|
U-Know! Forum » The Great Global Warming Swindle |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Hob 4033 posts |
Edited Mar 11, 2007, 00:39
Mar 11, 2007, 00:33
|
||
|
Your grasp of causality is looking tad thin there. I don't claim to understand them prticularly well, but I reckon complex feedback systems like planetary climates aren't quite that linear... Yesterday, it was windy, today it is sunny. Therefore, the wind makes it sunny 24hrs after it was windy, and it will never rain? Bleh! Anyway, I hope the program made you feel a bit happier about the whole anthropogenic climate change thing. Saves you the bother of forming your own opinion, if nothing else. And don't worry, you're probably only a troll if you think you're a troll. Life's like that, or so I hear.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 09:41
|
||
Your mention of complexity is good as it ties in nicely with the questionable likelyhood of the small contribution man makes on CO2 having big effects of climate. Do you really think man is currently capable of making reliable computer models to predict a system as complex as the climate? I don't.
|
|||
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 11:40
|
||
huzzah for eloquently argued good science - nice one that man!
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 11, 2007, 15:30
Mar 11, 2007, 11:50
|
||
|
Y'know, I don't know if the 4 (?) scientists in the programme are right, but you do seem rather taken by their argument which is fair enough. No, none of us here (I imagine) is as qualified to speak as them, so I don't know why you posted with such a line of defence at hand! I'm sure 'New Scientist' or something might've been a more appropriate platfrom buth then again you might have got a thorough pasting there!. Most of us are purely instinctive about this, and if we're wrong can there ever be any harm in cutting back on all the crapola we breathe in every fecking day of our lives? Can you really blame anyone for being so 'naive'? I'm sure bringing a cigarette end or dog shit on the sole of your shoe isn't that harmful either, but it really isn't very nice, is it?If your trusted programme maker even can't begin to contemplate that simple equation then he's a moron, and even worse, irresponsible. What was the purose of the participants in the show refuting the common belief and why do they beleive it exists? Unless you know that, then they could all be a bunch of lying fuckwits in the pockets of christ knows who. If you're not interested in knowing that, then you might as well say Blair and Bush know what they're doing cause they're 'qualified' politicians. x
|
|||
PlateOfFood 141 posts |
Edited Mar 11, 2007, 21:16
Mar 11, 2007, 17:52
|
||
|
Well, one of the participants is considering legal action, claiming that they have been grossly misrepresented: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html Which is not a huge shock considering the filmmaker's track record: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/ Yet - as much as I'm surprised at myself for saying this - having tracked down the film on bittorrent and watched it, the film does need a better response than just dismissing it because of those involved. DarkMagus is right, in that it did put forward pretty clear arguments and in all the debate about the film I have not heard these arguments adequately addressed. Instead, you get articles like this in the Guardian, http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html Which just states that the programme was wrong without saying why. Which isn't good enough, because the amount of people praising the documentary in online discussions is huge - check the BBC's 'Have Your Say' forums, for example. It's like the IPCC never happened. David Adam at the Guardian wrote an online blog dismissing the programme (which he hadn't seen) that was particulaly poor, as it attacked what he thought the programme would be, not what it was: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_adam/2007/03/envirocon.html [EDIT - link found by DarkMagus below, it hadn't been pulled, just wasn't showing up under seaches for David Adam or Martin Durkin] Basically, the documentary has done a lot of damage and, while its not going to undermine the weight of global scientific opinion, it could generate enough doubt to weaken political resolve, so it needs to be seen by environmentalists, and engaged with. To boil it down, three points in particular need to be addressed. Maybe some here will be able to point to good places that address these? They are: - The 800 year lag in the ice core record between temperatures increasing and CO2 levels increasing, which implies that temperature rise is the cause of CO2 rise, not vice versa (as claimed in 'Inconvienient Truth', for example). When DarkMagus kept asking if anyone could explain this I googled around and found one explanation (which annoyingly I've since lost), but if I'm honest it was not a convincing argument. I'm sure there are better responses out there somewhere - I'm just waiting to see them. - The argument that the current warming is not concentrated in the troposphere, as would be expected from global warming theory, but is closer to the surface, as would be expected from the sunspots theory (below). I haven't researched this subject yet so there may be a ready explanation easily found. - The Sunspot theory of climate change (wherein water vapour form water droplets (and hence clouds) around particles from cosmic rays. Explosions on the sun's surface deflect these cosmic waves away so less clouds are formed, hence more sunlight reaches the surface.) The programme showed the correlations between global temperature and sunspot activity going back 400 years or so, and it must be said that they correlation was extremely striking. Now, there may well have been some cherry picking of data going on here, if so this should be easily shown. -- Any pointers on those would be much appreciated! Ta!
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 18:31
|
||
|
Well, the tone has just been raised considerably. I was despairing at the angry denial style of many posts, though it was to be expected. The Guardian article was indeed a poor effort and from the science editor no less (perhaps like the blog, the writer hadn't seen the film and was banking on it being obvious hogwash). I expected something from Monbiot, who I suspect would have done better. It was an article that seemed designed to minimise the audience. A pre-emptive strike rather than any kind of rational arguement. In my opinion this plays into the film makers hands. Why so defensive? Whatever the rights or wrongs of the science, I suspect the films strong attack on environmentalists and journalists wasn't the best tactic, even though some no doubt deserve it. For anyone who wants to see what the fuss is about it's repeated on More4 tomorrow at 10pm.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 18:41
|
||
|
'some environmentalists deserve it' What is you sayin' bruv??
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 19:01
|
||
'Fans' ????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! How can you be a 'fan' of Global Warming????
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 19:22
|
||
|
Get your facts right, I said glabal warming, haven't you heard of that? ;-) Anyway, some people think its a good thing. It certainly seems to have had a positive effect on my gas bills. Runs for cover......
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 19:35
|
||
|
David Adam article here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_adam/2007/03/envirocon.html Not impressive journalism. In case it vanishes again it is cached by google http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:iblcLvQiIb0J:commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_adam/2007/03/envirocon.html+david+adam+great+global+warming+swindle&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera Programme available via Bittorrent here: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635446/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_2007_(XviD
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
