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 ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
dee
dee
1920 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 10:05
I havent even seen it ad i know its crap. I shouted at my mate last night cos he believed the prog and reckons it ok to take load of flights now cos the have no effect.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 10:20
Well, it is worth watching in that if ever propaganda should be dispelled, this is a case example. It actually needs torn to shreds, this pile of shite. I've been looking over the counter arguments posted here via various heavyweight sites, and found out that the bit in the programme about developing countries being 'hindered 'by the environmental movement to be a load of balls. They aren't bound by the Kyoto agreement it seems! The show just went all out to deem anyone involved in or concerned about environmental matters as a 'grebo', basically. Well even if, better that than a lying, cynical bastard eh?
x
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

No, the *other* Patrick Moore
Mar 13, 2007, 17:29
Two different Patrick Moores: there's the astronomoer UKIP guy; and then there's the one on this programme, a founder of Greenpeace nearly 40 years ago but these days out of environmentalism and instead being paid by a vast assortment of unsustainable industries (mining, logging, plastics, etc) as well as being pro-nuclear.
Five
Five
960 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 17:56
Hey folks,

I don't know where you all live,
many in UK...

I myself live in Seattle, WA, Earth
and prior to this lived for 25 years in
the state of Vermont, also on Earth

and I have to say that, whatever the reason,
Vermont has become a warmer place
Tho by no means ideally hospitable
over the course of my life...
As measured in decreased snowfall and
winters of somewhat lesser duration and intensity

Seattle meanwhile got snow four times this year,
which is unheard of, plus
massive wind storms, hail,
thunder and lightning, all very unusual for here,
and this trend too has been increasing over the 5 years I've been here

I can't say if it's "Global Warming"
or what, since Seattle actually seems to be getting
COLDER
but something is clearly up


word
-5-
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Mar 13, 2007, 18:32
Letter from Professor Carl Wunsch
Mar 13, 2007, 18:31
DarkMagus wrote:
I'm afraid you should have continued watching. It wasn't ranting at all - it was highly science based, well argued and convincing. The majority of contributors were professors (all clearly well qualified tin the appropriate areas), not the usual cranks.

For the record, here's what one of those professors has to say about the programme. Earlier, DarkMagus, you told us to "watch [the programme] and learn". I didn't even need to watch it to learn something... those who seek to disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming seem to need to distort the truth.

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film ‘The Global Warming Swindle’. … I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a ‘critical approach’ to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, ‘critical’ does not mean a hatchet job - it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words ‘polemic’, or ‘swindle’ appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs - thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped - an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 13, 2007, 18:55
DM, forgive the tardy reply, I've been offline.

The science of the programme has been roundly trounced here in my absence, it seems. Do please say if there's any of it you feel has not been dealt with.

I'll just go through the things that don't seem to have been responded to.

The previous thread you refer to as a 'feeding frenzy' was pretty clearly argued. Only one participant started using outright insults calling people 'fools'.

You made the point about theories being disproven then too. And I replied that yes, that happens, other theories remain constant. Just because the theory of the sun revolving round the earth was disproved doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing in Newton's theories about gravity any time soon.
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/32192/threaded/405923

Your central theme then, repeated in paraphrase here - that as there can be no control experiment therefore all theories on climate are akin to belief in the tooth fairy - is palpable nonsense.

You claim to have a scientific background yet can't grasp the concept- and ask not to have it explained to you - that because something isn't definite doesn't mean it can't be dealt with in terms of likelihood and probability, based on the weight of evidence. Which is a fairly basic scientific concept.

You said I 'totally failed' to respond to any of the science in the programme. That is simply untrue.

I had posted a response that rebutted the stuff about CO2 being natural; about it being only a small part of the atmosphere; about the difference between carbon moving in the carbon cycle and burning fossils adding more; about there being no historic precedent for CO2 affecting global temperature; and about global cooling theory.

Most of the rest of it was about the credibility of the IPCC and some of the programme's participants and the logic used, which is surely relevant.

That does not count as 'selective cheap shots'. Dismissing it as such shows a reluctance to properly debate the issues.

Weather forecasters do indeed get lambasted for getting the forecast wrong. It is one thing to say 'a warmer climate leads to warmer wetter winters and hotter drier summers for the UK'; it's another thing to say exactly which year will get the hottest summers or what day the floods will come on.

The newest climate modelling computer at the Met Office is doing a good job of the climate prediction though. We know this because they do 'backcasting'; taking a random day from the past and feeding their data in to see if what they would predict is what occurred. It's still not exact, but it's certainly good at it.

You said 'the majority of contributors were professors (all clearly well qualified tin the appropriate areas)', which is not the case. See my previous comments about the credentials of Philip Stott.

You say that you are against the 'bad science and fundamentalist positioning which characterises this debate', yet will gladly talk of the 'strong evidence' of climate change being sunspots, the 'authoritative sources' who are presenting false data as fact.

If someone really claims to be able to contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on an issue, you should check first to see if their evidence is actually 'strong' and if they are 'authoritative'. When something sounds unlikely, that's often because it is.

Yes there were professors involved in the programme. But when you can have professors like Stott and even more qualified ones like David Bellamy robustly defending disproven data on climate change, professorhood is clearly no guarantee of sound knowledge.

This is why it's important to go with peer-reviewed material, so that anyone with a counterpoint can present their data.

The fact that you are so sceptical of the pro-anthropogenic arguments yet so ready to praise the ill-founded anti-stuff doesn't show neutrality.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

some more background
Mar 13, 2007, 22:31
George Marshall at Climate Denial links to some of the same places Monbiot mentions but more besides, very solid science.

For the non-science stuff, he writes himself about the backgrounds of the experts featured and the programme makers.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/
uselesseater
1 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 16, 2007, 16:50
Right, a lot of you will think: loony - idiot - fool.

I agree with Merrick and Grufty and think it was important to have this discussion. I learned a great deal. Thank you..

But, has anyone considered the 'chemtrail' theory? TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!
No, but really?

Could anyone benefit by manipulating the weather, and the direction of society? Of course. Government's a big business - and technology exists that permits alterations....

No, our governments love us - they wouldn't do that would they?

Yes, I'm aware some words instantly trigger "WACKO" warnings, but where I am I HAVE seen trails that stay in the sky longer than usual.

No, I'm not an expert but I'm not interested in playing with conspiracy ideas either. Just consider the possibility and look up at the skies.

Have a look at the pictures taken in Akron from this month.

http://www.thechiefsource.com/2007/03/sky-over-akron.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephendmckay/

And a 'doctor' writes,

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=21473

No, there's no way of proving anything, but just permit yourself to consider that alterations could be occurring.

There are a few foolish types, disinfo types, who talk about it (I*ke and those who sully every topic they grab hold of), with the consequence that just mentioning it makes you a crackpot. Quite convenient.

If there are some 'chemicals' being added to the skies- might this alter the environment? Yes, I'm all for following peer reviewed journals, but we might do well to contemplate other sinister means.

And no I'm not completely convinced that something nefarious is occurring, but with the leaders we have: I wouldn't be surprised!

I'll be honest - I like the author Alan Watt who has written books on how this world is controlled by a very small group, and who gives free podcasts where he talks about global agenda's, culture creation, the trend towards the chip, etc.

Seems paranoid central, right?

Well, maybe. But listening to him has opened my mind to new possibilities, and he seems authentic...

He mentions chemtrails in his latest podcast. It's an interesting take, if nothing else.... and he ended his last programme with Leonard Cohen, which makes me recommened you check out the wonderful and fact-full, but frightening world of:

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan
7093 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 20, 2007, 17:38
Lord Monkton challenges Al Gore. Bizarre.
Bonzo the Cat
Bonzo the Cat
138 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 23, 2007, 10:16
Utterly correct Daminxa.

No matter whether the current temperature rise has anything to do with human activity or not. We got to think the other way around: it is a fact that we ARE polluting, or to put it objectively, producing massive amounts of substances that were not produced on such a scale before. So, INEVITABLY, it HAS to have an effect! Whether we know what this effect is or not, is beside the point, for 2 reasons:

1)
Just as, frequently (unfortunately not always, see Softenon), products are not allowed on the market before their long-term effects are known, we simply cannot produce all this debris without wondering about POSSIBLE consequences.
Some would argue that humanity will come up with a solution anyhow, but I think this is dumb. If you don't know the consequences of actions, you should stop doing them instead of leaving possible consequences to generations to come.
I do admit that we have to watch out that we don't end up in a stagnating culture of fear, but one can be forward-driven WITHOUT eloping any responsibility for one's actions.

2)
Related to (1), people on an individual scale have to re-start realizing that, even though they themselves have no immediate hassles due to their own debris and behaviour (in earlier days this was clearer; not that people acted accordingly), there IS individual responsibility. There IS something like overproduction, overconsumption, waste, debris, etc.

And now the most controversial bit: If it takes the (possibly false) global warming issue to shove the above message down people's throats, then so be it. Now of course all those democratic liberal free market let-the-world-balance-itself-out "realpolitikers" will tell me I'm an undemocratic ass. Well, I believe in a bit of enlightened despotism: think about how you can do good for the people in the long run, and tell them whatever bullshit you need to change their behaviour.

It's not that I don't think much of humanity or individuals; I just believe most people do not have or want to spend the time it takes to find out the truth or listen to the truth being explained.

Arf
Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index