What's your take on this Fat_Lad?
-
You can't honsetly believe anything that is produced by channel 4 can you?
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
Or for that matter the Independent - the daily mail of the british left.
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece[^] Which propaganda do you prefer?
From the article: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" Does that not mean that global warming can be fixed by sticking more pollution into the air? Isn't China doing this on a fairly large scale at the moment?
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece[^] Which propaganda do you prefer?
Like I wrote in my response to Rhys, it was bound to be, and is, sensationalised. But what do you expect from the media but exageration to sell a story. However, there is, as I have been pointing out for a long time, no scientific concensus concerning, and no proof of, the AGW theory. That is the first point of the documentary. The second point is the the hijacking of science by politics and eco-fundamentalists. Both points were well made and well argued.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Like I wrote in my response to Rhys, it was bound to be, and is, sensationalised. But what do you expect from the media but exageration to sell a story. However, there is, as I have been pointing out for a long time, no scientific concensus concerning, and no proof of, the AGW theory. That is the first point of the documentary. The second point is the the hijacking of science by politics and eco-fundamentalists. Both points were well made and well argued.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes: "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 'Global Warming Swindle' is deeply embarrassing, 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." ( http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response) Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon. Greenpeace provides a fascinating online 'map' detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click 'Launch' then click 'skip intro') In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun. According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation: "For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change." (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94) Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels' research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels' magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143) Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lo
-
In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes: "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 'Global Warming Swindle' is deeply embarrassing, 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." ( http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response) Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon. Greenpeace provides a fascinating online 'map' detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click 'Launch' then click 'skip intro') In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun. According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation: "For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change." (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94) Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels' research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels' magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143) Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lo
-
In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes: "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 'Global Warming Swindle' is deeply embarrassing, 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." ( http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response) Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon. Greenpeace provides a fascinating online 'map' detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click 'Launch' then click 'skip intro') In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun. According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation: "For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change." (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94) Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels' research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels' magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143) Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lo
Carl Wunsh. This is what the production caompany wrote to him in the invitation letter: 'The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.' Wunsch agreed. He knew what sort of documentary it was going to be, and having doubts about some of the science behind the hystaria was willing to take part.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
So what. Doesnt make them wrong. Dont forget, it was a right wing think thank that got the global warming ball rolling in the first place.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying
No where in the documentary did C4 imply that.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.
What climate catastrophy? Where was the climate catastrophy in the medieval warm period, a period of cultural expansion and developement? Dont worry, you will grow up one day, and you will realise that as necessary as socialisn is to the heart of the young, it is conservatism that has the answers.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
One thing I have yet to see discredited is the part about the Vostok ice cores and the fact that the CO2 rise occurred 800 years AFTER the temperature rise. Any links on this? Was it total bullshit?
-
From the article: "The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming" Does that not mean that global warming can be fixed by sticking more pollution into the air? Isn't China doing this on a fairly large scale at the moment?
Dan Bennett wrote:
Does that not mean that global warming can be fixed by sticking more pollution into the air? Isn't China doing this on a fairly large scale at the moment?
Sulphate pollutants (the causes of acid rain) are believed to have the effect of reducing the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is one of the greenhouse gases. However, it doesn't affect C02, as far as I can discover.
John Carson
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Does that not mean that global warming can be fixed by sticking more pollution into the air? Isn't China doing this on a fairly large scale at the moment?
Sulphate pollutants (the causes of acid rain) are believed to have the effect of reducing the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is one of the greenhouse gases. However, it doesn't affect C02, as far as I can discover.
John Carson
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Does that not mean that global warming can be fixed by sticking more pollution into the air? Isn't China doing this on a fairly large scale at the moment?
Sulphate pollutants (the causes of acid rain) are believed to have the effect of reducing the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is one of the greenhouse gases. However, it doesn't affect C02, as far as I can discover.
John Carson
Yes but the argument the Independent article is making is that the reason the temperature did not go up from 1940 - 1970 (even though CO2 levels went up) was because of certain types of pollution. The implication being that the pollution was far more effective at reducing temperature than CO2 was at raising it. If that type of pollution doesn't have this cooling effect then why did temperatures drop while CO2 production was increasing?
-
Yes but the argument the Independent article is making is that the reason the temperature did not go up from 1940 - 1970 (even though CO2 levels went up) was because of certain types of pollution. The implication being that the pollution was far more effective at reducing temperature than CO2 was at raising it. If that type of pollution doesn't have this cooling effect then why did temperatures drop while CO2 production was increasing?
Dan Bennett wrote:
Yes but the argument the Independent article is making is that the reason the temperature did not go up from 1940 - 1970 (even though CO2 levels went up) was because of certain types of pollution. The implication being that the pollution was far more effective at reducing temperature than CO2 was at raising it. If that type of pollution doesn't have this cooling effect then why did temperatures drop while CO2 production was increasing?
I am not disputing that it had that cooling effect and that it was dominant for a 30 year period. However, we are not dealing with simple linear relationships that can be extrapolated indefinitely. You can't get methane below zero, for example, (and the pollution only affects some sources of methane anyway) and the ecological consequences would be catastrophic long before you got there.
John Carson