What Do We Think About Climate Change

[masalai]

Nice video on SBS Tue 5 August 08 - on Canadian research / coastguard vessel - your current summer season - NW passage may be permanently open sooner than you pessimists care to acknowledge....

[Boston]

a piece in a lecture by a DR J Jackson pointed out that the insurers and the operating body of the panama canal is quite concerned about the nw passage opening up
and is using predictions that would even made the "ALARMISTS" look alarmed
in determining how much to spend on maintenance and modernization of the canal when it may be seeing a significant drop in traffic in the near future

hmmmm
wonder what they know that some of the rest of us dont know eh

Ive heard some hog wash in this thread that sounded surprisingly similar to junk run up the flag pole on a show called
the great global warming swindle
this piece was exactly that
a veritable jewel of shining crap
any one remember this show that aired a short while back
it pro-ported to explain the problems with global warming theory
well they are getting sued
by a hole bunch of scientists who they misrepresented as questioning global warming in the movie
the first step in the law suet is to register a complaint and get a retraction
first step accomplished
after all the main thing is to spread the good word
we can change our future for the better
all it takes is a little courage to escape the status quo

here is a portion of an article were one of the scientists describes his fight against big business and the media


Dave Rado, who co-ordinated a formal complaint to Ofcom, explains why he felt compelled to challenge the programme's contents.

"When I sat down to watch the screening of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 in March last year, I had no idea how much of an impact it would have on my life.
Fifteen months later, after a 176-page complaint involving more than 20 scientists and other distinguished academics, the film's contents have now been scrutinised by the UK media regulator.
I was initially wary of doing anything public regarding my involvement with the Ofcom complaint - I'm merely a concerned citizen, and what's important is the quality of the other contributors, who include many of the world's most respected climate scientists.
But when I was told that it was possible that the film-maker might try to portray himself as the "David", being ganged up against by the "Goliath" of the scientific establishment, I reconsidered.
I'm simply a person, unconnected with any environmental or scientific group, who believes that a public service broadcaster should not be allowed to deceive the public about science - particularly on issues that have profound implications for our future.
Natural Sceptic
My interest in climate science and my subsequent involvement in this project were sparked several years ago.

Channel 4 said it aired the film to show that the climate debate was not over
A friend told me there was a global conspiracy involving nearly all of the world's governments, most of the world's scientists and the media to convince the public that there is a major human influence on climate when they were well aware there was no evidence for this.
I am a natural sceptic, and find it hard to take conspiracy theories seriously; but out of respect for my friend I decided to research the issue in depth.
After reading hundreds of scientific papers and summaries I was struck by the quite extraordinary amount of evidence - and more importantly, the many completely independent lines of evidence that all point in the same direction - that human greenhouse gas emissions are indeed profoundly changing the climate, and that the problem is going to become extremely serious in the long run unless emissions are cut drastically.
Moreover, all of the papers I read disputing this premise used the cherry picking of evidence as a tactic. Many of them recycled long discredited myths, while others used statistically flawed techniques, in an apparent attempt to massage data in order to support their desired conclusions.
This also led me to find a number of high profile websites devoted entirely to peddling misinformation about climate - many of them run by, and most of them funded by, lobby groups that campaign against action on climate change. Many of these lobby groups are partly funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.
So my friend was right that there are many people actively engaged in a well-funded attempt to subvert mainstream science and to mislead the public; although he seems to have been mistaken about which side is doing most of the subverting.
So by the time I watched Swindle, after all the reading I'd done, I was flabbergasted by both its brazenness and its unprecedented number of deceptions.

I hope that in some small way the complaint...provides inspiration to others who would challenge questionable assertions made by certain sections of the media
We have a right to expect broadcasters not to set out to mislead us; yet to me, this was exactly what Channel 4 and Wag TV appeared to be doing.
Where Channel 4 claimed the film was an attempt to give a minority a voice, I saw it as a systematic attempt to deceive the public, an out and out propaganda piece masquerading as a science documentary.
The morning after the broadcast, I posted on the blog of the British Antarctic Survey's scientist William Connolley, saying that I wanted to complain to Ofcom and asking whether any scientists could help me write a comprehensive complaint.
Nathan Rive and Brian Jackson responded to my post and became my two co-lead authors. William Connolley also agreed to peer review it. I wrote the same morning to Carl Wunsch, who confirmed to me what I suspected - that he had been duped.
There followed a frantic three months, in which most of my spare time was devoted to co-ordinating, editing, recruiting authors and peer reviewers, and managing the peer review process.
Humbling experience
I was astounded by how many of the world's most distinguished scientists and other academics in relevant fields were willing to devote time to the project.


For example, Bert Bolin, widely regarded as the world's most distinguished climate scientist until his sad death from cancer last December, agreed to peer review some sections. Many other academics of similar standing also made huge and very time-consuming contributions, in some cases giving up several weekends in order to do so.
I found this very humbling.
The complaint was submitted in early June last year. Much of it related to individuals and organisations having had their views unfairly misrepresented without being given an opportunity to respond in the film.
In October, after receiving the sections of our complaint relating to former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Channel 4 responded with a very long document that we felt was packed with misinformation. Our response was written and reviewed by as distinguished a group of scientists as the original complaint had been, including one former and one current IPCC Co-Chair.
Largely because of Channel 4's tactics - which included trying to have our complaint thrown out - the entire process dragged on for more than a year, a huge waste of public money.
The experience has left me feeling that the odds are greatly stacked in the broadcasters' favour.
How often would ordinary members of the public have the time, inclination or support from scientists to jump over so many hurdles? And unlike the anti-Al Gore court case, there has been no rich benefactor behind this complaint - just the time and goodwill of a large number of academics who object to their fields of study being misrepresented.
In February, I began building a website called Ofcom Swindle Complaint containing our complaint, which I hope will become an educational resource for the public.
Given that many of the inaccuracies and misleading arguments in the Swindle are widely used elsewhere, I thought that the detailed response in our complaint, with thousands of links to supporting evidence, should be available to the public in an easily accessible format. I'll continue to improve the website as time goes on.
Mixed feelings
Now that Ofcom has published its ruling, I'm looking forward to getting back to my life again.
While I am very pleased that the regulators upheld our complaint that a number of scientists who contributed to the programme were unfairly treated, I am surprised and disappointed by its accuracy verdict.
Ofcom says that it was only able to consider the documentary's accuracy in terms of whether it was misleading enough to cause harm.
The issue of whether or not a programme is factually accurate only applies to news media, they explained.
Because The Great Global Warming Swindle fell outside of this category, they were not in a position to make a ruling on the accuracy of some of the assertions that the programme presented as fact.
If this is the case, then I would argue that Ofcom's remit needs to be revised in order to protect the public when it comes to programmes' accuracy on matters of science."

[masalai]

My perception of - the 'popular American media' is, if it is presented on a show like, - what is it called - 'springer' - or something, - as a 'comedy skit', - then it is regarded as the Gospel truth, and accepted, as a well researched and true fact by the American populace...?

I do my due diligence, find trusted non-commercial sources, and maintain regular updates from there and ignore the ijits and other hype sources.... and try to keep my own counsel.....

[Jimbo1490]

Boston:

The Vostok Core temperature reconstruction is at the 'core' of the problem with AGW theory; The cause and effect is bass-ackwards. Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years. You cannot blithely blow off this undisputed fact. To even try to blow it off as unimportant is dishonest and disingenuous.

If the relationship was as predicted by your camp, you can bet your life the AGW alarmists such as you fine self would be crowing from the rooftops! But the universe seems disinterested in your pet theory. One of your long-winded, preachy posts won't make this rather large incongruity go away, either.

The Vostok Cores show the opposite relationship predicted by AGW alarmists. The theory rests on the idea that CO2 drives temperatures, the empirical facts show otherwise.

Jimbo

[Landlubber]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

[Boston]

am tonight blessed with a fine evening on the town
and a lovely drinking companion
to continue my eveni g
maybe in the morrow I will adress these points
but for now
Im working on not passing out
best
B

hhoiuld have frank less
'hope all is ewll
gottago
:-)_
B

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Boston:

The Vostok Core temperature reconstruction is at the 'core' of the problem with AGW theory; The cause and effect is bass-ackwards. Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years.

I do not think that we're talking in terms of several hundred years her, (as in; I don't think it matters...). To me, there seem to be some connection here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png

Which came first; the hen or the egg? (probably the egg...?)

I did my math earlier, pissed as I was at these screaming environmentalists, and brain dead journalists feeding us with this as an entertainment issue, no numbers, just the statements. As a result of that I got a bit worried (and at first I got only 25% of what I end up with nowadays...). What's happening now, will however have natural variations, we will have cold days, we will have warm days... Short terms, and long terms, business as usual, no matter what we do...

But;
The amount of energy warming our waters, is frightening. I have not considred the 25-30% land areas, nor the insulation effect by rising CO2... There is no way, that all this rise in temperature is caused only by human activity. Increased temperatures will give more evaporation, what goes up, comes down, more dry weather, more rain (snow, that white things..) more extreme weather....

We're adding our contributions to this problem. Just because we can do somthing; does that mean we have the right to do so?

And should we continue with it, or change? Worst case scenario, what was that again.....

And yes.... I'm a cynical sceptic.... Or vise versa.

I believe oil companies, car manufacturers, and others actually have seen this writing on the wall earlier, way far earlier than most of us. They have at least "some" interest in knowing the long term predictions for theyr industry. I believe they are determined to milk our stupid ass way of living to the last drop.... Then they finally end up in the best possible position for presenting green energy, green transportation, green whatever.....

Bottom line... Is it murder? (or at least a tiny bit unethical?);
If I use 20-40 years to kill a person? If I kill many persons? If I get a lot of other stupid asses with me on this killing mission? Manage to do so without leaving a single fingerprint, leaving no DNA...? Extreme weather will kill people... How much/many is natural, acceptable killings? How do we partition out the responsibility for the extra no of kills? (caused by our added effect to the extreme weather?).

Have a nice day....

[safewalrus]

To add to te entertainment seems the British Admiralty has checked the logs of Nelson and Cook and a few others, appears there was global warming then too - you ain't going to tell me that was down to the invention of cannon are you? and the other nasty things 'umans do - guess the end of the last ice age was down to the invention of the bow and arrow.......

Yes Ugg nothing good will come of this letting go of the spear thing!!

[Jimbo1490]

~400 years was the minimum lag noted and the longest was ~900, the average is quoted at ~800 years since the lag slants more to the long end of the range most of the time. The lag was *NEVER* as little as 20-40 years as you suggest. The AGW camp got it wrong; pure and simple. Let's just wait and see how long it takes them to admit it.

As for the lawsuit against Martin Durkin and company, I mean they (the IPCC and cronies) couldn't very well COUNTER-sue the groups of scientists that had ALREADY sued the IPCC for misrepresenting THEIR work for that body by counting them in with the so-called "Consensus" of scientists that believe global warming is caused by human activity, when in fact they believed (and wrote) the exact opposite opinion in their contributions to the IPCC report!
(Especially so since the IPCC capitulated; neither side had neither grievance no damage any longer)

Rather than sue those scientists, sue a film maker! Sounds like a plan to me

[the1much]

only if the "film maker" wrote the script,,,if he told the scientist to say what they have "found" then they should be.

[Jimbo1490]

[quote=if he told the scientist to say what they have "found" then they should be.[/QUOTE]

The IPCC is known for pressuring scientists and attempting to influence their writings much more do than Martin Durkin ever could. On top of that, they (the politicians at the UN, not the scientists) HEAVILY influence (oversee, really) the writing of the "Executive Summary for Policymakers", the only part the majority of people will ever see or even hear quotations from.

The thing is the tone of this summary often bears little resemblance to that found in the body of the report, you know, the part with the ACTUAL FACTS.

I bet most people don't even know that there is significant uncertainty in the latest IPCC report as to whether humans have actually warmed the climate AT ALL; in fact we may have COOLED IT! But you can bet that little bit didn't make the executive summary

Jimbo

[masalai]

Time will tell - - - The "Do nothing" protagonists will likely suffer badly if "warming" turns out to be a disaster.... If the "do nothing / no problems" lobby is quiet then the "Look out the sky is falling" global warming lobby will be likewise persecuted for stifling / strangling economic growth....

The observant ones who keep their own counsel can jump on which-ever bandwagon was right hehehehe - - - I cannot see that anyone has the definitive proof yet....

[the1much]

thats what i find sooooo amusing,,,is there ANYBODY that can prove either way?,,,,with facts that are observed by EVERYONE?,,,,we have 24 hour web cam in millions of places,,,,,,we have thousands of film crews,,,,,how come noone can SHOW ( without a graph saying,,"this is what i observed"),,,,,,,,set up a cam,,, do your test, get results.......and film or broadcast every second of the WHOLE process.?????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by the1much

thats what i find sooooo amusing,,,is there ANYBODY that can prove either way?,,,,with facts that are observed by EVERYONE?,,,,we have 24 hour web cam in millions of places,,,,,,we have thousands of film crews,,,,,how come noone can SHOW ( without a graph saying,,"this is what i observed"),,,,,,,,set up a cam,,, do your test, get results.......and film or broadcast every second of the WHOLE process.?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Jim,

The trouble with that approach is that we are talking about a process where even a decade of time is way too small a sample to really observe meaningful trends. On the scale of hundreds or thousands of years we can observe trends, but nobody lives long enough to do that, so we have to depend on what came before. We have to look to the past. Fortunately, the past has much (he he) to say and it ain't so kind to the AGW crowd.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Jim that still wouldn't prove anything.... either side will claim "a regular anomaly, proves nothing....."