Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
100
Somehow knew this would become a centurion.
Somehow knew this would become a centurion.
Global Warming prog on Channel4
- Thread starter jb2006
- Start date
ParaHandy
Well-Known Member
"I am enough of a scientist to know the difference between what might be good scientific presentation and what is pure tosh - and this was the latter."
a survey of all media progs, articles etc found a near 50/50 split between those who believe global warming is occurring and is manmade and those who don't. amongst the scientific community its almost totally unanimous that it is ...
a survey of all media progs, articles etc found a near 50/50 split between those who believe global warming is occurring and is manmade and those who don't. amongst the scientific community its almost totally unanimous that it is ...
bedouin
Well-Known Member
I do believe that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming - however the programme did start out by making some good points about funding and peer pressure in the scientific community which might actually have led to some interesting debate - had it not rapidly descended into farce by presenting a series of nonsense pseudo-scientific points.
However - can you provide evidence for your assertion that "the scientific community is almost unanimous?"
However - can you provide evidence for your assertion that "the scientific community is almost unanimous?"
ParaHandy
Well-Known Member
umm ... no! and why should I?! nobody else does ...! It was on Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth". He quoted several references and i can't be bothered to dig the references out. i would have thought it as plain as a pikestaff in front of etc .. ?
it was interesting his disection of some media reporting and was able to prove their provenance was self-serving. A bit like the tobacco industry advert in the 50's telling everyone that doctors smoked so must be safe?
it was interesting his disection of some media reporting and was able to prove their provenance was self-serving. A bit like the tobacco industry advert in the 50's telling everyone that doctors smoked so must be safe?
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
I think the whole thing is bollocks and that we should not bother our pretty little heads about it because we have clever scientists and concerned politicains to do that for us.
I am going to enjoy the rest of my life and the increasingly pleasant summers.
I am going to enjoy the rest of my life and the increasingly pleasant summers.
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
Even the Sunday Telegraph, in welcoming the Channel4 "Swindle" film said that <ul type="square"> They [ie sceptical scientists] have found it hard to get a hearing, not least because the oil companies did immense damage to any form of scepticism about global warming when it became apparent that they had bribed hundreds of scientists to act as PR lobbyists for the claim that "global warming isn't happening and if it is, it isn't caused by CO2 emissions". [/list]
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Love it!
Not sure who has shot who in which foot, but what fun!
Not sure who has shot who in which foot, but what fun!
whipper_snapper
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the programme did start out by making some good points about funding and peer pressure in the scientific community
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to hear just what they were saying there. Any chance of a concensus on what the basis of the claim was ?
the programme did start out by making some good points about funding and peer pressure in the scientific community
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to hear just what they were saying there. Any chance of a concensus on what the basis of the claim was ?
bedouin
Well-Known Member
There certainly have been occasions when commercial pressures have mislead the scientific community - the smoking case is one - where scientists say what they are paid to say. Given the amount of money that is now predicated on the idea that man-made GW is a fact it is not inconceivable that legitimate scientific dissent is being gagged.
The mockumentary started out as if it were going to look at that aspect but it soon descended into ridiculously bad scientific arguments.
The mockumentary started out as if it were going to look at that aspect but it soon descended into ridiculously bad scientific arguments.
boatmike
Well-Known Member
Some sort of consensus here then
I think the way to look at this is whatever the situation would be without us pumping more CO2 up there, the fact that we are doing so will have an effect. The questions are, in my mind, if the end result is going to be as bad as some predict.
However, if we have the opportunity to clean up our act and stop burning fossil fuels, we should. Call it an insurance policy if you like but I can't see a bad result from being "clean"
On previous threads when Lakesailor went ballistic about the whole thing being some sort of conspiracy, I argued vehemently against him. There is too much consensus in the scientific community for that. BUT the view that scientists looking to get grants for their work get them more easily if they use terms like Global Warming, and Environmental Studies in their applications I know is true, so there is a bit of a bandwagon going on here! So it's a mixed bag. On one hand you have Lakesailor and his mates, and on the other hand the extreme green environmentalists who just want to protest against something and if it wasn't the environment it would be animal welfare, immigration, gay rights, or the price of fish. It's all extremism and politics.
Very difficult when everybody takes extreme views to keep a balanced perspective but I think there are several of us on here still trying......
I think the way to look at this is whatever the situation would be without us pumping more CO2 up there, the fact that we are doing so will have an effect. The questions are, in my mind, if the end result is going to be as bad as some predict.
However, if we have the opportunity to clean up our act and stop burning fossil fuels, we should. Call it an insurance policy if you like but I can't see a bad result from being "clean"
On previous threads when Lakesailor went ballistic about the whole thing being some sort of conspiracy, I argued vehemently against him. There is too much consensus in the scientific community for that. BUT the view that scientists looking to get grants for their work get them more easily if they use terms like Global Warming, and Environmental Studies in their applications I know is true, so there is a bit of a bandwagon going on here! So it's a mixed bag. On one hand you have Lakesailor and his mates, and on the other hand the extreme green environmentalists who just want to protest against something and if it wasn't the environment it would be animal welfare, immigration, gay rights, or the price of fish. It's all extremism and politics.
Very difficult when everybody takes extreme views to keep a balanced perspective but I think there are several of us on here still trying......
bedouin
Well-Known Member
It started off quite promisingly with two main points
(a) That there is so much money being thrown at this that it is in everyone's commercial interest to get results that justify the continuation of that funding. (That is exactly the same argument that was used on the other side when the oil-funded US government would not accept global warming)
(b) That it is now not "politically acceptable" to question the science behind Global warming
(c) They questioned whether IPCC 2500 scientists were really all scientists - and even suggested that some of those 2500 people disagreed with the conclusions
(a) That there is so much money being thrown at this that it is in everyone's commercial interest to get results that justify the continuation of that funding. (That is exactly the same argument that was used on the other side when the oil-funded US government would not accept global warming)
(b) That it is now not "politically acceptable" to question the science behind Global warming
(c) They questioned whether IPCC 2500 scientists were really all scientists - and even suggested that some of those 2500 people disagreed with the conclusions
nicho
RIP
Re: Heads in the sand
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW there is approx 40 years of oil left based on current proved reserves and current consumption.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Jim, I know you are in the industry and have greater knowledge than most re reserves etc, but the scepticism comes from being told in the '60's that oil reserves would be exhausted in 25/30 years time (the "oil crisis"). Now you say we've got another 40 years......
See what I mean? There's so much bull spoken about green issues, no one takes it as gospel.
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW there is approx 40 years of oil left based on current proved reserves and current consumption.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Jim, I know you are in the industry and have greater knowledge than most re reserves etc, but the scepticism comes from being told in the '60's that oil reserves would be exhausted in 25/30 years time (the "oil crisis"). Now you say we've got another 40 years......
See what I mean? There's so much bull spoken about green issues, no one takes it as gospel.
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
[ QUOTE ]
the scepticism comes from being told in the '60's that oil reserves would be exhausted in 25/30 years time (the "oil crisis"). Now you say we've got another 40 years......
[/ QUOTE ]Oil companies publish their known reserves, otherwise it would be pure speculation - which would be, at the very least, unethical, if it were considered that false claims were being made to bump up share prices. That has also happened, and causes reputational damage. Issuing a false prospectus is not wise.
The difference between known reserves and actual reserves depends on the rate of exploration, and the success of exploration.
That oil companies are increasingly exploring in more hostile environments is a pretty good indicator that known reserves in the easier areas are running out IMHO.
[ QUOTE ]
the scepticism comes from being told in the '60's that oil reserves would be exhausted in 25/30 years time (the "oil crisis"). Now you say we've got another 40 years......
[/ QUOTE ]Oil companies publish their known reserves, otherwise it would be pure speculation - which would be, at the very least, unethical, if it were considered that false claims were being made to bump up share prices. That has also happened, and causes reputational damage. Issuing a false prospectus is not wise.
The difference between known reserves and actual reserves depends on the rate of exploration, and the success of exploration.
That oil companies are increasingly exploring in more hostile environments is a pretty good indicator that known reserves in the easier areas are running out IMHO.
jimi
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
Brief search on web gives the following 2 interesting links
http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
Brief search on web gives the following 2 interesting links
http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
"Heads in the sand" indeed.
Everyone keeps coming up with links to this and that.
This is the internet. Worse than Newspapers for bum information.
Unless of course the info backs up your own position. Then it's fine.
"Heads in the sand" indeed.
Everyone keeps coming up with links to this and that.
This is the internet. Worse than Newspapers for bum information.
Unless of course the info backs up your own position. Then it's fine.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
Look here, Lakey, I've seen conclusive evidence that carbon fuelled gloal warming will dry out the lakes in the Lake District within the next month, so less smug please.
Where?
Oh, it was on the high speed interweb highway thingy somewhere.
Look here, Lakey, I've seen conclusive evidence that carbon fuelled gloal warming will dry out the lakes in the Lake District within the next month, so less smug please.
Where?
Oh, it was on the high speed interweb highway thingy somewhere.
boatmike
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
You might get the lake to dry up but not Lakesailor I am afraid! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
You might get the lake to dry up but not Lakesailor I am afraid! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
claymore
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
That's not a bad thing. I once took the lovely Valerie Atkinson sailing many years ago and she lost a pair of sunglasses off Lowwood bay. I think the retrieval and safe return of said item could well stand me in good stead of becoming acquainted with her ample bosom once more
That's not a bad thing. I once took the lovely Valerie Atkinson sailing many years ago and she lost a pair of sunglasses off Lowwood bay. I think the retrieval and safe return of said item could well stand me in good stead of becoming acquainted with her ample bosom once more
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
Is she coming on the Chentlemen's Cruise?
Is she coming on the Chentlemen's Cruise?
jimi
Well-Known Member
Re: Heads in the sand
Lakey you really are turning into a really boring PIA!
Lakey you really are turning into a really boring PIA!