 babbles on about "how weak and uncertain the science was" in the uk report on the scientific basis for climate change. this is not what people generally think of this report, the stern review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review .
9. 7:00. "we are told that the earth's climate is changing... but the earth's climate is always changing. in earth's long history there have been countless periods in which it has been much warmer and much cooler than today." <cue scene of bikini clad lady on beach, tanning as she watches the placid seas> this isn't a rational argument, this is manipulative bs through and through.
10. 7:26. "we can trace the present warming trend back at least 200 years, to the end of a very cold period in earth's history." then, with soothing christmas music in the background a graph slyly suggests that the temperature has been higher than at the present if not much higher from about 1400 AD on back. this is NOT supported by the evidence. roy spencer's 1997 data in nature show this:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence .... Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming."
to "lower our confidence in this conclusion" does NOT mean that the authors think that the world was warmer than it is now prior to 1600 AD. it instead means that they still think so but can't say so with as high a degree of certainty as for their conclusions on more recent years.
11. there is no 11. i've had enough.
i am positive that if i went through this movie scene by scene i could pick holes in each. i frankly don't have the time or motivation to do so.
can i accept that models of climate change have uncertainty, and that it is possible that nothing horribly grievous will happen if reality happens to match up with the low end of the predicted changes? sure. but i cannot accept hyperbole that attempts to make a claim far greater than that as this movie seems to do.
Changleen
03-22-2007, 07:44 PM
Toshi FTW.
Silver
03-22-2007, 07:56 PM
No. That's the same argument religious zealots try to use to make me suddenly believe in jesus. Belief is more visceral than that.
Not really. It would be the same argument if Jesus suddenly appeared to you like he did to Thomas, and let you finger his holes. (God, that sounds so dirty...)
stevew
03-22-2007, 11:04 PM
Not really. It would be the same argument if Jesus suddenly appeared to you like he did to Thomas, and let you finger his holes. (God, that sounds so dirty...)
I wonder if he let him blow through them like a whistle?
syadasti
03-23-2007, 05:43 AM
^^I bet N8 's head 'splode with the way this thread has turned :brows: :biggrin: ^^
Plummit
03-23-2007, 06:21 AM
Channel 4 (BBC) has distanced itself from this show because of false graphs, mis-representations, and use of out-dated, erroneous data.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Channel 4 (BBC) has distanced itself from this show because of false graphs, mis-representations, and use of out-dated, erroneous data.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
of course they have..... the documentry's POV is far from popular in Old Europe
... it again showed almost complete consensus in the scientific field in regards to global warming and an almost 50/50 split in mainstream media. Mainstream media is made to make money - that is all. Its more interesting to read about/see conflict than everyone agreeing about something.
Most all scientists with a vested interest in our government, or big oil all share one commom thread. They say that global warming is not a result of man. It's funny (actually disturbing) that this same group used to state that global warming is a MYTH. However, just like with the WMD lie, they've now had to FLIP-FLOP given the universally accepted fact (even the Bush administration has agreed) that global warming is indeed occuring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo
It's interesting to note that scientists with no vested interest in this political debate all have a consistent, and completely opposing opinion of global warming. They say, almost sans exception, that global warming is clearly a man-made situation, and therefore, we MAY have the power to fix/help it.
We all can easily see which groups are backing which side of the alleged "argument". You certainly need not be a scientist to understand who is lying ....... yet again. You just can't be a sheep.
narlus
03-26-2007, 07:59 PM
new avatar for n8:
http://www.notcot.com/images/gw0.jpg
Changleen
03-26-2007, 10:51 PM
Uh, Channel 4 is not the BBC - Just FYI... They are an independant commercial channel traditionally known for being slightly more risque than the other channels might be. (At least until '5' came along)
Secret Squirrel
03-27-2007, 12:05 PM
I like channels '69' and '96'.
i for one am ready for a little global warming!
bring it on!
http://www.flysrb.com/Nice%20Beer%20Koozie.jpg
Secret Squirrel
03-28-2007, 10:51 AM
i for one am ready for a little global warming!
bring it on!
http://www.flysrb.com/Nice%20Beer%20Koozie.jpg
I do believe that I've finally found something that N8 positively contributed for the betterment of the Mon-kay.
Good show, sir....good show.:clapping:
showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.
these people were what i would descibe as ranging from ultra-liberal to conservative democratic voters.
it is interesting to me that those in the Church of Global Warming would prefer to think of man's actions as the guilty party to an increase in global temp rather than the sun which totally dominates our plant's characteristics... we are really very very insignificant..
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_radio_bursts.html
syadasti
04-05-2007, 02:30 PM
showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.
Its not surprising, afterall they can tolerate you.
There is a big difference between mainstream media (a heavily edited sensational conspiracy piece at that) and science, most of the general public is too lazy and/or naive to really read into an issue and tell the difference.
You and your friends are the same people who take Fox News or Dateline at its face value without a second thought.
it is interesting to me that those in the Church of Global Warming would prefer to think of man's actions as the guilty party to an increase in global temp rather than the sun which totally dominates our plant's characteristics... we are really very very insignificant..
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_radio_bursts.html
Oh yes genius, you are the only person who saw this article or had this theory and none of the real scientists in climatology ever considered that, right.
What major scientific problem are you going to solve next by cut and paste :clapping:
Before you say it, you, the conservative, should be conservative in this issue and just in case you are wrong YOU can kill yourself to save the planet/RM.
chicodude
04-05-2007, 02:40 PM
showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.
these people were what i would descibe as ranging from ultra-liberal to conservative democratic voters.
Your "people" seem pretty easily swayed.
Secret Squirrel
04-06-2007, 11:22 AM
When people are easily swayed by sensationalistic media and are in no way interested in the actual science of something, they are beyond help and only deserve to reap what they sow.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you think it's a dolphin, fine. Just don't take me down with you...
MMike
04-06-2007, 02:19 PM
When people are easily swayed by sensationalistic media and are in no way interested in the actual science of something, they are beyond help and only deserve to reap what they sow.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you think it's a dolphin, fine. Just don't take me down with you...
Stupid jew dolphins ruining the planet........
No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.
Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Honus
04-10-2007, 01:03 AM
James Hansen has argued against Lindzen for some time now. He's stated before that Lindzen lacks a basic understanding of greenhouse mechanisms. These guys have been going at it for a long time and both are on the government payroll.
The bottom line is that you would have to be a complete idiot to not try to improve the environmental impact that humans have. This planet will be here long after humans are gone but I'd like to think we can at least do something to help extend our stay.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Honus
04-10-2007, 01:06 AM
And on a lighter note, this is just too funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbd2sq1RMLs
Updates:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/balloffire.asx
http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm
syadasti
04-10-2007, 01:51 PM
Updates:http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm
Thats a solid source and I like their recommended reading - popular fiction. You really know how to pick them N8.
For more information on the truth and lies behind the global warming issue, I would encourage you to read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton; an excellent thriller with abundant footnoted facts about climate change. You are also encouraged to visit Lee Gerhard’s excellent web-site. Other interesting web sites, both informative and alarmist are listed below....
Division of Professional Affairs
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Physical: 1444 South Boulder Ave • Tulsa, OK 74119, USA
Postal: P.O.Box 979 Tulsa, OK 74101-0979, USA
(918) 584-2555 • (800) 364-8874 • Email
whois information...
aapg.org
AAPG Home Page
Meta Keywords: AAPG, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, petroleum, geology, geologist, oil, gas, natural gas, exploration, production, carbohydrate, energy, minerals, geoscience, geoscientist, career, meeting, meetings, Explorer, Bulletin, CDs, CD-ROMs, earth
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2048/050105environmentalxqz0.gif
denier!!!
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/
...and the hysteria gets even shriller and more fantastic....
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D8ODVBK00&show_article=1
Rising global temperatures could melt Latin America's glaciers within 15 years, cause food shortages affecting 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and wipe out Africa's wheat crop, according to a U.N. report released Tuesday.
Polar ice caps will likely melt, opening a waterway at the North Pole and threatening to make the Panama Canal obsolete, IPCC member Edmundo de Alba said.
syadasti
04-10-2007, 04:36 PM
Oh yes N8, its people from the fringe...
From the office of Michael Bloomberg today.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 105-07
April 10, 2007
MAYOR BLOOMBERG RELEASES NEW YORK CITY'S FIRST-EVER COMPREHENSIVE CARBON INVENTORY
Reducing Carbon Emissions Will Be a Top Priority for Next 1,000 Days
Mayor and Partnership for New York City Also Announce Climate Summit to be Held in New York City this May with Mayors from Around the World
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today released the first comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in New York City's history and announced that New York will host mayors from large cities around the world at a C40 Large Cities Climate Summit in May. The Mayor was joined by City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn; Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding, Dan Doctoroff; New York Academy of Sciences President, Ellis Rubinstein; ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability, USA
Director Northeast Regional Capacity Center, Kim Lundgren; Partnership for New York City President, Kathryn Wylde; Chairman of the City Council's Environmental Protection Committee, James F. Gennaro, and New York City Global Partners Acting President, Marjorie Tiven, to release the report and announce the summit during a day-long meeting on "Climate Change in New York." The event was co-sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
"New York has always been a leader in forward thinking public policies, and by undertaking the most comprehensive, detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in US history, and establishing a very clear target for reductions, we will lead by example in fighting global warming. We look forward to discussing these issues with mayors from around the world here next month," said Mayor Bloomberg. "You can no longer deny the science and bury your head in the sand - climate change is real, and by looking at where and how we are contributing to that problem, we can identify how to reduce our emissions and create a better future for our children and grandchildren."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, but we all need to act locally to find solutions," said Speaker Quinn. "Working closely with the administration, and with the leadership of Environmental Protection Committee Chair James Genarro, the Council has taken a number of steps to reduce emissions, improve our environment, and make our city greener overall. This inventory will help us build on these efforts, and continue New York City's efforts as a leader in the fight against global warming."
The inventory will serve as the benchmark for reducing greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions by 30 percent between now and 2030, a target the Mayor set during his December 12, 2006 speech. Specific plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to targeted levels will be detailed in a major policy speech scheduled for later this month. The speech is expected to propose solutions to the challenges facing New York City as it grows by approximately one million residents between now and 2030. The report released today breaks down emissions into two separate inventories: those produced by New York City as a whole and those produced from City government operations.
New York's greenhouse gas emissions inventory was completed as part ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability's "Cities for Climate Protection" Campaign. New York is one of 750 cities participating internationally, including 240 U.S. cities. The analysis shows that citywide carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions were approximately 58 million metric tons in 2005, with 79 percent coming from buildings. New York's carbon emissions were approximately 1 percent of 2005 U.S. totals, and less than a third of the average U.S. per capita level. However, citywide emissions have increased by approximately 8 percent in the last ten years, and are on trend to increase approximately 25 percent above 2005 levels by 2030.
City government CO2e emissions were 3.8 million metric tons in 2006, with 64 percent coming from City owned buildings. City government emissions increased by 15 percent from 1995 to 2001. Nevertheless, government emissions have remained stable over the last five years, and are on trend to remain so through 2017, despite background growth in electricity use.
"We applaud New York City for the completion of their greenhouse gas inventory, the most comprehensive ever completed by a U.S. city, which builds on the tremendous progress the city has already made towards climate protection," said Michelle Wyman, Executive Director of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. "The biggest city in the U.S. is also one of the leaders in local climate action, earning the nickname the 'Big Green Apple.' New York City has demonstrated that we can turn the problem of global warming into profitable solutions that also make our communities cleaner, better places to live."
"By undertaking this inventory and setting an achievable benchmark, we are asserting ourselves as global leaders in green initiatives and sustainable development, and with our City poised to grow by more than a million people in the next couple of decades, that is the only position that makes sense," said Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff. "Cities are more energy efficient and produce one third less carbon emissions per capita than our rural and suburban counterparts. We need to look at the challenges of our future growth, but we need to welcome and accommodate that growth in the interest of fighting global warming."
The inventory released today reports that actions taken by the City from 1995 to 2006 resulted in the avoided emission of 446,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Additional actions taken between 2006 and 2017 are projected to result in annual avoided emissions of 404,000 metric tons by 2017. The past actions include the ENCORE program, an agreement between the City and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) that provides financing for energy efficiency projects in City buildings, the use of alternative fuel vehicles in the City's fleet, landfill methane recovery, and the conversion of traffic signals to LEDs. Planned future to further reduce CO2e emissions include the switch from truck to barge and rail for the hauling of solid waste out of the City as part of the landmark Solid Waste Management Program (the SWMP), Local Law 86 of 2005 (the City's green buildings law), Local Law 119 of 2005 (the energy efficient products procurement law), and increased street tree planting citywide.
"Global warming is, without a doubt, the most pressing environmental issue of our time and it is clear that urgent action by all levels of government is necessary to avert its catastrophic consequences," said Councilman Gennaro. "Mayor Bloomberg continues to show tremendous leadership in the fight against global warming, and he deserves the support and gratitude of all New Yorkers."
The Mayor also announced today that New York City will host mayors and delegations from cities around the world at the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, convened to promote the role of cities in reducing carbon emissions and reversing global climate change. The Summit will take place May 14-17, 2007, at the Essex House Hotel and other venues throughout the City. The Clinton Climate Initiative, the Partnership for New York City and NYC Global Partners, Inc. are organizing the event on behalf of the Bloomberg Administration and the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Mayor Bloomberg will welcome mayors from more than 30 of the world's largest cities, including London, Paris, Tokyo, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Moscow and Istanbul. Private sector companies will also be represented through sponsorship of sessions and events, and having CEOs in attendance. These companies include: JP Morgan Chase & Co., Alcoa, Deutsche Bank, the Hearst Corporation, the Shell Oil Company, Siemens, Time Warner, BSKYB, Citigroup, Con Edison, Federated Department Stores, General Electric, Keyspan, KPMG LLP, Swiss Re, and Tishman Speyer.
"The Climate Summit will showcase the important role that New York City's international business community is playing around the world to help cities make the most of the economic development opportunities associated with cleaner and greener business practices," said Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of the Partnership for New York City.
"The challenge of reducing greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions can only be addressed if global cities are ready to share their experiences and innovative approaches," said Commissioner Marjorie Tiven, NYC Global Partners Acting President. "This will be the sixth international meeting hosted by Mayor Bloomberg, which promotes cooperation and sharing of information on best practices among the world's great cities."
For more information on PlaNYC or NYC Global Partners, log onto www.nyc.gov. For more information about the Large Cities Climate Summit, log onto www.nycclimatesummit.com.
too long and too boring to read but basically an elected official flapping whichever way he can in the political wind to win reelection in a city that has elected Hilliary Clinton to office twice now...
wow.
MMike
04-10-2007, 08:46 PM
just wait 'til yer country elects her.
just wait 'til yer country elects her.
:spam:
narlus
04-10-2007, 08:54 PM
too long and too boring to read but basically an elected official flapping whichever way he can in the political wind to win reelection in a city that has elected Hilliary Clinton to office twice now...
one of the greatest cities in the world, at that.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.