An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

    Originally posted by Qazworld View Post
    well, youre in luck.

    science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003.

    none of them challenged he scientific consensus the earth's temperature is rising due to human activity.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
    Qaz, if Wikipedia had a "who's online" function we'd be so busted.


    According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December,
    2004, there is unanimous "scientific consensus" on the anthropogenic causes
    of recent global warming. Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have
    analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either
    explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming
    trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an
    additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. Oreskes
    even claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned once in
    any of the papers since 1993 and concludes: "This analysis shows that
    scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the
    National Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional
    societies. Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the
    impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists,
    but that impression is incorrect."

    What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a
    "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such
    thing.


    /snip


    Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as
    was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate
    researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von
    Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter
    of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the
    most recent climatic changes." Remarkably, a research paper about their
    survey and some of its key results were submitted to Science in August,
    2004. Yet shortly after the paper was rejected, the journal published
    Oreskes' study, which claimed a universal consensus among climate
    researchers.

    The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days
    before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly misled the public and the world's media. In my view, such unethical behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of
    scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse
    than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals
    regarding Oreskes' flawed study.
    http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
    The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.
      The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.

      Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

        Why hasn't this thread moved to One on One?
        Don't repeat it; create it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

          Originally posted by warrenP View Post
          Why hasn't this thread moved to One on One?
          its too political.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

            and hairy isnt there.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

              You have a point with the puppies.
              I'm so tempted to make this my sig quote.

              Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
              It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
              -- Potter Stewart

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                Originally posted by People's Republic of Stephen View Post
                The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.
                Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
                You are actually following up with a rabid article from the Guardian? Do you realise how extreme and biased that paper is?

                I notice the article casts the debate in the following light:

                The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct.
                The same repugnant tactics were used in the op-ed from their 'science' editor on this film last week, which begun with the following paragraph:

                We live in an era of conspiracies. Princess Diana was killed by Nazis; 9/11 was the work of the US government, while the manned lunar landings were hoaxes filmed in TV studios. To this list of internet-fuelled daftness, we can now add a new plot: that the world's scientific community is not just wrong about global warming, but is collectively lying when it says industrial carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the planet.
                That is how this communist rag likes to dress up its 'science' articles. Talk about ad hominems! Debating Global Warming is the direct equivalent of claiming "Princess Diana was killed by Nazis" or that "the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions". Since you linked to it in order to advance your point you must think these tactics are perfectly acceptable and how science should be explained and debated today. Unless you're Michael Crichton, of course--he should write a critique (supported by research and data) and submit it to the scientific community for peer review, before he is even entitled to express an opinion.
                The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                  Rabid article? Communist rag? I don't read The Guardian, but it sounds like you're the one who's extreme and biased.

                  You clearly missed the point of the article, so I'll post the points that clearly casts doubt on the documentary that started this thread and that you're so fond of—and who the hell is Lord Lawson of Blaby, anyway?

                  The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.

                  Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."

                  Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.

                  But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it.
                  Broughcut, I don't know if you live in LA or any other city where there are as many cars as people, but clearly smog doesn't seem to bother you as much as it does me, regardless of the cause of global warming: pollution is bad!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                    That is how this communist rag likes to dress up its 'science' articles. Talk about ad hominems! Debating Global Warming is the direct equivalent of claiming "Princess Diana was killed by Nazis" or that "the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions".
                    Seems to me they're just expressing their opinion that the concept of all these scientists deliberately lying about global warming is as ridiculous a conspiracy theory as those others. I can see where they're coming from. Just like those other whacked out theories, it falls apart as soon as someone asks "why?"

                    P.S.: I'm pretty sure if you toss the word "communist" around a few more times, you'll qualify for the limited edition Joe McCarthy collector's plate.

                    Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
                    It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
                    -- Potter Stewart

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                      You clearly missed the point of it, so I'll post what I though was most interesting points because the article casts doubt on the documentary that you're so fond of
                      I've not even watched it. I posted a link here as an fyi when full prog became available online, since I don't think it's been broadcast in the US and people may have been interested.

                      If you don't like pollution don't drive so many cars and get around to fitting cleaner, smaller and more efficient engines. I don't think it's cool to support the imposition of global policies that will have drastic repercussions for investment in the third world and stifle industrial development in those countries simply because it motivates lifestyle changes at home and dissuades neighbours from driving V8s around town.

                      Smog appears to have very little to do with global warming. Why confuse the two issues.

                      Broughcut, I don't know if you live in LA or any other city with a lot of cars, but clearly smog doesn't seem to bother you as much as it does me, regardless of global warming. Pollution is bad!
                      If man made global warming is a real problem then cutting out smog and particulate pollution before warming is actually being reversed will make matters worse -- have you ever heard of global dimming and how it may be masking global warming (be it man made or natural)? Pollution is bad, but it may not be as bad as the alternative. And yes, I accept global dimming has been linked to serious droughts in the developing world, but it may also be helping to stabilise climate change globally. It's an extremely complex picture. "Pollution is bad" is, regrettably, a little too simplistic.

                      The Guardian is a communist paper.

                      Seems to me they're just expressing their opinion that the concept of all these scientists deliberately lying about global warming is as ridiculous a conspiracy theory as those others. I can see where they're coming from. Just like those other whacked out theories, it falls apart as soon as someone asks "why?"
                      I ask "why" and it leads me to question if the Guardian is lying about the scientific consensus. Because if there is no consensus, science can't be blamed for lying about climate change.

                      It doesn't take a ridiculous conspiracy for extreme left wingers, like Guardian contributers. to deliberately misrepresent the evidence.

                      Governments have their own reasons for hijacking the science--and they are good reasons, mostly. We need more nuclear power to help secure long-term independence from ME oil and central asian oil/gas.
                      The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                        I ask "why" and it leads me to question if the Guardian is lying about the scientific consensus. Because if there is no consensus, science can't be blamed for lying about climate change.
                        By consensus, do you mean unanimous agreement? Because I doubt that has ever existed in science. Every new idea has its detractors. That's why it's valid, I think, to look at what the majority of scientists believe. The general consensus.

                        Of course, the general consensus isn't always right. So you have to look beyond that, at who's saying what and what their motivations might be. What do the scientists behind the general consensus on global warming have to gain by lying? What do the scientists representing the minority view (among scientists) on global warming have to gain? Well...a lot of the most vocal members of that group work for corporations and conservative think tanks whose best interests lie in denying global warming.

                        Everybody has to look for himself at what's being said, and by whom, and decide who to believe. Personally, I believe the majority of scientists are right when they say mankind is contributing to global warming and that global warming is a bad thing -- and that they have no more agenda in mind than improving our quality of life and preserving the planet's flora and fauna for as long as possible. I think those are good, sensible motivations, so I'm with them.

                        I don't really understand the motivations of people who deny global warming is happening, or who deny that it's a bad thing, or who deny we should do what we can to reduce whatever impact we may have on global warming. I mean, I understand why people who work for oil companies say those things...I just don't understand the private citizens who say those things. I don't get what they feel they have to gain.

                        Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
                        It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
                        -- Potter Stewart

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                          As long as the elitists control what we consume and think, there will always be a strong argument against any movement that may have strong benefits. The heart of the anti-Gore argument is that it might hurt our economy, so we can't risk it. But if I am left to choose between what might hurt our economy, and what might hurt our Earth, I will favor the Gore theory. I can think of plenty of other reasons for going along with it: less pollution, less cancer-causing agents, less dependency on foreign oil, and a return to that which is natural and wholesome. I'm sick of being controlled by less than 1% of the human race, and I have learned to survive without many of the benefits that they take for granted. I'm ready for a change.
                          "THIMK." - Amomynous

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                            The biggest roadblock to progress is that anything catastrophic probably won't happen in our lifetime. So why should we be motivated to change what we do?
                            Frosties are just Cornflakes for people who can't face reality.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: An Inconvenient Truth II: Even More Inconvient.

                              less dependency on foreign oil
                              That's one motivation you'd think even the most conservative person could get behind. Even Bush at least pretends to want that.

                              The biggest roadblock to progress is that anything catastrophic probably won't happen in our lifetime. So why should we be motivated to change what we do?
                              Yeah, the current administration has not shown itself to be big on thinking even a couple of years ahead, let alone decades.

                              Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
                              It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
                              -- Potter Stewart

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X