Global Warming prog on Channel4

Re: Missed Point?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was already of the opinion that Volcanoes produced far more CO2 than us earthlings and that was confirmed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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


[/ QUOTE ]

You are no doubt correct because it wasn't what was said in the Channel 4 film either, which if you had watched it you might have seen. You may not agree with the Ch4 presentation, but at least argue against what it actually said and not what you heard it had said.
 
Heads in the sand

Well well well .. chucking billions of tons of carbon into the air has no effect?

Oil won' run out?

Hmmmm wonder what planet you lot are from?

FWIW there is approx 40 years of oil left based on current proved reserves and current consumption. Middle east reserves should be taken with large pinch of salt as production quota (and therefor revenue) is based on stated not proved reserves. Why the heck do you think Bush invaded Iraq and was after Iran .. commonsense required children!
 
Re: Missed Point?

Must say that I agree with the 'Obstreperous Old Goat' commentator who states that we mere mortals are unlikely to get to the bottom of the global warming issue as there are too many voices with hidden, or often not so hidden, agendas clouding the issue....
I strongly recommend a couple of his short commentries on the subject which are entertaining and to the point whilst getting an opinion across.

http://obstreperousoldgoat.blogspot.com/2007/02/dynamic-trio.html

http://obstreperousoldgoat.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-hot-air-from-un.html
 
Re: Heads in the sand

Jimi, I didn't think this argument was about oil and it certainly was not an issue in the programme.

The argument is, whether our carbon emissions - from cows, cars, boats, buildings, industry, power stations etc, etc are responsible for the current warming up of the globe.

The Dispatches programme gave a compelling argument against that particular theory.

As to oil, yes I agree we are using it up at an alarming rate, but we actually have hundreds of years reserves of coal. If we are not actually causing the current glbal warming due to our CO2 emissions and we can effectively scrub the pollutants out of the waste smoke, then coal seems to be a cheap and plentiful source of energy for running industry and producing electricity.

But, as I said, this argument is whether WE are causing the present global warming trend.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

One of the posts mentioned oil and I was picking up that point. Interesting that the program maker, Martin Durkin made in 1997 a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

As well as the normal objections to the content that you might have expected - and fair enough to have your opinion - there were much more serious problems. Channel Four eventually had to broadcast a prime-time apology. The Independent Television Commission ruled: “Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.” Etc.

see http://www.badscience.net/?p=381#more-381


however, there is no doubt that global warming is happening, the argument is as to why its happening. As I've said before I beleive that argument to be academic from our point of view because the UK is an immaterial player in the global scheme of things.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]
however, there is no doubt that global warming is happening, the argument is as to why its happening. As I've said before I beleive that argument to be academic from our point of view because the UK is an immaterial player in the global scheme of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on if:-

Mankind is an immaterial player in the global scheme of things.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said before I beleive that argument to be academic from our point of view because the UK is an immaterial player in the global scheme of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from my point of view, it is academic as the real cause of global warming is the Sun and therefore we are ALL "immaterial player in the global scheme of things. " /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Heads in the sand

Actually the sun is THE major player , however it is not the only player. HAve you ever read the book "The Tipping Point"? As I understand it the issue is whether the currently frozen methane sumps of the tundra thaw, if so we really will be in runaway global warming .. now if manmade warming tips this thaw then that will be caused by man's CO2 emmissions.

A quote from another forum I frequent:

"I have to admit I’m a little surprised people thought this was a ‘good’ program – even accepting they wished to present a rather unhelpful, extreme polemic it seemed to be very poorly researched and presented.

As a climate change scientist who is very aware of the many shortcomings with our current understanding of the climate system and humankinds impact upon it, but a firm believer in anthropogenic caused warming, I thought it was very striking (and quite reassuring) how weak the ‘anti’ scientific arguments presented were.

As Stu points out, improved representation of mixing into the stratosphere from the troposphere in atmospheric models has resulted in simulated temperature gradients through the lower atmosphere much closer to those observed. The cosmic ray thing is something I know very little about – but my understanding is that there is no direct evidence supporting the proposed mechanisms outlined at all. The fact the climate has varied in the past and will continue to do so in the future due to non-anthropogenic factors is irrelevant. As is the fact carbon dioxide makes up only a very small fraction of the atmosphere, and the anthropogenic generated component only a very small fraction of that. The fact that global biogeochemical cycles (i.e. decaying vegetation releases carbon dioxide/sea temperatures effect their ability to absorb carbon dioxide etc.) respond to climate change is GCSE science.

We are able to simulate the observed global temperature trends (increases and decreases) over the last 100 years very effectively taking into account all the ‘natural’ forcing variables they mentioned, and some they didn’t, but the only way the models get close to predicting the observed, very steep temperature increase over the last 40 years is through incorporating the warming effects of additional atmospheric carbon dioxide, offset in part by higher aerosol concentrations causing cooling.

There are uncertainties and unknowns remaining which are problematic for making predictions into the future, but none of these were covered in a disappointing program which I can only described as a few misinformed scientific arguments in amongst a 70 minute tirade about politicisation of the green movement, incorrect, un-collaborated and unproven ideas about government funding for science (how difficult could it have been to check some of those claims for goodness sake, all the information is readily available from the UK research councils, and presumably similarly in the US given there much stronger freedom of information laws), frankly insulting hypotheses about wanting to keep the third world third and unsupported criticism of the IPCC, which as a UN body and given the general incompetence, political skulduggery and inherently contradictory interests of member states therein its remarkable they are able to come to any consensus at all. None of which did anything to 'debunk' the science of climate change.

Andy "
 
Re: Heads in the sand

Sometimes I think that one should just have a look around.

Where I live we are about to receive the fly-tipping location of the millenium award, simply because the local authority and by default Government do not have a realistic strategy for the disposal of the rubbish we create. Supermarkets entice customers to pay the value added premium for having a few bits of carrot and turnip washed and sliced and wrapped in plastic etc etc. We don't look after the place and the price for not looking after things is normally that they fail.
If that doesn't say it then it surely cannot be right that we have snowdrops and Camelias out in the garden in full bloom at the same time.
Of course its bloody warmer and of course as inhabitants of the planet its probably us thats screwing it up.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it the issue is whether the currently frozen methane sumps of the tundra thaw, if so we really will be in runaway global

[/ QUOTE ]

It was mentioned in the documentary that the last time the Tundra thawed, it caused little variation to the current trend and eventually, following sunspot activity decreasing we continued the inevitable cycle to the next cold period. I really must have a go at this commanding the tides to go back lark.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was very striking (and quite reassuring) how weak the ‘anti’ scientific arguments presented were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, an arrogant thing to say and doesn't prove that his arguments are not weak.

I presume he is in reciept of a grant to study global warming. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]
Of course its bloody warmer and of course as inhabitants of the planet its probably us thats screwing it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are probably right. Should have listened to you in the first place. Now, where do I pay my carbon tax.....? That'll solve global warming.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

hmmm .. convincing repudation of arguments .. not. Well if you wish to reinforce your existing thoughts on the basis of this unbalanced, ill argued program made by a non credible producer then carry on.

Note :: object lesson in why this planet and this country is in the mess its in
 
Re: Heads in the sand

The problem is that both sides of the argument have some truth and use the scientific data selectively. This gives rise to a polarized attitude where some believe fanatically and others disbelieve equally fanatically. No one seems to say "I don't know". The programme was cleverly presented and the arguments selectively put with some theories presented as facts when they are clearly not.
The program was feeding one of the most popular arguments ever on any subject. "It's all a media fed government conspiracy". Maggie Thatcher started it you know after the miners strike. Excellent. That helps a lot. This could equally be seen as a media exercise that is presenting a politically driven point of view which is what they were accusing everyone else of.
So is there a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to convince us there's a conspiracy?
Just because someone tells you you are being paranoid don't automatically assume they are not out to get you....
This is turning into a religious debate.... Either you believe or you don't.
The only thing you can say is that they have a point when they say that we are penalising the developing world without really doing anything to help them. That seems to me to be a fact, so if we believe in GW lets not say "we have polluted the planet but are going to stop you from doing the same. Thats like saying Iran can't go nuclear but we are going to spend billions on improving our bomb.... Innit?
 
Re: Heads in the sand

See previous post as to "previous" of the program maker. I just quote again. Martin Durkin made in 1997 a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

As well as the normal objections to the content that you might have expected - and fair enough to have your opinion - there were much more serious problems. Channel Four eventually had to broadcast a prime-time apology. The Independent Television Commission ruled: “Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.” Etc.

see http://www.badscience.net/?p=381#more-381
 
Re: Heads in the sand

not replying to anybody in particular here

I've made my views on the subject known on here so I'm not going to get into the 'yes we are'..'no we're not' argument again.

Anyway, for anybody with an ft.com subscription have a read of the column Martin Wolf wrote a few weeks ago "In spite of the sceptics it's still worth reducing climate risk"
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]

The fact the climate has varied in the past and will continue to do so in the future due to non-anthropogenic factors is irrelevant


[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth do you reach this strange conclusion?

Non-anthropogenic factors have been highly relevant to our constantly evolving climate for hundreds of millions of years. Why should these factors no longer be relevant?

The sun has to be the biggest and most powerful item I have ever heard described as irrelevant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top