Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    (snip)"Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

    ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

    The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

    Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

    Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

    A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

    Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.

    "I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists – people with qualifications – are the bad guys.

    "It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

    "It’s very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

    "Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

    One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

    He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

    Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

    When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.

    Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

    It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

    This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

    The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

    He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

    It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

    The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

    The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

    Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.

    "They are saying the world’s poorest people should have the world’s most expensive form of form of energy – really saying they can’t have electricity."

    Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.

    ‘The Chilling Stars’ was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.

    Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.

    "However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming.

    "I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.

    "For me this is a cracking science story – I don’t come from any political position and I’m certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be.

    "I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story.

    "So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the government.

    "The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can’t compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.

    "We have the same situation in Britain The government’s chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change."

    The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to ‘prove’ burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power."(snip)

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Excellent ! and long overdue. Let's not forget that many scientists currently pushing the "Global Warming caused by human activity " C.W. (Ooops, excuse me) the current "CLIMATE CHANGE caused by the United States" are the same people who 30 odd years ago were predicting another ICE AGE ! That's right. They were predicting a serious DECLINE in global temperatures. Same singers- different song.

  3. #3
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    ^Well, we are due for another ice age pretty soon. I don't think there's any question about that. I keep wondering if anthropogenic global warming will simply cancel out the coming ice age.
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #4
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    A very interesting program, I must say.

    Plenty of pedigrees on the program as well, and their arguments (and evidence) are quite compelling, if much less sensationalistic vis a vis the Chicken Little global warming crowd.

    If you have an hour and fifteen on your hands, it's worth watching. If you thought An Inconvenient Truth was important, it should be required viewing.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies"
    Next month the opposite will be said by the world's best and brightest scientists

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    ^^^ well, the description 'best and brightest' is a matter of interpretation. The description 'on the payroll of various gov't grants / entities' is NOT a matter of interpretation, but one of fact.

    Call me a skeptic, but I always give some consideration to who has actually 'paid for' the research behind any scientific 'proclamation'. I also pay particular attention to scientific 'proclamations' which, by a strange coincidence, tend to clearly support positions advocated by the sponsor.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, the description 'best and brightest' is a matter of interpretation. The description 'on the payroll of various gov't grants / entities' is NOT a matter of interpretation, but one of fact..
    So who funds the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? I ask because that is who did the draft for what is planned to be reported next month.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ Call me a skeptic, but I always give some consideration to who has actually 'paid for' the research behind any scientific 'proclamation'. I also pay particular attention to scientific 'proclamations' which, by a strange coincidence, tend to clearly support positions advocated by the sponsor.
    Call me a skeptic too. We are just skeptical of different things. Here are some perfect examples of who is doing the paying and pressuring.

    ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science

    Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's , claimed in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public."

    Several scientists working at the have made similar complaints'

    Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at down playing the threat of global warming.'

    Two in five of the 279 climate scientists complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.



    Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report

    Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.




    AEI has received more than $16 million from ExxonMobil.


    Another interesting thing to note-

    'The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the '
    Last edited by T-10; 03-11-2007 at 06:31 PM. Reason: trying to shorten my really long reply

  8. #8
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    I am curious:

    If anthropogenic global climate change is not happening, and scientists are tweaking their data to say that it is, what is their motive? Who stands to gain from the claim that we should all be more careful about our energy consumption?
    Alternative energy companies, maybe?

    OTOH, if anthropogenic global change IS happening, and scientists are tweaking their data to say that it is not, I know EXACTLY what the motive is: Multi-billion dollar industries will be able to continue raking in insanely huge profits. They will continue to avoid regulations that will hurt their bottom lines.

    Can someone convince me that the scientists who would lie about anthropogenic climate change, claiming that it is a serious problem when it is really not, are somehow in somebody's pocket? Because I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part....
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #9
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    I read Jared Diamond's book Collapse not too long ago and it scared the shit out of me. Everyone needs to read it. I don't agree with all of his political views, but you can't dispute his research (which is extensive and spans many different scientific fields).

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    If anthropogenic global climate change is not happening, and scientists are tweaking their data to say that it is, what is their motive?
    Again, a distinction needs to be clearly made that most scientists are not disputing that global climate change is occurring. The area of dispute lies in the conclusion that the global climate change is almost entirely due to increased human consumption of fossil fuels, versus increased solar / cosmic activity, natural cycles or other potential causes. If it were proven that global climate change was in fact due to increased human consumption of fossil fuels, then governments would be in a position to exercise new measures of control over how much fossil fuel should be 'rationed' to citizens, new measures of control over how much fossil fuels should be allocated to which industries for which purposes etc.

    Who stands to gain from the claim that we should all be more careful about our energy consumption? Alternative energy companies, maybe?
    Ironically, the two biggest long term beneficiaries of governmental fossil fuel regulations would probably be the Nuclear Power industry which does not consume fossil fuel or emit CO2, and smokestack heavy industries in China, India, and other 'developing' countries which would be exempted from most fossil fuel regulations.

    Multi-billion dollar industries will be able to continue raking in insanely huge profits. They will continue to avoid regulations that will hurt their bottom lines.
    They still would, but from facilities located in China or India or Vietnam rather than facilities located in the US or UK or Europe.

    Can someone convince me that the scientists who would lie about anthropogenic climate change, claiming that it is a serious problem when it is really not, are somehow in somebody's pocket? Because I'm just not seeing it
    I again defer to Ann Coulter, who has an uncanny knack for sharpening points ...

    "in 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a computer model purportedly proving "a discernable human influence on global climate'. So according to the UN, there was not enough evidence to discern whether Saddam Hussein was a threat, but the evidence is in on global warming. The key to the UN's global warming study was man's use of aerosol spray. You have to know that the French were involved in a study concluding that Arrid Extra Dry is destroying the earth. In the big picture, which would be a bigger threat to the global ecosystem, encroaching oceans flooding the world's coastal cities, or the rest of the world adopting French deodorant habits ?

    According to global warming hysterics, global warming would begin at the poles and melt the ice caps, and then oceans would rise. On the basis of such fatuous theories, in August 1998 the host of NPR's 'Science Friday', Ira Flatow, told his listeners to look out of their windows and imagine the ocean in their own backyards. Explaining that receding glaciers in Antartica would dramatically lift sea levels, he warned that our grandchildren would be 'hanging fishing poles out of New York skyscrapers' thus qualifying as the teller of the world's all time greatest 'fish story'. On the plus side, maybe I could get a decent price for my place in Manhattan if I could ist it as 'steps from the beach'.

    Since then, evidence disproving 'global warming' has been pouring in. In January 2002, the journal 'Science' published the findings of scientists who had been measuring the vast West Antartic Ice Sheet. Far from melting, it turned out the Ice Sheet was growing thicker. The researchers were Ian R. Joughlin, an engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Pasadena, and Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth science at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Taking the contrary view were distinguished research scientists Alicia Silverstone and Woody Harrelson.

    About the same time, the journal 'Nature' published the findings of scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues at the University of Illinois. Rather than using the UN's 'computer models', the researchers took actual temperature readings. It turned out temperatures in the Antartic have been getting slightly colder - not warmer - for the last thirty years. The chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, Michael Oppenheimer, responded to the new findings by urging caution and warning that 'there is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antartica'. That's interesting. Global warming devotees don't shy away from making broad statements about the temperature of the entire planet earth. We also didn't have to wait for more data when lunatics curtailed the use of nuclear energy in this country. The movie 'The China Syndrome' was hard scientific evidence. " from 'Godless' chapter 7


    The 'tin foil hat' crowd would point out that future global warming based 'multinational carbon emissions regulations' presents a unique opportunity for the UN to achieve a level of worldwide jurisdiction that has eluded that body for the past 50 years. To wit ...

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-11-2007 at 09:20 PM.

  11. #11
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    I was considering the subject of funding of research and began to look into who funded this so called documentary. While I was looking for my answer I found this article.


    Here is a tid bit from the above link.

    " The documentary had plenty of big names, and much name-dropping of institutions and awards. The content, however, was riddled with old half-truths and some straw man arguments thrown in for good measure."

    Plus I noticed something else interesting while reading about the tv show mentioned in the OP is that some of the people they claim as climate experts are not who they pretend. For example, I read that Philip Stott is not a professor at the “Department of Biogeography ” at the “University of London” because apparently no such department exists. Tim Bell who is supposed to be currently affiliated with the “Department of Climatology” at the University of Winnipeg, again it was said this department does not exist.

    Note though that I have not yet researched these people in detail, at this point I am just explaining some of the things I have been reading regarding the Ch. 4 tv show mentioned in the OP.

    I also understand that the film maker made a similar program in 1997 and an apology had to be issued for it's dishonest approach. Plus after that 1997 film an editor of the Guardian immediately accused the program makers of being in league with the far right, describing them, bafflingly, as "overtly racist. Plus there were claims that the film maker, Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.

    Again, I am not claiming to know this stuff to be true and without question, I am just pointing out what I have been reading tonight about Durkin and his films.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-11-2007 at 09:50 PM.

  12. #12
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Well, I automatically discount anything that Ann Coulter has to say. The woman is a fucking psycho--and a mean-spirited bitch to boot.

    But on the subject of global warming...people on both "sides" of the issue are probably oversimplifying the science.

    To be perfectly honest, I don't have the patience to read through all the scientific papers--and I'm an aspiring biologist. I'm guessing that most people feel the same, so they just buy into whatever the pundits and journalists and politicians on "their" side are saying.

    Again, I remind you all that there IS an ice age on the way!!! If I recall correctly from General Geology, the earth goes through this cycle: 90,000 years of Ice Age followed by a brief 10,000-year period of warming. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. So how worried should we be, really, about "Global Warming" anyway? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    ^^^ well, T10, excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the scientific infallibility of the university students' blog you linked to. The following appears to have a bit more overall credibility ...

    (snip)"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

    But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

    No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

    Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

    This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

    So we have a smaller fraction.

    But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

    We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

    Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

    Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

    Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

    Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

    But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

    The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

    Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

    Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

    Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

    Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

    Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

    Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

    In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request."(snip)

    Well, I automatically discount anything that Ann Coulter has to say. The woman is a fucking psycho--and a mean-spirited bitch to boot.
    Agreed on Ann Coulter's irritating persona. But she did make the same points as the above article in about 1/10th the words.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-11-2007 at 09:48 PM.

  14. #14
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolina View Post
    Well, I automatically discount anything that Ann Coulter has to say
    That my dear, is a sign of true intelligence

    By the way for reference sake here is a link to where I found some of the stuff I made mention of earlier.


    I read bunches of stuff tonight though so sorry if I don't have links for everything I'm just adding to this topic things I have been finding here and there while looking for the funding source of this recent Ch. 4 tv show about which started this thread.

    More stuff on the film maker-

    'Getting your science from charlatans'

    'This man takes liberties with facts. He has no scientific background'

    'To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. "It's not a joke to walk away from four or five months' work," she told me, "but my research was being ignored.'


    "Mr Durkin has often been accused of taking liberties with the facts. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the world’s poor. No one would suggest that green claims should not be subjected to critical examination, but the people he interviewed were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made.

    The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology. After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for the right-wing libertarian magazine masquerading as “Living Marxism”, which has just been successfully sued by ITN. All the arguments Against Nature made had been rehearsed in LM.'


    Also from the same link directly above about the current Durkin film -

    scientists at RealClimate have pointed out, another scientist was misled about the intent of the film:

    "We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed."

    and from the same link-

    'Maybe this kind of trickery, dishonesty, and distortion of scientific research is what’s necessary in order to put one of these skeptical productions together.'

    I am just amazed at how bad the filmmaker's rep is! Here is yet even more about him and his work-

    'In October 1998, a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true.

    After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims.'
    Last edited by T-10; 03-11-2007 at 11:35 PM. Reason: adding on

  15. #15
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, T10, excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the scientific infallibility of the university students' blog you linked to.


    Please quote where I claim that the blog has scientific infallibility. I have repeated more than once that I am just reporting what I am finding while researching this film you brought up for discussion.

    In responce to your canadafreepress link I offer this information I found about the so called experts it lists-

    Tim Patterson is a geologist not a climate scientist. One might wonder what right a geologist has to criticize the work of climate scientists, especially considering that the article fails to mention what his research is, or even references any hard data of any sort.

    Boris Winterhalter is another geologist posing as an expert in climate studies.

    Bob Carter is not even a full professor at his tiny college.

    Timothy Ball works for EnviroTruth.org, a subset of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a front of anti-greenhouse propoganda paid for by Exxon and other "interest groups".

    Wibjorn Karlen seems to contradict his own research.

    Dick Morgan apparently just lied, seeing as he has no Exeter Page or any easy to find association to the WMO. He does however, have a link on EnviroTruth as a "myth expert" - shocking, that.

    It seems that every time I see some article like this, the obvious biases of the authors and influence from corporate oil are just two or three clicks away. And ironically, this type of obvious disinformation feeds the whole "liberal media conspiracy". It's incredible how easy the real conspiracy is to find: What we have here is a group of well-paid greenhouse deniers, no doubt influenced by the rather large canadian fossil fuel industry.

    Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies.

    You could have found him and Baliunas at a conference in Ottawa in November 2002, just days before parliament ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That conference, urging the government not to proceed with ratification, was paid for by Imperial Oil (Exxon Mobil's Canadian subsidiary) and Talisman Energy and put together by public relations firm APCO Worldwide.
    APCO's assignment for Imperial Oil was to bring together a roster of climate change skeptics to reveal Kyoto's "science and

    An APCO specialty is supporting rogue scientists who are financed by industry and purport to challenge established scientific thinking. APCO organized The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was originally funded by the Philip Morris Company, to attack epidemiological studies which implicated environmental tobacco smoke in slightly increased rates of lung cancer in non-smokers.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-12-2007 at 12:08 AM.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Here is more about the Durkin so called experts-
    Fred Singer. Despite the caption on the programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters.

    Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more… ). In 1990 he founded “The Science and Environment Policy Project”, which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO.

    Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests. The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as “a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation”.

    Philip Stott was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.”

    Patrick Moore is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human” and “treat humans as scum”. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there.

    Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.

    Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run “a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol”; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.



    and best yet, imho there is this from the the post script from the above link-

    'One of the few real scientists to appear on the programme (that is to say he really does do climate science rather than working for a public relations company) was Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In todays Independent Wunsch claims that “They completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them….If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled…The movie was terrible propaganda.'
    Last edited by T-10; 03-12-2007 at 12:13 AM.

  17. #17
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolina View Post
    Again, I remind you all that there IS an ice age on the way!!! If I recall correctly from General Geology, the earth goes through this cycle: 90,000 years of Ice Age followed by a brief 10,000-year period of warming. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. So how worried should we be, really, about "Global Warming" anyway? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.
    Well... if global warming occurs at a much faster rate then the cooling... yes. If it occurs slower... well, yes, but for different reasons. If it occurs at the same rate... well, yes, because we still don't want any "growth". So, I'm going with "yes".
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    T10, I appreciate the hours of research you put into your response regarding 5 figure grants from bodies related to corporate / business interests - corporate / business interests which you apparently allege are desirous of having study results show that global warming is not the direct result of increased human consumption of fossil fuels. However, to keep matters in perspective, consider the fact that this is pocket change compared to the six figure salaries being paid to professors at all state colleges. State gov't education dept's in particular states like California arguably have just as much of a desire to have study results show that global waring IS the direct result of increased human consumption of fossil fuels. Perhaps this is part of the reason that some of the scientists from California state colleges who have published findings contrary to the 'concensus' have not been promoted to full professorships (which in my own mind only increases the credibility of such contrary findings).

    But the really BIG money in terms of global warming research grants is disseminated by the UN and various national govt's of countries actively advocating the Kyoto Accords and ultimately the worldwide Tobin Tax. This tracks all the way back to the first national gov't to fund a global warming study ... the UK ... which was specifically looking for results that supported global warming as a result of human consumption of fossil fuels in an effort to resurrect a program of nuclear power plant construction.

    the 'tin foil hat crowd' is of the opinion that a politically acceptable method of resuming a program of nuclear power plant construction is actually at the root of most of today's national gov't funded global warming studies. The theory goes that in order to backtrack from the 'China Syndrome' position on nuclear power, environmental groups must be presented with an even greater risk factor in the form of global warming. See

    If nothing else, the global warming issue in general, and global warming research in particular, is the subject of possible manipulation by a large number of 'invisible hands' on both sides of the issue.

    personally, I put more credibility in the Mars / Jupiter / Pluto global warming studies and solar output studies than on any earth based studies, as these totally remove the human fossil fuel consumption element from the 'argument'.

  19. #19
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Well... if global warming occurs at a much faster rate then the cooling... yes. If it occurs slower... well, yes, but for different reasons. If it occurs at the same rate... well, yes, because we still don't want any "growth". So, I'm going with "yes".
    ya, I know it's sort of a silly question. Because when I say that "we're due for another ice age," that could be a few thousand years away yet. Meanwhile, the climate change that's going on right now (an overall warming), seems to be occurring very quickly.

    T-10, Melonie did say that the FACT of global climate change is no longer in dispute. People are still fighting over the CAUSE of it....But I'm thinking that we should probably work on the assumption that if we may be contributing to the problem, and we think we can do something to remedy the situation, we probably should....except, oh wait. Then too many multibillion dollar corporations would lose too much money, and the world would fall apart as a result. If Exxon weren't making 20 billion dollars profit per minute (or whatever that recently released outrageous figure was), God only knows what would happen to the rest of us. Geez, I mean, it's almost as much as college professors make!
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  20. #20
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    However, to keep matters in perspective, consider the fact that this is pocket change compared to the six figure salaries being paid to professors at all state colleges.


    Uhhhhhh.....I think that the great majority of professors at my California state college would take issue with this statement.

    People do NOT go into academia--especially in public colleges--to become rich. I don't know where you got this idea....My profs are always crying poverty, and seem to live comfortably at best--even the tenured ones.

    I just did a little research and found that the average professor's salary in the CSU system is about $70,000--which is $3000 less than the average salary for a community college professor. In fact, they have recently considered striking over this issue.

    Given the cost of living in this area, $70,000 a year is just enough to live decent, especially if you have a kid or two.

    Of course, it's an average, so there are assistant profs making much less and probably a few full tenured professors at the very top of the pay scale who may make a little over $100,000. But "six-figure salaries" as the norm for state-college professors? No freakin' way.

    Now, some of the top administrators do make 300K-500K. But that's been a bone of contention in the system, too.
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  21. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    T-10 The jury is out as to whether or not human activity is causing global warming to occur. Almost everyone agrees that it's happening but there is a strong split among scientists as to how and why.

    Isn't it odd that the funding sources and qualifications etc. of GW skeptics are fair game ( as they should be ) but not those who support the GW theory? Many refuse to divulge the source or sources of their funding. Why ? Are they getting money from China ? It ought to be remembered that many of the loudest Cassandras were predicting an Ice Age 30 some years ago.

  22. #22
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SoCal (aka the Evil Vortex of Doom)
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    It ought to be remembered that many of the loudest Cassandras were predicting an Ice Age 30 some years ago.
    Eric, I've said 3 times now that an Ice Age IS coming; there's no way around that. We just don't know exactly when.

    For that matter....just wait til the sun goes into supernova mode. Then we'll see some serious global warming!
    "Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row


    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  23. #23
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    T-10 The jury is out as to whether or not human activity is causing global warming to occur. Almost everyone agrees that it's happening but there is a strong split among scientists as to how and why.
    It's not a strong spilt. The vast majority of scientists, last I heard about 90% of them, believe that it is in fact human activity that is causing global warming to increase so quickly. At this point very few if any, of the ones who deny what the majority of the scientific community believes are not connected to or funded by the fossil fuel industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Isn't it odd that the funding sources and qualifications etc. of GW skeptics are fair game ( as they should be ) but not those who support the GW theory? Many refuse to divulge the source or sources of their funding. Why ?
    I have not heard that claim before today. Who on the side of human activity being the major problem in global warming has refused to divulge the source of their research funding?

    I have zero problem and have in the past questioned the funding of research on both sides of this issue. Unlike the filmmaker discussed in this topic as well as the author of the OP, I actually consider both sides of any argument BEFORE forming my own position. Maybe the reason for that difference is because I am a political centrist by nature rather than being a super extreme partisan.

    What we have here on the topic of global warming is that one side of the debate is with almost no exception funded by an industry that will lose money if people begin to conserve or limit energy made from fossil fuel. Add to that the vast majority of the world's scientific community believe that human use of energy made from fossil fuels is the main problem.

    Considering those facts, it is more than logical for anyone to have an opinion that supports the position that human activity the source of the huge increases in global warming.

    In my experience, it is only those people with a political or personal financial agenda who disagree that human activity is the biggest problem in global warming.

    I also think that last night I made more than a pretty strong case to support that theory. Therefore I don’t feel the need to participate in this thread any further.

    Enjoy the rest of the debate

  24. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolina View Post
    ...If anthropogenic global climate change is not happening, and scientists are tweaking their data to say that it is, what is their motive? Who stands to gain from the claim that we should all be more careful about our energy consumption? Alternative energy companies, maybe?...
    There is another group other than alternative energy companies which stands to gain. Those politicians/bureaucrats who salivate at the prospect of having yet another reason to further restrict the freedoms of the individual. Debating the good of the individual vs. the good of the group has been going on for what seems like forever now.

    FWIW, just to add grist to the mill here is an interesting essay on the evils of air conditioning as being a major contributor to global warming. I therefore humbly move that our leaders in Washington, D.C. at the White House, and Capitol buildings/offices, State Capitol buildings, and City Halls throughout the U.S., permanently turn off all the air conditioning in those buildings to set an example of true leadership prior to asking the rest of us to do the same! B.O., anyone?

    Here is an essay on the history of air conditioning. Please note that the author refers to a new, coal-fired electric plant going on-line every ten days in China. Solve global warming, if it really is a problem? Lotsa luck!


    http://lists.altnews.com.au/pipermai...st/000040.html

    My apologies, browser problems, youll have to copy/paste the link

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: this should be interesting viewing re Global Warming ...

    In my experience, it is only those people with a political or personal financial agenda who disagree that human activity is the biggest problem in global warming.
    hmmm, look who's disagreeing in today's mainstream media ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global warming?
    By bem401 in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-19-2009, 01:04 PM
  2. new concensus on global warming ?
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 08:03 PM
  3. Re: Global Warming, I want a new study!
    By PhaedrusZ in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 02:39 PM
  4. The Sun and Global Warming
    By T-10 in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 12:50 PM
  5. Global Warming
    By lildreamer316 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-08-2005, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •