It's apparently based on data already proven to be wrong time and time again, and some people featured as *supporters* of the programme's point of view are crying foul because they were mis-represented. Some of those listed as supporters admitted they were wrong a long time ago and published papers showing exactly the opposite of what they were claiming in the programme. None of their retractions get mentioned in the programme of course!
I know that some won't bother to even check out the following links, in the same way that you won't bother to put the programme's title into google to find out these things for yourselves, but it's worth a peek; it's vital to look at both sides of an argument so you can even get a feel of how reliable the information you already have is, there's cranks on all sides. The programme appears to be the usual triumph of storytelling triumphing over accuracy and honesty.
Well that link doesn't help the debate much - it's a group of "me me's" telling us how right they are - strangely remincicent of the UFO "research" sites......
From the paper that championed the link between autism and the combined jabs........ now there's a classic example of how dodgy science can get everyone barking up the wrong tree, despite
*massive* studies not finding any link. The article appears to doing "a Usenet" - picking out wrong bits and not commenting on anything that may be right. Perhaps it's the style it's written in, but it reads like a journalist who has limited knowledge of the subject being fed juicy tit-bits and reporting them without explaining or understanding - what is the significance of "not with total cloud cover but with 'low cloud cover'" - to make sense of that paragraph an explanation is needed.
Weren't the Nazca Lines in Peru drawn in the desert by a now extinct people who wanted to appease the gods to allow the rains to return to what is now desert. IIRC they tried all sorts of things to get to Gods to stop changing their climate, including child sacrifies, but to no avail. They misunderstood the cause, and couldn't have changed things anyway.
All a bit reminscent of our governments latching onto marginally increased atmospheric CO2 as the cause of global warming rather than a symptom of increased sunspot activity.
What you are looking for is the link to the chap who was in the TV programme saying that the programme was misrepresenting him badly.
I didn't expect anything else though, other than "well I'll believe this crock of lying s**te because it says something I agree with, but not the other crock of lying s**te that says something that I don't agree with!"
They're both probaby crocks of lying s**te, both being written by journalists after all, but it's rather hard to argue with someone involved in the programme complaining about how they cherry-picked and mis-represented him while trying to use his status to give the programme credibility. If you want a programme to have credibility, get credible sources (which they did) and air their views (which they didn't). Also it helps if you don't quote sources who agreed with you some time ago but now no longer do, and didn't when the programme was made.
The issue here is that the programme has decided to forgo credibility to spice the story up, so while it might have made some proper, genuine points, which ones are they, and can we be sure they also weren't based on misrepresenting someone or something.
Notice that Monbiot (who is a prat although not as bad as some, e.g. he realises that biofuel is poor as it's leading to deforestation in order to grow oil palm plantations) also says the same in the guardian article, i.e. the MMR leading to autism stuff was dodgy science.
That's precisely what the programme was doing, selective quoting, speaking to people who were either wrong and admitted it before the programme went out, or have been proven wrong many times since. What monbiot did was to point out that the programme makers were perfectly prepared to bend and distort in order to make a good story, this was not a "contribution to science" as someone in this thread said, it was a story on a commercial channel peppered with adverts, with false information in it and possibly some true stuff, who can tell given the distortions that can be easily seen. The programme showed "evidence", but not the rebuttals, critics and straight retractions of much of that "evidence" that have happened since.
Critical thinking is fine, but make sure it's applied equally on both sides of the argument, don't just apply it to "the other side". Rather quickly you'll find that both sides talk utter and total s**te and the only way forward is to mostly ignore the whole very poor debate.
The oft-exhalted "common sense" that gets a mention in this group quite regularly suggests that it makes sense that we can't just keep scoffing up our resources indefinitely however, so global warming or not it's a good move to try not to change our environment too much until the time comes when the science is understood better.
That's as daft a thing to say as Christians and Muslims slagging each other off for believing in a "false god"... Which tall tale do you want to believe in today?
Ian - if you check out the C4 website pages associated with the program they have both for and against website links (a LOT of them!) The last paragraph in their commentary even states that the big question is whether the "sceptics" or the "pro's" are right. I quote directly..."But is the effect of solar activity really enough to explain away global warming caused by the greenhouse effect? This is still a moot point"
Of course Monbiot couldn't have his own agenda in writing his own "sensationalised" article, could he?! Of course he isn't a raging greeny-eco loony, he is completely unbiased!!
As you said in your other post, and I agree with you, the science isn't fully understood on either side, but I do wonder why the sceptical scientists are receiving death threats - surely if the pro's are so sure they are right, why are they that worried about someone challenging their position - after all, that is the basis of good science.
If you haven't watched the program, it is well worth watching as it does make you think that the crap being fed to us on a daily basis isn't quite as black and white (in favour of human activity being responsible for GW) as you are lead to believe, and it gives some damn good reasons as to why it is in scientists/governments own interests to continue making us believe we are responsible.
At the end of the day, only 20/30 years time will reveal the real truth! Get back to me then! :-)
Indeed he is biassed, but the programme, according to those involved in making it, distorted their data and words to suit their own agenda and so was also highly biassed and dishonest. The programme was heavily biassed to put its own point of view because it was billed as an answer to the current ecological world view, so was bound to pull in a big audience. That's good for advertising, and it delivered a big hit, bending the research to suit. If their point was so strong, why did they need to do this?
For the same reason that animal researchers receive death threats, a few loonies unite with vehemence behind a cause, be it environmentalism, animal rights, rambling, or off-roading. It doesn't say anything about the actual subject.
So you think it's pro global warming scientists who are sending death threats? Loonies who probably don't even have jobs more like, who think they are in a war to "save the planet" and take it too far because they are actually, properly mad.
And how can you be so sure that no pro-global warming scientists haven't received death threats? There's a heck of a lot of them, at least some will have.
I don't believe that anything is black or white, because it never is, the world is full of shades of grey, and that goes for both sides of
*any* argument.
Oh I know why, research grants, fame, trying to "defeat capitalism", having a bogeyman to frighten us with, a cause to rally votes behind, even today Tony Liar said that he likened the fight against man-made emissions as akin to the fight against fascism and the cold war.
Those scientists not good enough to compete always have the option of being controversial, in the same way that some of them churn out stupid papers designed to catch headlines, like looking for the "god spot" in the brain, or trying to tie religion and science, or articles about penis size or breast size, anything that catches the eye of the journalists and might get them some telly time.
A controversial subject on telly gets lots of viewers and so attracts lots of advertising revenue. A controversial subject in a newspaper gets people to interact and send in letters, and/or buy the paper to get the next installment. On the BBC website, they publish yes/no "have your say" rant-fests on controversial subjects to show that they are "interactive" and "listening" to satisfy a requirement of their receiving the license fee, they go for emotive subjects because it attracts hordes of those with too much to say.
Which was one of the points made in the TV program - the IPCC report deliberately left out some very important scientific points against humans causing GW which the scientist involved displayed - they were only interested in people who said what they wanted to hear. Either side of the debate unfortunately suffers from exactly the same problem, meaning we can't fully trust either - make up your own mind! Perhaps I'll do a climate modelling project for my PhD and find out for myself!
The big problem I have with the whole Climate Change debate is that it is presented to us (usually daily) as a 'done and dusted' affair, all the science is done, no debate necessary - when quite clearly it is anything but. You need to have watched the program - it wasn't just about the science of GW. What the C4 program did, regardless of whether the science of the people involved was right or wrong (even C4 admit that it is a "moot point" as to whether the science in the program is right or not) was to show the "general public" that in actual fact there are a lot of people who seriously doubt what is being presented as 'fact' regarding CC, and that is why it has sparked such a debate.
Oh crikey, naughty them, not something the anti-CC people would do! And of course you can firmly believe that the IPCC report did exactly what was shown in the programme for devious reasons, because the programme wouldn't add any distortion, double-talk or neglect to mention any salient facts.
They were after all trying to inform, not entertain surely?
When there's a documentary on telly, try to imagine it as being presented by the Chuckle Brothers....
I don't think it's presented as that, just that it's by far the most likely explanation, and therefore expedient action needs to be taken. You can either take action against a likely outcome, or take no action and hope that the possibility it won't happen comes off. Governments can't afford the latter option.
That's what the programme *said*, not really what it *showed*, I've been lied to so many times by programmes on the idiot's lantern, and have seen so many programmes that dealt extremely poorly with subjects I know about, that I can't be bothered to believe either telly or newspapers much these days. Journalists and politicians are the least trusted and least trustworthy people in our society according to polls I've seen in the past, and this whole debate is thick with both, all with their own agendas.
You said that the programme showed there are a "lot of people" who doubt man-made climate change, just to take that one point, how can we tell how many, how that compares to those who think man-made climate change is most likely, whether those people know enough about the subject to have an opinion that matters, how those people were counted, whether people who expressed "no opinion" were counted as disagreeing with CC (they "didn't agree"), who pays the people who disagree, whether they are chasing research funding or not, whether the questions they were asked during any surveys were leading, whether the people targetted for questioning would skew the answers, and so on and on and on and on.
Then apply that degree of scepticism to almost every word you see or read on the telly or newspaper, as you're dealing with trained wordsmiths with their story to pad out and something to sell. Newspaper cover prices don't cover the costs of the paper so advertising is needed, and some big-name newspapers operate at a loss, bailed out by their owners for the financial and political influence they bring. If they inform you of something other than what's the in thing to buy, it's purely as a by-product.
The end result is that what's the point in regarding any of this kind of stuff as "facts" when there's almost no such thing as a "fact" as every layer between you and reality adds its own bias, misses some bits out, adds others in, emphasises some more than others, makes mistakes here and there and generally distorts it. Unless you're there at the coal face, just about everything else is like viewing the world through beer goggles, which is probably the best thing to do.
This is why I favour the pro-climate change model. Not because I believe in the science, how can I, I don't do it and don't trust the clipped, shuffled, re-arranged, compacted and massaged stuff we're fed, so if there's a very clear majority of people at the coal face who are all fairly convinced at the moment, then that's the path to follow --- for now. They're entitled to change their minds, but until they do, keep the faith.
Hi guys - fascinating debate that I suspect will remain increasingly polarised until we see some honesty on all sides of the arguments....
It's interesting to see that the 'alternative' analyses set out in the Ch4 documentary is now being described on air as 'a total falsification and a 'vile distortion and misrepresentation' of facts. I'm prepared to accept that there may have been a degree of selective reporting and spin applied to suit the purpose of challenging the conventional wisdom, but it seems to me that there were a couple of really important points presented that, if true, kill the anthropogenic CO2 argument stone dead......-
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but its not the CAUSE of Global Warming, it's a direct CONSEQUENCE of a warmer atmosphere and associated oceanic warming releasing more CO2 from the 'sink'. I recall that the proposition made on Ch4 was that atmospheric CO2 has been rising for many decades before significant contribution from human fossil fuel burning and that it lags atmospheric temperature rises by decades or even hundreds of years. - True, false, or don't know???
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's a very small fraction of the atmosphere and other much more significant greenhouse gasses are in the arena. Water vapour in particular was quoted as being a key greenhouse gas which is many orders of magnitude more influential to global warming than CO2. - true, false or don't know???
Human sources of atmospheric CO2 are a minute fraction of the CO2 emissions from the oceans and from volcanism and even from wildfires (and wilful destruction of tropical forest under slash and burn activity much loved in the underdeveloped tropics and defended for reasons of customary ethnic tradition). If human sourced CO2 is a tiny fraction of total CO2 released to the atmosphere, then the amount arising from internal combustion engines is even tinier and of course, the contribution from 4X4 vehicles is totally insignificant ( that route of course forms the main focus of bitter remediation measures from twisted politicos and eco-warriors desperate to reinforce the CO2 myth).
True, False or Don't Know (or won't hear a contrary view)???
These 3 key points certainly lead me to challenge the whole basis of the hysteria being orchestrated in recent years and the very doubtful measures and questionable emission reduction targets being pursued. I honestly believe now that it's a clever and convenient construct to raise taxation in the developed world whilst redistributing global wealth to the developing world all under the banner of saving the planet. I might even support some adjustment, but not on the kind of dishonest platform currently being used with the flaky anthropogenic CO2 arguments being constantly insinuated to justify unnecessary measures....kfm
And its concentration has doubled since the industrial revolution such that the earth now only recycles half of what gets into the atmosphere.
False I think but I've no way of proving it. How's this for a try: the proposition is that the sun's radiation has high energy, it passes through a *clear* atmosphere and is either absorbed or reflected, the ratio of absorption to reflection is the albedo of the earth, that reflected does not heat anything significantly. That which is absorbed heats up the surface, a heated body radiates heat, so this radiation heads back to space, but it's now a different wavelenght as it's being emitted by a cooler body, the earth, rather than the sun as previously. The wavelengths now being re radiated have to pass through the atmosphere which is a cocktail of gases. All the re radiated wavelengths that are absorbed by water vapour are trapped whatever the humidity, so these have always kept the atmosphere warm, increasing water in the atmosphere thus has no extra effect. Much of the spectrum that is absorbed by CO2 never used to be intercepted by a CO2 molecule so went on its way back to space, doubling the CO2 thus doubles the chances of intercepting these wavelengths, similar is true of the other GHG gases such as methane.
I always tended to think it was a weak mechanism compared with solar activity or changes in the albedo. A big mechanism for change in albedo is pollution, especially small sooty particles.
Whatever the reasons there are also other compelling reasons not to pollute or waste energy so as cutting GHG also leads to a cleaner atmosphere and conserving energy it seems sensible.
Well I'm glad at least two of us realise that we're not all-knowing..
I was reading an article earlier in a physics magazine from an atmospheric boffin, and was just about following what he was saying. There are different isotopes of carbon, you've probably heard about Carbon 14 as its presence in carbonic matter can be used to fairly precisely age the matter. Different isotopes of carbon can also be used to identify the source of the carbon from its age, and the ratios of various isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere and in the oceans are well known. Back in the 1950s it was known that the amount of fossil-aged carbon in the atmosphere was rising rapidly, with the only source known being oil, coal and other byproducts. The amount of "old" carbon in the sea on the other hand wasn't changing so it wasn't being absorbed into the sea. The ratios and change rates matched the reasonably accurate estimates of how much carbon we were shoving into the atmosphere at the time. The chap ended the letter with the question that if the increase in atmospheric fossil-age carbon was not down to us, and the amount in the sea wasn't changing, then where is the thousands of billions of tonnes of carbon we burn each year going?
Now this was likely to be a small part of his letter, edited for the "Physics Today" magazine, and is a tiny amount of the kind of detail that the climatologists and others go into in their research. Is he right, and were there rebuttals to his letter, and if there were, would we understand what they were saying? Would we be able to understand even the abstracts of the papers written on these subjects, and can we decide which of them are right and which are wrong?
Those of us who aren't experts in the field can't "argue" about climate change as we just don't have the knowledge. We all have our fields of expertise, but when it comes to climate change, it's like a mechanic trying to understand brain surgery. We might be able to grasp the very basic concepts, but that's about it, and that's not good enough to "discuss" the issue.
All the arguments in the media are about this paper against that one, this journalists against that one, it's not about the detailed science as jounalists and computer spods don't have the knowledge required to actually engage with the subject. Stupid TV documentaries that have non-experts lining up to praise them don't help, it's pure politics, not science.
I made a film last year for the Welsh Assembly Government entitled 'Planning For Climate Change' we co-produced it with the Centre for Alternative Technology. During the course of the production we interviewed several leading scientists and visited universities and research establishments. It seemed to me to be a profound statement by Sir John Houghton, the ex chair of the intergovernmental climate change study group, that isotope studies revealed without any ambiguity whatsoever, that man made carbon was the overwhelming contributor to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and that the speed rate of this increase was unprecedented in the Earths geophysical record over the last several hundred million years AND that contrary to the small group of gainsayers, the temperature increase is almost exactly in line with the increase of CO2.
Ian's point about the incognoscent and half baked blatherings of media spin doctors and those who equally incognescently latch on to such blatherings in order to assert certain self interests, such as lets carry on making a mess because we love our cars and who agree with anyone who seems to say human pollution is of little consequence in order to justify their whims, is of course right on the money.
Indeed, no-one should like to live in their own shit. The answer though is not punishment and restriction like this government of arts graduates is suggesting, but a massive engineering effort to develop workable technologies to counteract the effects.
Isn't it time we knocked this GW shit on the head on this newsgroup? It's got nowt to do with LRs, and my browser seems always to be full of it when I look in. There must be plenty of other much more relevant NG's where the usual suspects can spout diatribe to their heart's content.....
That must be true, and I agree with you on it being a natural happening. (8000 of the last 10000 years have been warmer than now) But there's so much diatribe with the normal counterproductive signal to noise ratio - I can't see what we are achieving, the tree huggers certainly don't frequent this NG.
Personally I don't think GW is shit but that is bye the bye.
What is going to happen is that oil is going to run out and sooner rather than later.
Now if the GW hook can be used to hang the proper full scale developement of renewable energy sources on to so be it. 'Cause the world, particulary the western world, will come to a very sudden and messy collapse when the oil does dry up. Look how rapidly the supermarket shelves emptied of fresh foods during the fuel dispute a year or so back. Like it or not our life style is *TOTALY* dependant on a relaible, cheap, fuel supply take that away and you rapidly have 60 million very hungry people in the UK alone. Now I doubt the oil will run out overnight but prices are going to rise, if you think energy is expensive now think again...
Also bear in mind that most Middle Eastern oil states have been saying they still have the same reserves of oil as that had 20 years ago, despite pumping billions of barrels out of said reserves...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.