jb2006
Well-Known Member
The first part has been sound bites without their full context. Anyone want to give odds on whether there is going to be any real science presented - before the end of the prog /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Global Warming prog on Channel4
- Thread starter jb2006
- Start date
jb2006
Well-Known Member
Sorry - meant to post that in the Lounge /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
JKay
Well-Known Member
Don't worry 'tis well covered down below(in the Lounge) /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
cheers /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gifJoe
cheers /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gifJoe
capt_courageous
Well-Known Member
At last someone is telling the truth. It should be compulsory viewing for the PC doom merchants and nuclear salesmen. Remember Chernyobl.
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
full of bollox to my mind. Why do you feel it was more truthful than other programmes?
Richard10002
Well-Known Member
Care to expand?
It seemed very plausible and, aside from the scientific stuff, 2 things caught my attention in particular:
The suggestion that funding generates the answer that the funders desire, for fear of funding being withdrawn, is not uncommon in many arenas. Auditors and Management Consultants are well known for this.
Several/many scientists have resigned from the "pro CO2 organisation" yet their names are still used to report it.
This suggests that the "establishment" have a need to fudge the situation, and that there could be some truth in it.
It's hard for the "Ordinary Joe" to know who to believe, particularly when politicians definitely have an agenda... We all know that Gordon Brown is using it to raise taxes without putting the green money raised to use on green issues.
It seemed very plausible and, aside from the scientific stuff, 2 things caught my attention in particular:
The suggestion that funding generates the answer that the funders desire, for fear of funding being withdrawn, is not uncommon in many arenas. Auditors and Management Consultants are well known for this.
Several/many scientists have resigned from the "pro CO2 organisation" yet their names are still used to report it.
This suggests that the "establishment" have a need to fudge the situation, and that there could be some truth in it.
It's hard for the "Ordinary Joe" to know who to believe, particularly when politicians definitely have an agenda... We all know that Gordon Brown is using it to raise taxes without putting the green money raised to use on green issues.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Forget the experts, cherry blossom on Jan 20th convinces me.
The other thing, which never seems to be said, is:
If the 'global warming lobby' is wrong, but we act as if they are right, it'll cost us very little.
If the 'global warming lobby' is right, but we act as if they are wrong, it'll cost us the earth.
Mind you, earth might be pleased to get rid of its worst parasite, humanity.
The other thing, which never seems to be said, is:
If the 'global warming lobby' is wrong, but we act as if they are right, it'll cost us very little.
If the 'global warming lobby' is right, but we act as if they are wrong, it'll cost us the earth.
Mind you, earth might be pleased to get rid of its worst parasite, humanity.
capt_courageous
Well-Known Member
Richard
In addition to what you say. What I found deeply disturbing was the fact that fundamental sections of the report had been removed after its completion. Simple censorship to get the desired result.
In addition to what you say. What I found deeply disturbing was the fact that fundamental sections of the report had been removed after its completion. Simple censorship to get the desired result.
ChrisE
Well-Known Member
You're in a cheery mood today TK, very Malthusian /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
I'm just contemplating the fact that my gearbox might have become a box with some bits of gears in it!
Aja
Well-Known Member
Missed Point?
I understood from the programme that there may well be Global Warming. I didn't think that was being denied.
What I took from the programme was that temperatures were going up, but the input of humans in this was negligble.
Donald
I understood from the programme that there may well be Global Warming. I didn't think that was being denied.
What I took from the programme was that temperatures were going up, but the input of humans in this was negligble.
Donald
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
Precisely what I've been saying all along. Twister Ken may fix his cogs, but we aren't going to fix the climate 'cos we didn't bust it.
Brendan finds himself arguing from the other side of the fence here.
Precisely what I've been saying all along. Twister Ken may fix his cogs, but we aren't going to fix the climate 'cos we didn't bust it.
Brendan finds himself arguing from the other side of the fence here.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
No you've missed the point.
On the basis that the climate is warming, for whatever cause, why wouldn't we do what (little) we can to slow down that rise, even if it's not our fault?
No you've missed the point.
On the basis that the climate is warming, for whatever cause, why wouldn't we do what (little) we can to slow down that rise, even if it's not our fault?
ChrisE
Well-Known Member
Oh, I see. I'm an expert on those. Buy a new one young man, you know it makes sense.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
I have never been convinced by the global warming issue. Yes, the Earth is warming, but only part of a natural cycle that has been going on for millennium. In the 1700's we skated every winter on the Thames and enjoyed Winter Fairs on the ice and at the end of the Roman occupation much of England was covered in vines.
But, after watching yesterday's C4 film I believe in the graph that showed that CO2 production did not cause Earth warming, but rather that Earth warming caused CO2 production. The graph alleges that CO2 production exactly follows the warming and cooling graph, but with an 800 year lag.
I was already of the opinion that Volcanoes produced far more CO2 than us earthlings and that was confirmed, but is actually the oceans that produce the most CO2, in quantities that makes us mere ants in the scheme of things. The 800 year lag was put down to the fact that it took this long for the air warmth to have any effect on the deep oceans and as the seas warmed up, they produced more CO2.
The other graph was the Earth temperature superimposed on the graph of sunspot activity, which was near as dammed an exact match.
It wasn't mentioned in the programme, but I read a report last year that said that all the planets in the solar system were also warming. Well, either my car is having an unworldly effect on Mars, or we need to look at the Sun as the culprit.
A few weeks ago, the BBC news broadcast a piece about Global Warming that showed an island in the Bay of Bengal was being flooded by “rising sea levels”. I spoke to someone I know who used to work in the Bay of Bengal, if this was so. He said it was nonsense as the sea level is not rising and that sea levels do not rise in just one place. Apparently, although obscured by the BBC propaganda, the island that “sank beneath the waves” disappeared because it was made of mud and human activity had made the banks more open to erosion by the tides.
You can see the film here
The claim is that the seas are rising. Of course, this was followed by an another film that ‘proved‘ that ‘rising seas’ are threatening London. Forgive me, but isn’t that because Britain is shifting, with the East sinking and the West rising as it shrugs off the last ice age? In fact parts of Scandinavia have risen by metres, since the ice age and no one blames that on shrinking sea levels.
<span style="color:blue"> “For example, the Low Lands of Holland, Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in Northern Germany. They are sinking. And the reason why the Low Lands are sinking is that Scandinavia is rising. It is a counter balance effect. Scandinavia is rising because some ten thousand years ago it enjoyed a blanket of 3,000 metres of ice on it. It sank. Now that that the ice is gone, Scandinavia is rising and the Low Lands are sinking. We can go to places like Turku in Finland where the 12th century castle was built on a well protected island. Well, you can walk to that island now. In the port of Turku instead of having a ship moor at the port, the land has risen so much, you have to have a ladder to get down into the ship. So sea level rise and fall is purely relative.” </span> This was written in 1995, well before the current Global Warming fashion started.” The entire script can be read here.
Global Warming is a junket perpetuated by the people paid to investigate it and to get them to admit they are wrong is as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.
I believe that the Global Warming debate has prevented action and discussion of a problem far more important the Mother Earth doing what Mother Earth does, and that is pollution and in particular heavy metal pollution.
I have never been convinced by the global warming issue. Yes, the Earth is warming, but only part of a natural cycle that has been going on for millennium. In the 1700's we skated every winter on the Thames and enjoyed Winter Fairs on the ice and at the end of the Roman occupation much of England was covered in vines.
But, after watching yesterday's C4 film I believe in the graph that showed that CO2 production did not cause Earth warming, but rather that Earth warming caused CO2 production. The graph alleges that CO2 production exactly follows the warming and cooling graph, but with an 800 year lag.
I was already of the opinion that Volcanoes produced far more CO2 than us earthlings and that was confirmed, but is actually the oceans that produce the most CO2, in quantities that makes us mere ants in the scheme of things. The 800 year lag was put down to the fact that it took this long for the air warmth to have any effect on the deep oceans and as the seas warmed up, they produced more CO2.
The other graph was the Earth temperature superimposed on the graph of sunspot activity, which was near as dammed an exact match.
It wasn't mentioned in the programme, but I read a report last year that said that all the planets in the solar system were also warming. Well, either my car is having an unworldly effect on Mars, or we need to look at the Sun as the culprit.
A few weeks ago, the BBC news broadcast a piece about Global Warming that showed an island in the Bay of Bengal was being flooded by “rising sea levels”. I spoke to someone I know who used to work in the Bay of Bengal, if this was so. He said it was nonsense as the sea level is not rising and that sea levels do not rise in just one place. Apparently, although obscured by the BBC propaganda, the island that “sank beneath the waves” disappeared because it was made of mud and human activity had made the banks more open to erosion by the tides.
You can see the film here
The claim is that the seas are rising. Of course, this was followed by an another film that ‘proved‘ that ‘rising seas’ are threatening London. Forgive me, but isn’t that because Britain is shifting, with the East sinking and the West rising as it shrugs off the last ice age? In fact parts of Scandinavia have risen by metres, since the ice age and no one blames that on shrinking sea levels.
<span style="color:blue"> “For example, the Low Lands of Holland, Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in Northern Germany. They are sinking. And the reason why the Low Lands are sinking is that Scandinavia is rising. It is a counter balance effect. Scandinavia is rising because some ten thousand years ago it enjoyed a blanket of 3,000 metres of ice on it. It sank. Now that that the ice is gone, Scandinavia is rising and the Low Lands are sinking. We can go to places like Turku in Finland where the 12th century castle was built on a well protected island. Well, you can walk to that island now. In the port of Turku instead of having a ship moor at the port, the land has risen so much, you have to have a ladder to get down into the ship. So sea level rise and fall is purely relative.” </span> This was written in 1995, well before the current Global Warming fashion started.” The entire script can be read here.
Global Warming is a junket perpetuated by the people paid to investigate it and to get them to admit they are wrong is as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.
I believe that the Global Warming debate has prevented action and discussion of a problem far more important the Mother Earth doing what Mother Earth does, and that is pollution and in particular heavy metal pollution.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
[ QUOTE ]
On the basis that the climate is warming, for whatever cause, why wouldn't we do what (little) we can to slow down that rise, even if it's not our fault?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because we can't influence the Sun. It is Sun spot activity causing global warming, not CO2, which is just a product of global warming, not the cause.
[ QUOTE ]
On the basis that the climate is warming, for whatever cause, why wouldn't we do what (little) we can to slow down that rise, even if it's not our fault?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because we can't influence the Sun. It is Sun spot activity causing global warming, not CO2, which is just a product of global warming, not the cause.
Aja
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
I quite agree with you - but from a different viewpoint.
As a race (global) we are become wasteful and we need to stop using finite resources 'cos it is the easy option.
We can't keep on throwing things out to landfill because we want a newer shinier version when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original.
But! That wasn't the point of last nights programme.
Donald
I quite agree with you - but from a different viewpoint.
As a race (global) we are become wasteful and we need to stop using finite resources 'cos it is the easy option.
We can't keep on throwing things out to landfill because we want a newer shinier version when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original.
But! That wasn't the point of last nights programme.
Donald
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
[ QUOTE ]
I was already of the opinion that Volcanoes produced far more CO2 than us earthlings and that was confirmed
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter how many times you repeat´this, it is in fact utterly and totally wrong . . . WRONG WRONG WRONG . . . and therefore so probably is everything else you want to believe about global warming
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
(Although volcanoes do produce more of some ofthe other greenhouse gases)
Note that the above is a US government site - hardly pro global warming
[ QUOTE ]
I was already of the opinion that Volcanoes produced far more CO2 than us earthlings and that was confirmed
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter how many times you repeat´this, it is in fact utterly and totally wrong . . . WRONG WRONG WRONG . . . and therefore so probably is everything else you want to believe about global warming
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
(Although volcanoes do produce more of some ofthe other greenhouse gases)
Note that the above is a US government site - hardly pro global warming
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
Very good summary.
As you say, the two inescapable facts are that the earth's temperature has risen and fallen for thousands of years, to well above and well below current values, and that the CO2 rise and fall lags the temperature. These two facts indicate with the least possible effort in interpretation that man's industrial activities cannot be responsible.
The list of experts supporting the 'swindle' was very impressive, as were the comments regarding the composition of the 2500 names supporting the CO2 = global warming lobby.
Very few of the thousands of scientists involved in climate research are going to say "Everything's OK, no need to investigate further".
Very good summary.
As you say, the two inescapable facts are that the earth's temperature has risen and fallen for thousands of years, to well above and well below current values, and that the CO2 rise and fall lags the temperature. These two facts indicate with the least possible effort in interpretation that man's industrial activities cannot be responsible.
The list of experts supporting the 'swindle' was very impressive, as were the comments regarding the composition of the 2500 names supporting the CO2 = global warming lobby.
Very few of the thousands of scientists involved in climate research are going to say "Everything's OK, no need to investigate further".
john
Well-Known Member
Re: Missed Point?
Did anyone video this programme on CH4 - i'd very much like to see it.
John
Did anyone video this programme on CH4 - i'd very much like to see it.
John