Starrfall on 4/3/2008 at 15:00
Are those the mercury apologists because if they are they're my favorite global warming denial group.
jbairdjr on 6/3/2008 at 01:13
Hell if I know.
Ben Gunn on 6/3/2008 at 03:45
Quote Posted by Thirith
I've heard so much lately about how man-made climate change isn't really as much of an issue as Al Gore et al. want to make us believe - how recent global warming is well within parameters when compared to climate changes over the last 400'000 years or so (based mainly on paleoclimatological research). Yet lots of people still clamour that we have to fight man-made climate change because it's the greatest danger to our continued survival etc. etc.
At this point I must say I'm confused. I haven't actually found any clear refutations of the claim that the current changes in temperatures are normal if you look at climate developments over the last couple of hundreds of thousands of years - in fact, it seems to me like the man-made climate change proponents don't really interact much with their critics.
Any takes on this? Any interesting books, articles or links?
I was about to link you to the documentry
The great global warming swindle but for some reason it was removed from google videos and the only other place Ive found it is in Youtube- fragmented and in a youtubian quality.
I highly recommend it (if you can bear the quality- its about an hour long)- it's a fascinating, controversial film which refutes (or tries to) some of the assumptions of the global warming paradigm, claims that the global warming theroy has turned into a moral code.. a religion that persecutes all the opposers and heretics while in itslef lies a corrupted, money-bloated system, and deals with some moral dilemmas regarding developing countries being encouraged by the west not to become industrial.
Im not saying the film has the truth on its side but it is definetly worth watching.
EDIT: Found it:- (
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=2607961171169688269&q=global+warming+swindle&total=283&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3)
jay pettitt on 6/3/2008 at 15:58
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ) Funny - I'd have thought it wasn't worth watching.
Two of it's contributors filed formal complaints about their views being misrepresented, John Christy, the weather balloon guy, got his maths all wrong and has since (I use the word since in an odd way, as he conceded the error and released corrected data back in 2006 - a year before the programme aired) conceded that the troposphere is indeed warming. Which leaves a guy who edited New Scientist for a couple of years in the 60s (an editor is not the same thing as a scientist - at least that's what a former editor of the journal of microbiology tells me) , Former Tory MP Nigel Lawson, Singer - the guy hired by
Exxon Phillip Morris to deny
climate change smoking causes cancer and couple of Lord Monkton's mates - all stitched together under the careful auspices of the programme's scientific editor Martin Livermore - A former PR man who's sole scientific qualification is a chemistry degree from Oxford poly and that he runs a (
http://scientific-alliance.org/) website on behest of The New Party - sort of a wannabe Scottish equivilant of UKIP and pet project of Robert Durward - who along with Monkton - funded the programme. None of whom have a qualification that would presuppose them to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science. Rarely has a programme fed so much (
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573) misinformation and used such sleight of hand to mislead the viewing public and been presented under the guise of being a documentary - it was a sham, it's makers should be ashamed if they weren't a bunch of conspiracy addled cunts.
I'm just a lay person - I can't tell you whether or not climate change is happening and what would be causing it. That's what books, universities and the internet are for. I can however smell (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1708334#post1708334) bullshit a mile off and I can tell you that the challenge that faces the legitimate scientific community - the likes of the British Antarctic Survey, NASA's GISS and the Hadley Centre is to take the noisy and incomplete data of the climate record and attempt to make genuine sense of it under the rigorous scrutiny of peers in order to draw useful conclusions, a process that takes years of research and, frankly, hard toil - not cherry pick the bits and pieces that fit a personal or political agenda.
Ben Gunn on 6/3/2008 at 16:20
Why dont you watch it and decide for yourself?
jay pettitt on 6/3/2008 at 17:33
Apologies to Ben - I edited my post substantially since the version he replied to - but the reason why you shouldn't watch it and decide for yourself is because it does not present a balanced argument. At no point during the Global Warming Swindle programme is a proponent of climate change asked to give their view or defend any of the accusations made against them. It would be like listening to the case of the prosecution and forming your conclusion without going on to listen to the defence.
