International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[Piero]

...and much like the Titanic' date=' the global warming predictions hold no water. ZING!!!! [/quote']

 

that zing was a lemon!

 

[Cuttlefish]

Lol funny Piero

[Twitterbait]

Ok folks, i found a very fascinating video clip from the UK... it is a long one but very interesting. Supports my side a little more.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming

[Piero]

Thanks for the link.

 

here's the Digg entry. link

 

some of the comments:

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

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

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

George Monboit's response to the film: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

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

 

I am stunned that the majority of reactions here are in support of a sensationalist/tabloid polemic pseudo-documentary with faked evidence and quotes from either disreputable scientists or in the case of Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (as the program loved to say), quoted and edited completely out of context to the point of reversing the point of what he actually said!

At least check his own comments on the matter. Someone who was involved with the documentary and isn't too happy with the result.

http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

I am not a believer or a denier. I was completely open-minded when I watched this and I am ashamed to say now, I was almost duped by it but decided to do some hard reading.

there is no debate or dispute.

As little as the CO2 is in the atmosphere, that doesn't make it nothing to think about.

Man is doing harm.

Think otherwise then you are just stupid, uneducated or maybe lazy and refusing to take the time to study the real facts.

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

"Oh great a scientist that gets his funding from major energy companies.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/what_does_tim_ball_mean_by_to.php"

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

 

I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves global warming!

So infact we can't attack the global warming deniers science, because it has never been published! And don't refer me to blogs and newspaper articles.

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

 

The Denial machine

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

 

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

 

There are so many fun analogies we use to make sense of what is a mind bogglingly complex science. Instead of contributing another analogy for the science, let me add an analogy of the scientists.

 

The science and controversy behind global warming is as if you had a stomachache. 12,000 Doctors say you have an appendicitis and need an operation immediately, 100 say it is just gas.

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

 

Here's the Gaurdian article today with a thorough thrashing of the Channel 4 misinformation special.

"Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2026124,00.html

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

 

Well, well, well this latest news on the programme comes as no real suprise that controversial film maker Martin Durkin once again has been up to his old tricks!

 

" The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

 

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

 

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."

Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

 

- The Independent

 

Full article here :

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

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

 

Misrepresentations of the facts and lack of joined-up thinking abound here!

 

If I may, I'll try to clear a few points up and remind the climate change sceptics of the current situation:

 

1. The basic physics and chemistry connecting 'greenhouse gasses' (e.g. water vapour, CO2, methane etc.) to warming of the atmosphere is rock solid and had been known about since 1824. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas

2. We (industrial humans) have been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the biosphere can dispose of since just before the Industrial Revolution started in England. We have been emitting more of other greenhouse gasses from industry, agriculture and construction too.

3. No one is saying there haven't been significantly hotter or cooler periods; plenty of research is ongoing into how the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere were set up during these periods and how that relates to the various orbital and solar cycles.

4. The recent IPCC report says YES there is a large effect due to solar activity. They also say they are 95% certain that there is an effect that they cannot account for without human-created atmospheric changes.

5. YES, models can and are wrong. NO, that doesn't mean you can't actually learn from and use them to make broad predictions. (I'd argue that if complex interrelated models can't be trusted, then most of economics beyond the basics is similarly flawed)

6. CO2 is both the cause _and_ the effect of warming: Cause as a greenhouse gas (see above) and effect because warming can cause the release of greenhouse gasses due to many factors including decreasing glaciation and increased microbial action in once frozen areas.

7. CO2 does both follow and precede warming because of factors mentioned in 7 above and also because, in the example given in the film, the increase in CO2 came from volcanic activity which added lots of dust and sulphur particulates into the atmosphere. These particulates reflect heat back into space, hence causing what is called Global Cooling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

8. EVEN if you can argue (wrongly) CO2 doesn't cause climate change, or man hasn't changed the atmosphere (he has), we do know CO2 DOES cause ocean acidification which has the potential to destroy the base of the food chain in the oceans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

Given the Sun is the primary cause of the recent warming - and obviously as the primary heat source in the solar system, it must be - then to mitigate the damage to human economies, lives and wildlife we get two choices:

 

1. Reduce the greenhouse effect by reducing the proportion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere;

2. Reduce the output from the Sun.

 

We clearly have a degree of control over the former, whereas the latter is basically sci-fi for now.

 

In summary: CO2 matters. So does other stuff. We don't get to control the other stuff.

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

 

more...

Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?

[Cuttlefish]

Geez Piero that's quite a response,

 

What I took away from the video and the responses I read from your post is that NO ONE can predict what will or won't happen. BOTH sides are notorious for making errors in the field of climatology. One point that the movie made and that the resoponses only proved (to me) is the shrill tenor of discourse. I think it was the first link you posted had a response with an ad hominem attack on the director and also cut into some of the scientists. Do you see why folks get defensive and even more skeptical? Why can't we agree that global warming is a very real possibility BUT that WAY more data should be gathered before we can draw conclusions and make predictions of catastrophe and hinder economic progress. Another point the movie makes and the responses prove is the level of politics in science today. That needs to stop ASAP or science will be relegated to junk science and history will put it in the same category of Yellow Journalism.

[Piero]

To be clear, I was just posting comments from a Digg thread. And yes, that first article seemed way too personal in terms of its justifications I think.

 

oh, there was one sentence from me in the previous post:

"Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?"

[Twitterbait]

When these "climatologists" can finally predict the local weather tomorrow with some degree of accuracy i may start to believe something they say about the whole world.

[cyenna]

When these "climatologists" can finally predict the local weather tomorrow with some degree of accuracy i may start to believe something they say about the whole world.

 

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

 

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

 

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

[reefgeek84]

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

 

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

 

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

 

I believe in this as well...However, this has nothing to do with global warming and emissions. The biggest thing and what most people do not want to conquer or even talk about is population control.

 

You are right we are a throw away society and this should change. We used to have places that repaired everything, shoes, VCRs, TV's, kitchen appliances...but now when one breaks we throw it away. This needs to change and so does people have 5 or 6 kids each and then they all move into houses. I guess this is mean, but my father has 8 children and I disagree with that...it is no longer a necessity in this world to have that many children. I believe these two things, will impact our world quicker then any global warming issues that may or may not be truth.

[cyenna]

I believe in this as well...However, this has nothing to do with global warming and emissions. The biggest thing and what most people do not want to conquer or even talk about is population control.

 

 

Just want to point out that many things contribute/enhance/whatever to global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions is not a sole source. If there were just one source to global warming then this "problem" would be much easier to understand.

[cyenna]

You are right we are a throw away society and this should change. We used to have places that repaired everything, shoes, VCRs, TV's, kitchen appliances...but now when one breaks we throw it away. This needs to change and so does people have 5 or 6 kids each and then they all move into houses. I guess this is mean, but my father has 8 children and I disagree with that...it is no longer a necessity in this world to have that many children. I believe these two things, will impact our world quicker then any global warming issues that may or may not be truth.

 

Agreed! All we need now is a new strain of influenza! (laugh)

[180Bob]

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

 

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

 

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

 

I agree with you. That is why I will be out on a coastal beach this Saturday cleaning up plastic bags, cups, deodorants etc. that others have seen fit to toss out.

[Piero]

interesting reads

 

good stuff from a WIRED blog on the subject of GW debate.

 

How the Internet Is Not Like Science

 

How to Argue About Global Warming

[H20cooled]

Just found this BBC video and all I can say it WOW, it explains a lot...

[inkto]

That was quite enjoyable. Good link.

 

But don't forget this one... Scam of 'The Global Warming Swindle'

 

It's not nearly as entertaining as the 'documentaries' on global warming (those in favor or against the mainstream beliefs.) It does, however, remind you that any demonstration, documentary or lecture with a budget behind it is intended to convey a specific message of who is right and who is wrong. The actual science is far too complex to express in political and/or activist driven agendas.

 

[H20cooled]

Yeah I thought it was one of the best videos that I have seen in a long time especially coming from the "mainstream" media. Everyone making statements were Professors, Doctors, and other professionals in the industry. It will be interesting to see how people are going to refute their claims.

[Piero]

The (current) global authority on the subject is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The first part of their report prompted this thread, and last week they released the second part of that report.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/dust.bowl.ap/

[H20cooled]

And your point is?

 

Does that mean you are not going to watch that video then, because you've already bought into the whole report completely?

[cyenna]

Does that mean you are not going to watch that video then' date=' because you've already bought into the whole report completely?[/quote']

 

That video is long. I watched the first ten minutes. Nice graphs- i like how they're animated(laugh) . The point they seem to be making is that climate change occurs. Ya, duh. Now where I disagree with them is the attitude they take: they seem believe that humans have no impact and that we should do nothing about climate change because "we shouldn't give in to propaganda". I'm not going to reiterate reasons on why humans do have an impact but I have to point out that: 1. this movie uses the same tactics that they accuse "the other side" of using 2. we should do something because climate change affects humans - just because the change was mild in the past ages doesn't mean this next one will be bearable.

 

A climate change will mean huge economic losses and people in warm third world countries will suffer even more. Climate change affects animals (which, btw, humans are the first species to be the cause of the mass extinction of other animals), it influences where people live and how they make their living. Out of all this global warming "stuff" i've seen nothing bad happen except for creating a bunch of naysayers who just like naysaying. Global warming (as defined in this debate, i.e., human influenced) pushes for "greener" legislation, it causes awareness, it necessitates innovation, and creates a progressive society. Why is that bad?

[H20cooled]

cyenaa,

Yes the video is long, but you completely missed the entire discussion of why humans are NOT impacting the earth. I'm not even going to discuss it anymore with you if you will not even take the time to watch the entire video.

[180Bob]

I watched the whole video several weeks ago. I found it to be as anti-global warming biased as others have been in support of human caused global warming. I personally have no doubt that man has changed the environment. It started when he/she took his first breath and exhaled carbon dioxide. The real question is how much we are changing the environment, and what we should do about it. Should we do nothing, or should we all give up our cars and walk. My view is that the truth is somewhere between the viewpoints.

[cyenna]

cyenaa,

Yes the video is long, but you completely missed the entire discussion of why humans are NOT impacting the earth. I'm not even going to discuss it anymore with you if you will not even take the time to watch the entire video.

 

ok then, have a nice life (laugh)

[H20cooled]

ok then' date=' have a nice life (laugh)[/quote']

 

How am I supposed to have a discussion with you about the video or the topic if you don't even want to watch the video?

[Piero]

without rehashing too much of what has already been established repeatedly:

 

I am not a UN climatologist, so I couldn't possibly debate the meaning or validity of climate science data. All I can do is try to debate the apparent validity of data sources. That being said: I do believe that the best minds in the world on the subject are involved with the UN IPCC. If the IPCC report is in fact misguided in any way, then there are qualified climate scientists who have the burden of proving that to their peers, not reef hobbyists.

 

Granted my 'faith' in the worldwide scientific community comes from a bias towards the validity of peer-reviewed scientific methods. But I suspect I'd probably arrive at the same conclusion if I simply used probability and statistics to determine the chances that various sources are providing accurate information.

 

I think perhaps a more pragmatic approach to determining the validity of sources like that video, would be to find out what the professional scientific community has said about it.

[Piero]

re: the film. I watched the first ten minutes which, to me, seemed full of some really questionable statements. Here are some real climate scientists responding to claims from the film:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/