<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=9005566792811497638&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed> watch the whole thing, if you have the time, and the courage to examine what you think you "know."
In the first minute, I heard three either lies or deceptive misrepresentations. It was at that point I stopped watching. It seems that they are trying to do exactly what they claim is being done by the other side; make stuff up and claim that it is science in order to be believed. Furthermore, you have previously claimed that you accept the reality of global warming, but you consistently posted 'evidence' against it. This just makes you look like either a bold faced liar or a hypocrite. If you think that it is not true, just say so. The vast majority here are already of the opinion that you believe in some insane ideas. One more won’t hurt.
watch a little more, what they're trying to say is the science isn't settled, and further, there are some fairly provacative statements about the effects of the ant-global warming crusade and the ability of the 3rd world to modernize.
Yes I know that has been the marketing strategy employed by the GW-deniers for the last few years. You must have missed the memo though, because as the evidence has mounted the strategy has switched from "science is unclear" to "well we can't cry over spilt milk" Anyway realclimate.org (run by scientists, not polititicians) has responeded to this: http://www.realclimate.org/ as has one of the experts cited: Mr. Steven Green Head of Production Wag TV 2D Leroy House 436 Essex Road London N1 3QP 10 March 2007 Dear Mr. Green: I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change--- in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced? I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved. I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that. What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud. I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be. At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest. Sincerely, Carl Wunsch Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Of course the science isn't settled. The problem with the global warming debate is that people are arguing about if the science is settled. Its not a matter of whether its settled its a matter of looking at the probabilities. This is the same tactic used by those who criticize Evolution that because we don't know everything therefore the theory must be wrong. It may be wrong but that is a lower probability. The problem though with global warming is how long are we going to wait to get certainty? If we're going to make decisions on future events we can't count on certainty but probabilities. Regarding how the 3rd World Country's might be affected its interesting to note that many of the people making that point aren't people from the 3rd World but representatives of big multi-national energy interests. The point missed by this argument is that many 3rd World Countries stand to potentially gain as they could profit off of trading carbon credits and at the same time many in the 3rd World stand to lose the most from a warmer climate. Also there is a huge fallacy in the argument that limiting carbon emitting technology limits development because countries need not follow the same development model that the US and Europe has. IN fact it would be much more beneficial for the 3rd World to follow a different model than the industrial model we did.
more beneficial to whom? in the model you suggest 1st world continues to burn carbon based fuels, much of it shipped from thrid wold countries, to support its industrialized economies. surely, if we're serious about GW, we should be doing more than just buying offsets. as i said in another thread, when hollywood stars give up their private planes and limos for coach class and priuses, and begin to preach the climate benefits of nuclear power, i'll believe the problem is as serious as the scientists say.
First world buys carbon offsets from thirld world. Third world takes money to invest in building more efficient and less energy intensive infrastructure. That is what they should be doing anyway. It will be impossible for the Thirld World to develop the same way we did. There isn't enough resources or environment to sustain that. At least with carbon trading offsets the Third World has a way to profit off of less energy intensive development. So you look to Hollywood stars for how you live your life? Just because Hollywood is chock full of hypocrites doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing anything about it.
Science is never settled, but that doesn't stop people from using science to make artificial insulin, or from designing the microwave oven, or from suggesting the strong possibility that global warming is happening and heavy industry is, at least partially, contributing to it. Yes, it's always a good idea to model your opinions and pattern your actions on what celebrities are doing.
No but it underscores that basso's involvement, interest, and views on GW are dictated solely by politics and not by any attempt to understand the science or scientists. I've said thsi before, I'll say it again, if the vast majority of scientists reversed their views I'd reverse mine with them. Moreover I'd be quite relieved. That doesn't hold true for basso and the GW-deniers-of-the-month club. As soon as one report or theory is debunked (or never even bunked in the first place) - they just move on to the next quack who agrees with their politics and babble the same lines about science being unproven.
I find it interesting and revealing, basso, that you seem to want to discuss whether the problem exists based on how difficult or easy it might be to fix the problem. That is clasic Freudian denial, and in most cases is not the sign of a healthy thought process. Reality and the laws of the natural world exist independently of how convenient it is for you to know about them. BTW, if you demand proof of the greenhouse properties of CO<sub>2</sub> and H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> you can compare Mercury and Venus. Despite being nearly twice as far from the sun, the Venusian surface temperature is several hundred degrees above that of Mercury. There is no way that this can account for, without a runaway greenhouse effect from caused by high levels of those two molecules.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g1MYY-IQ_yU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g1MYY-IQ_yU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
There's no point in debating any topic on here because people are already set in their ways. People are always trying to release some startling new fact, but the bottom line is that no one ever really reconsiders their original position.
That's simply not true. I suppose it makes you feel good to write it, but it is not true. I have had my own opinions influenced by what I've read here over the years. I can give you an example, if you wish. D&D. Garden Party... Lots of Dirt.
It allows you to drive big cars/trucks, waste energy, waste food and make you feel like a manly king...
Everything about the global warming debate inconclusive. It bothers the crap out of me when people talk about new facts/findings that "clearly" show global warming to be true/false (and no, I'm not saying the video was trying to do that). The only thing that we know for sure is...in the last 100 years, global temperatures have been rising exponentially. Whether we're the cause of it, or whether it's just a blip in the temperature of the geological era is completely up for grabs. There's no way you can possibly conclusively prove or disprove one or the other. Personally, I really couldn't care less whether greenhouse emissions are the problem. I'm pretty sure they don't help any. Ergo, I'm pro-emissions-reduction (or whatever).
i don't own a car, take public transportation most everywhere, and fly only if the trip is more than eight hours away, otherwise i take the train.
