Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Vybik Jon
Vybik Jon
7487 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 10:43
Very good.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Mar 12, 2007, 16:06
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 14:52
DarkMagus wrote:

Quote:TBH, I don't know wy they go all out to deny it anyway, I'd really like to know that one.

That's an odd statement to make. Most of the contributors are scientists putting forward their interpretation of the data. That's their job!


shanshee-allures wrote:

It's actually on YouTube now, Daminxa.
Unfortunately, some of the contributors are from M.I.T and NASA, so say no more there.
There's this notion proposed that 'environmentalists' are some all powerful lobby that have the capacity to silence scientific opinion, as the green market is as big as coca cola or something (paraphrasing there).
In essence, the show initially juxtaposes its argument against images of the likes of Gerry Haliwell and student demos, and we know our young folk can be a bit 'daft' at times dressed up like giant mangoes etc so cheap victory shot there.
As far as the science goes, they do inform us rather compellingly of how our climate has changed naturally without the aid of cars etc, and at one point temperatures went down despite an increase in post wWWII industrial activity.
Now, it could be that as they're basing their knowledge of what's happened over millenia that they haven't gave man made CO2 a 'chance' yet. I think it's just a bit irresponsible to be so assertive as to what's happening regards man made c02 in the past 100 years when they have to gather the evidence otherwise over 'ages'.
TBH, I don't know wy they go all out to deny it anyway, I'd really like to know that one.


Reply to the rest of it, if you can. It'd be helpful, I've seen the programme. Have you?
edit:
Because you've actually quoted nothing from it! Perhaps you made your mind up on the basis of the title? Now, I don't think anyone's lying here, but they've based their science on 100 years or so of comparitive activity to the trillions it takes to monitor co2 otherwise. We all know how ethical they are over at MIT ans NASA, I mean they'd hardly have an agenda, would they? Some science is for the greater good but see Hiroshima, thalidomide etc to see how devatating it can be otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, you've posted the most controversial and therefor interesting thread here IMO!
x
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 17:28
I'm not quite sure if that's directed at me. If it is you seem to be making a mistake. I've repeatedly said I don't know what the real reason for global warming is. I certainly haven't made my mind up, only stirred up debate. I'm sceptical (either way!), but that is only to be expected if you are looking at the world from a scientific viewpoint. If you're not in the least sceptical of the arguements on either side you're lost to dogma. I'd just like to hear someone rebut the arguements in the film (which I have seen). No one seems to want to step forward. If and when they do don't expect me to leap to it's defence either. Don't shoot the messenger(s)! What has shocked me most is the poor standard of the responses to the film in the media, apparently often by people who haven't seen it.

I'm not going to regurgitate the arguements in the film. It is pointless me paraphrasing any more than the little I have.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Mar 12, 2007, 18:07
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 17:46
DarkMagus wrote:

I'm not going to regurgitate the arguements in the film. It is pointless me paraphrasing any more than the little I have.


Yeah, but you're so keen for others to 'prove' that they've seen it! I have, and as I said, I think it's constructed to evoke some antipathy from the outset, by showing us student demos, Gerry Haliwell etc. If it's started off with rants from 'Monboit '(the daddy of the opposition it seems) it might not have come across as less (conveniently) selective in its approach.
If you expect anyone here to be able to argue on the level of those involved, you're wasting your time! You ought to know that! I'm sceptical, but even more sceptical of the likes of Nigel Lawason, and as I said hearing this stuff from scientists of institutions (NASA, MIT etc) from which a reduction in co2 might mean job losses for them (as they charged the other way round) is hardly viable or unbiased, and you do seek unbias here!
Now I know alot of people make tons of mula out of this stuff (yes, dear Monboit himself), but the thing is to reduce carbon use at a practice level actually costs us less, means less profit for others, and as I said, their evidence is based on rundementary findings, so if they're wrong, they're teribly irresponsible for it. If the other side's wrong, who loses? We've seen enoug of what irresponsible science can do.
No personal attack BTW!
EDIT: My humble attempt at rebuttal is that they've garnered the evidence of man made co2 over 100+ years, and compared it to what happens naturally over a million+
Sorry DM, there are no top notch scientists here, but some well informed folk none the less.
x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Mar 12, 2007, 20:17
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 19:12
DarkMagus wrote:
No one seems to want to step forward. If and when they do don't expect me to leap to it's defence either. Don't shoot the messenger(s)! What has shocked me most is the poor standard of the responses to the film in the media, apparently often by people who haven't seen it.

I haven't seen it. Which is why I've stayed away from this thread. But when one of the scientists featured in the programme has written an open letter in which he insists he was selectively edited so that he appeared to say the opposite of what he meant (Source) the chances are I shan't bother.

Also, having read numerous pieces on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, I'm convinced that the scientists and writers on the subject are merely stating and reporting what they believe to be true. The use of the word "swindle" is a clear statement that there's a lot of deliberate falsehood going on.

Does the programme provide any real evidence that the IPCC (or anyone else) is actively misleading the public? If not, then I suggest the word "swindle" has been put in the title for reasons of sensationalism. In tandem with the fact that at least one of the participants insists they have been misrepresented through selective editing of their contribution; it would be difficult to know what parts of the programme present fact, and what parts are edited to mislead.

Were you involved in the production of the show DarkMagus? If not, I would suggest that you too have no idea which parts of the programme can be trusted. I'm not saying that nothing in the show is true. I'm just saying that at least some of it is an attempt to deliberately mislead (well, I'm not, Professor Carl Wunsch is) which casts a very dark shadow over the entire affair.

If you suggest the same is true for any programme, paper or book that states evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change, then first you'll have to demonstrate deliberate misrepresentation (as has been done in the case of this programme).

As for addressing the actual 'science' presented, I obviously can't as I haven't seen it and wouldn't know which bits were bare-faced lies even if I did. However a Mr. Keith Farnish appears to have had a stab (Source).

That page opens with a parody, but if you scroll down to his comment made at 10:45pm you'll find the relevant points.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 19:28
grufty ji wrote:

Does the programme provide any real evidence that the IPCC (or anyone else) is actively misleading the public? If not, then I suggest the word "swindle" has been put in the title for reasons of sensationalism. In tandem with the fact that at least one of the participants insists they have been misrepresented through selective editing of their contribution; it would be difficult to know what parts of the programme present fact, and what parts are edited to mislead.


The programme does come over as more than a bit sensationalist. As I said, the opening credits suggest that anyone who beleives 'all this stuff' is either a student dressed as a tomato or a dodgy 90's comedian (Rob Newman), so it's not that discursive. I wish it had been, but none of the big names who argue the other way were invited. A platform to say what you like basically, and as you've illustrated, one for others to have you say what they like.
x
PlateOfFood
PlateOfFood
141 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 12, 2007, 21:41
Right, that RealClimate website Grufty Jim mentioned is chock full of full of goodies, including pretty clear answers to the questions I had after seeing that documentary.

In brief - with regards to the graph correlating sunspot activity with temperature, and the heating of the lower atmosphere rather than the troposphere, these do seem to be complete bollocks:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

With regard to the 800 year lag, this is a lot more complicated but here's the gist of it

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/


--

All of which raises the question, what the fuck were Channel 4 playing at? Given the seriousness of the situation, its an fucking outrage that they could attempt to undermine public opinion with innacurate graphs, misled commentators and known false claims. I've wasted days trying to get my head around this damn thing.

Wankers. Never thought I'd hear myself say this but I'm off to Ofcom to make a complaint.

It's like I'm Mary Whitehouse or something!
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

TGGWS: Monbiot responds
Mar 13, 2007, 03:19
George Monbiot responds to the Channel 4 documentary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
laresident
laresident
870 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 05:28
I just watched it on youtube. I was struck by how it proposed that scientific arguments can turn onto a level of religious intensity. I was also reminded how when I was a waster student of Physics in one of London's finest, I attended a lecture, part of my Atmospheric Physics course, where we were told quite cynically, how to get funding for research for then newsworthy ozone layer depletion.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 09:07
Instinctively, I knew this programme was a pile of crap, but I didn't know exactly why! With the help of those here who know about such matters, I 'sort of' do now.
The bit I did pick up on was the the presentation of the thing, the vacuous rhetoric, flashy imagery, and yes, the title. That in itself would explain why it was such an attention grabber for the millions who were so taken by it. Apparently now, fuzzy scientific reasoning can be added in there.
This is dangerous, irresponsible programming indeed. It's very well to be a lone voice in the wilderness and make a prat of yourself, but to broadcast this to millions on such a premise of falsehoods is disgusting. I'm sure Dubya will have it up there as one of the top five films of all times.
x
Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index