So i was watching the tv last night and on it was a programme on man made global warming the modern day myth. It basically stated that global warming was not the result of mans impact on the enviroment and it was due to the suns activities. Also it said that the data used to support the theory was twisted in such a way to prove it to be true. This was apparantly done due to mainly political reasons, mainly that the west didnt want to rely on the middle east for oil and would prefer to use nuclear power instead. So the polititions at the time went to the scientists here you can have the cash go investigate. So then the scientists investigate, say oh dear they maybe a problem can we have some more money etc and then it carries on like this till the modern day.
So the question is, is it all propaganda to wage a silent economic war with the middle east, to control the masses to keep us in fear that life as we know it may be at an end soon?
Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
Didn’t see the show but I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the temperature information at: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Let’s just say that it is far from conclusive that global warming is even happening, let alone that it’s the greatest threat to human civilisation since Islamic Terrorism/Communism/Capitalism/whatever else…
First of all it was a good program but i cant remember what it was called, but anyway. It said that the global warming was due to a rise in co2, but apparantly the rise in co2 is following the temperature rise not the other way round. Also it was shown that the temperature average around 1100ad was alot warmer than today. So really it seems valid but as to whos right or wrong I dont know , but it does seem interesting from the propaganda stand point, epsecially while the war is going on. I have noticed that the gren debate has stepped up when the coverage of the war isnt looking in our favour, so is it a distraction technique?
This is one of the many reasons i dont watch the news or read papers its all crap, mindless twisted crap.
It isn’t all crap, by any means, and by not watching it you give up your right to criticise it. Would you offer an opinion on a book that you hadn’t read?
Ok very occaisionally i will read a paper (i like the crosswords) but as a rule i have found that with the media its a different story same mentality. So unless the whole way that the media is made up is changed i cant see that it isnt going to any less full of crap. The stories are like a pearl little bit of truth covered in the gloss. I do see that for some its a valuable resource but while there are people out there using it to portray there version of the truth im not interested. ( i also realise that its always going to be the case of there version of the truth but i wish it wasnt to such an extent)
Ohhh, gonna go with scientific concensus on this one.
Which one is that then, it is our fault or its not? It is happening or its not because the scientific community cant seem to agree.
I’ve yet to see a scientific consensus on this. If you know otherwise, kindly enlighten me…
Actually, the scientific community does agree: human’s fault.
Emphasis mine.
AAAS is also quite clear on the anthropogenic nature of this warming.
The people who disagree with said claims are either:
-
Not climatologists. Always check the academic background of the people you are reading.
-
Funded by private enterprise, normally members of the oil or automotive industries. Always check the funding source.
Here it is, in nice cartoon fashion:
Point 1:
Point 2:
I have found the name of the documentary, its the great global warming swindle. (uk channel 4 march 8th)
arts.anu.edu.au/Philosophyandfil … search.asp
In the program it states that a large number of members of the IPCC (intergovermental panel on climate change) do not agree that the cause of the global warming is human activities it states that the cause is to do with the suns activities and solar wind. Have a look and see what you think. ( also ther were some highly educated people who are employed by universities, colleges and governments on the program so i think there opinions are valid.) [/url]
Also apparantly it was widely accepted in the early 70`s that there maybe a possible ice age on the way and that theory has fallen by the wayside.
Smart people are wrong all the time. Well educated people are wrong all the time. Specialists are wrong all the time.
But groups of specialists?
I would like to see the credentials of those in the documentary. I’m serious. The DI institute is very good at having physicists talk about Evolutionary theory – something outside their field. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the same sort of deal is afoot here.
Have a look at the website its got the infomation there
here is one of the chaps Professor John F B Mitchell OBE FRS is Met Office Director of Climate Science. He gained a BSc honours degree in applied mathematics in 1970 and a PhD in theoretical physics in 1973, both from Queen’s University, Belfast.
“An alternative explanation for rising global temperatures is based on research by the Danish Space Center. They found that as solar activity increases, cloud formation on Earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.”
“The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology, from such reputable institutions as MIT, Nasa, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.”
As i said it was very compelling.
As it said in the program that the scientists that support the theory of man made global warming are getting research grants to carry on so if theres a problem they get money, if its proved that there is no problem no money so maybe this is the driving force behiind this. Also the scientist are pretty sure then the media blow it out of all proportion and then you have a catastrophe on your hands. So as to whos right or wrong im not sure.
So . . . . he isn’t a climatologist, now is he?
He isnt but some of the others were and its not just about climatology thats my point. But he is the lead author for the ipcc as i said before is the worlds governments collecting together to research the problem of global warming.
IPCC website suggests that global warming is still very much going on and still very much happening.
So . . . I’m gonna go ahead and reject that non-specialist. ‘Lead author’ is a strange title for someone. Is that in terms of papers produced or impact factor, or is it an honourary title?
Also, was there a date on the interview? I found an editorial in 1996 where he spoke against the anthropogenic nature of Global Warming, but more recent papers suggest he is a huge backer of Kyoto.
Well, I guess we’ll all just see in about fifty years anyway…
Indeed we will, it wasinteresting as a programme and my initial thought on the subject was how much is the global warming debate is used as political propaganda? So back to the original question any thoughts anyone?
All I know is, according to public service annoucements from when I was a kid, there weren’t supposed to be any trees, the sky was supposed to be green, and I was supposed to have to wear a gas mask to go outside by now. That, combined with having to read Silent Spring in high school means I’m never going to listen to any environmentalist ever again, until the rain actually burns holes in my skin, and even then, I’ll be skeptical. How many times do we have to go down this road?
Still in all, pollution is bad, I mean, it can’t be good, and we ought to find ways to reduce it when possible. But not one thin dime should be spent because an environmentalist organization, or an organization with a history of supporting them, says so.