Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The Great Global Warming Swindle


Mondy

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m

I can only watch it until this point, T.V has been switched to Eastenders i think.

Applause to Mondy for arguing till the death on this one.

The programme is very good but i expect every single point made to be wrong.

Sadly for the people who do not believe in GW we are a minority to the majority of governments world-wide who are going to rape us for it and good point's on anti-capitalism and the scientists making a hell of a lot of money out of signing these reports.

Please Pro-GW people tell me why every single point in tonight's documentary is wrong and back it up with scientific evidence.

For some reason however much to your irritation the coin has being flipped to us wanting you to prove them wrong and not us prove you wrong.

Thanks, DB :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South-West Norfolk
  • Location: South-West Norfolk
ahhh yes, it's obvious that the developed world is using the AGW theory to limit development for Africa, it's nothing to do with corrupt governments, exploitation, trade barriers in farming etc.

I don't deny these are also some of the reasons, but why don't they just wipe out third world debt - because they don't want them to develop, at the very least not too quickly anyway. Not suggesting GW is the only reason, but many have alluded to it when talking for example about the number of coal fired power stations going up in China at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rushden, East Northamptonshire
  • Location: Rushden, East Northamptonshire

I'm SKY plusing it... so I can read all the comments then sit down and watch it!

I was driving into Leicester this morning and there was an Anglia TV van and cameras in the layby on the A6 next to Burton Wold wind farm just outside of Kettering. I thought nothing of it, as they often have interesting shots before the weather summary. I watched it tonight and the WHOLE program was dedicated to climate change. There was about 5 minutes of proper news. Thats an agenda, on a night when this program is being televised. Ironically they used footage of floods that looked about 30 odd years old, really before the hysteria of GW kicked off. Then we had a whole item on the weather girl getting a water meter installed in her flat. I always thought Anglia News was rubbish, but they've surpassed themselves tonight. Anyone else see it? I'm boycotting it and going to watch Central News instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rushden, East Northamptonshire
  • Location: Rushden, East Northamptonshire
As for the sun thoery, they should put there money were there mouth is and release it in a peer reviewed paper, but I forgot the science is flawed so they can't and instead peddle it in books, newspapers and media outlets.

There was an article in EOS (transactions of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) - which I am a member of) about 3 weeks ago which looked at solar irradiance for 6 stations around the world since the 1950s. Interestingly one of these stations was Valentia on the west coast of Ireland and Lerwick. Solar irradiance declined for all 6 stations from the 1950s until the mid 1980s at which point is has been increasing across the board. I haven't got the article at hand because its at work... but thats the long and short of it.

All articles in EOS are peer reviewed. The AGU has many journals and the articles that appear in EOS are snippets of what is going into the respective journals.

Edited by mackerel sky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

The IPCC admits deleting portions of statements made at the request of outside bodies including governments, therefore they admit to not being impartial??

You can argue the science all you like but don't use the IPCC to backup any scientific claims....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m

No the IPCC is the gospel according to previous posts, i'll say no more on any of this i'll hang on five minutes before the big-guns get here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
I can only watch it until this point, T.V has been switched to Eastenders i think.

Applause to Mondy for arguing till the death on this one.

The programme is very good but i expect every single point made to be wrong.

Sadly for the people who do not believe in GW we are a minority to the majority of governments world-wide who are going to rape us for it and good point's on anti-capitalism and the scientists making a hell of a lot of money out of signing these reports.

Please Pro-GW people tell me why every single point in tonight's documentary is wrong and back it up with scientific evidence.

For some reason however much to your irritation the coin has being flipped to us wanting you to prove them wrong and not us prove you wrong.

Thanks, DB :)

But there is no science, not even the authors of the piece of research into solar emissions and clouds claims it accounts for the warming....

There was an article in EOS (transactions of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) - which I am a member of) about 3 weeks ago which looked at solar irradiance for 6 stations around the world since the 1950s. Interestingly one of these stations was Valentia on the west coast of Ireland and Lerwick. Solar irradiance declined for all 6 stations from the 1950s until the mid 1980s at which point is has been increasing across the board. I haven't got the article at hand because its at work... but thats the long and short of it.

All articles in EOS are peer reviewed. The AGU has many journals and the articles that appear in EOS are snippets of what is going into the respective journals.

That's quite true but it's not peer reviewed and the similar studies at 20-30 sites don't back it up. Data in the last 5 years certainly doesn't back it up.

The program was basically sour grapes, the sceptics are all white as white the evil AGW supports all in league with Maggie and her millions.

The sceptics are hounded and get nowhere, but somehow they all manage to keep there jobs at universities.

It was almost a spoof documentary I wonder whether C4 are really taking the left trouser leg out of the sceptics interviewed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
No the IPCC is the gospel according to previous posts, i'll say no more on any of this i'll hang on five minutes before the big-guns get here :)

Yep I can feel the tanks moving into postion now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Western Isle of Wight
  • Weather Preferences: Snow, Storm, anything loud and dramatic.
  • Location: Western Isle of Wight

My initial thoughts are:-OK but please don't use all the oil at once as it would be nice to leave some for future generations.

Pollution and development are linked. If this program is true i fear for the species that may become extinct due to an increased population, i also fear the loss of natural countryside. We are still in a position that the wrong decisions will make the difference between millions starving to death and not. We can so easily starve if the development of the third world is done wrong.

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert
But there is no science, not even the authors of the piece of research into solar emissions and clouds claims it accounts for the warming....

That's quite true but it's not peer reviewed and the similar studies at 20-30 sites don't back it up. Data in the last 5 years certainly doesn't back it up.

Well, of couse you'd say that considering the thread you started in January is all about 'getting the message across'....would seem rather silly of you to agree with anything whatsoever in that program tonight.

Talking of which, what fascinating TV viewing. Had my doubts beforehand, if i'm honest.

However, for a starter ( i'll continue tomorrow sometime :) )

+ CO2 induced GW blown out the water.

+ IPCC ripped to shreds, even admitting to deletions (heads should roll)

+ models shown to be inaccurate (as if we didn't know)

+ a crazed, hyped media paid handsomely to scare.

GW has all the credibility of the WMD hype. I guess the debate has just moved to another level.

Congrats C4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Boy, I'm glad I taped that show - far too much in it to remember all of what was said! The solar activity bit was interesting, compelling, but all too brief - given me some ideas for things to look into, though. Good programme, if only to give us all something to talk about!

But, please, let's discuss points in the programme, and not just make dismissive comments like "shame it's all discredited". If you think it has been discredited (or even if you don't just think it and it actually has) then tell us why and how it has been discredited, then we can discuss that, too...

:)

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Yep I can feel the tanks moving into postion now :)

LOL.

Matt's onto it. Nothing new, same old faces. Blimey they even copied a sketch (yes, it was a sketch) from the '92 IPCC report and used that as the basis for their temperature recon. Piers Corbyn? Humm, not had the best of winters forecast wise has he...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

Well, Mondy will be pleased, and I have to say I'm quite pleased for him.

A reasonable collection of scientists. A fairly well collated train of arguement. And a goodly bit of institution bashing. All in all a pretty well founded weapon in the naysayers arsenal.

Except, as usual, it was really about the iamges, the programme itself, and a big talking point regarding Channel 4. They'll be even more pleased than Mondy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m
LOL.

Matt's onto it. Nothing new, same old faces. Blimey they even copied a sketch (yes, it was a sketch) from the '92 IPCC report and used that as the basis for their temperature recon. Piers Corbyn? Humm, not had the best of winters forecast wise has he...

Yeah Piers Corbyn and his -20 this week and 15ft of snow can bugger off, still he raised the points about the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Well, of couse you'd say that considering the thread you started in January is all about 'getting the message across'....would seem rather silly of you to agree with anything whatsoever in that program tonight.

Talking of which, what fascinating TV viewing. Had my doubts beforehand, if i'm honest.

However, for a starter ( i'll continue tomorrow sometime :) )

+ CO2 induced GW blown out the water.

+ IPCC ripped to shreds, even admitting to deletions (heads should roll)

+ models shown to be inaccurate (as if we didn't know)

+ a crazed, hyped media paid handsomely to scare.

GW has all the credibility of the WMD hype. I guess the debate has just moved to another level.

Congrats C4

What, because of one C4 documentary? Seriously? You've been faced with shedfulls of evidence for years and yet one programme with zilch science in it (and NOT ONE none sceptic opinion) and you're convinced? Seems to me you're easily convinced, or it was simply what you were looking for :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
LOL.

Matt's onto it. Nothing new, same old faces. Blimey they even copied a sketch (yes, it was a sketch) from the '92 IPCC report and used that as the basis for their temperature recon. Piers Corbyn? Humm, not had the best of winters forecast wise has he...

I haven't read the '92 IPCC report - which sketch was that?

Piers Corbyn...? Well, not giving any details of his forecasting technique does him a great disservice, but let's say for the sake of argument that his solar weather forecasts are always wrong... I'm trying to resist, but I just can't... The gist of the program was that solar effects affect the climate more than the weather... Surely we all know the difference between weather and climate by now...

:)

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hanley, Stoke-on-trent
  • Location: Hanley, Stoke-on-trent

An interesting programme. Nice to see the "other side" being put with the same polish & spin usually reserved for the pro AGW lobby.

I am a sceptic & proud of it! That doesn't mean I don't believe, just that I am far from convinced. Nice to see the point I've made several times about the vested financial interest that so many now have in AGW, being made.

Where was the "real" science though? The only thing new to me was that I was not aware of the "lag" between CO2 & temperature rise. Is this correct?

Oh, & the inclusion, even briefly, of Piers Corbyn seriously worried me :)

Just to answer one point,

"But there is no science, not even the authors of the piece of research into solar emissions and clouds claims it accounts for the warming...."

Did they need to? They were arguing that the warming that is taking place is entirely natural so didn't have to give the reason behind it.

Anyhoo on with the discussion.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk

Trouble with showing a documentary which says 'you have been bamboozled' just makes you wonder if you aren't being bamboozled by scepticism as well.

I'd like to watch a counter presentation specifically dealing with the concerns raised.

I agree there are some shady agendas on show in the warming debate, but just because your heart is corrupted, it doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I haven't read the '92 IPCC report - which sketch was that?

Too late to find it tonight, tomorrow maybe :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I agree there are some shady agendas on show in the warming debate, but just because your heart is corrupted, it doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument.

True, but suggestions that temperature controls CO2 rather than vice versa certainly shake the argument slightly.

One thing that pleased me was the nice graphic which showed how the solar wind blows the cosmic rays away - cleared up a slight fuzzy patch in my understanding of that particular little process. A picture tells a thousand words...

C-Bob

EDIT - Thanks Devonian - I look forward to that :)

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
True, but suggestions that temperature controls CO2 rather than vice versa certainly shake the argument slightly.

It does, but I have always mistrusted graphs since L'Oreal started using them to prove to me why their products are better than the others. Detailed reasoning required, not a graph.

It was all a bit 'here comes the science' in a pretty graph form that you can understand (*whisper* be taken in by)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

As someone searching for serious answers I found the programme biased towards their own aims in being the complete opposite to that of the IPCC. It did raise some valid arguments but not new, it concerned me in that its CO2 lag theory kept moving about from 800yrs to a couple of hundred years so a little scientific information would have been good there. It does show the IPCC not to be impartial and removing information from their report at the request of outside bodies which is a total no no for credibility.

I all I think CH4 were no more bias with their views then the IPCC were with theirs, however although of interest I continue to search for a considered approach somewhere in between both arguments which I feel maybe more fruitful.

The IPCC need to respond to the programmes claims of outside influence in its final report.

The CO2 lag theory needs more robust evidence.

The Solar Sun Spot theory is the one that most matches climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • Location: Sydney, Australia

Muwahahahahahaha :)

I wtached with an open mind and wanted to see what Spencer, Christy and all the rest had to say. Most of the theories were poorly explained and tenuously linked and have been discredited many times over. First a bit about the guy behind the program, Martin Durkin. He's produced before for C4 and they have had to air a public apology previously. Some of the topics included breast implants and cancer and genetically modified foodstuffs. He interviews researchers and then edits the transcripts and twists what is being said.

Now on to the program itself.

1. The use of various graphs that 'prove' so many other things cause warming when they don't coorelate even remotely as well as the CO2 one. I particularly enjoyed the solar cycle one. Not only was it represented incorrectly but they chopped the end off - the bit where temperature continues to climb but the solar cycle drops to a minimum. Hmmm... I didn't see CO2 dropping. Nobody denies the solar cycle has a strong impact on climate change but temperatures are rising in spite of it.

2. Sea level rise - another misrepresentation. The footage of the storm surge striking London is unrelated to the discussion they had.

3. Cosmic rays - I've done a fair bit of reading on this myself recently. Svensmarks work can be disproved by 3 simple questions. a) Why does temperature continue to rise currently even when the solar cycle is at a minimum; b)Svensmark's theory depends on a reaction between sulphates and the radiation - only a small percentage of reactions produce nucleii of sufficient size to form clouds even in optimum laboratory conditions; c) the effect of cosmic rays is strongest towards the poles where warming from the sun is least strong and snow and ice have a strong effect on reflecting energy from the sun further minimising the effect of clouds.

4. Industrialisation of 3rd world countries will not help their population. Energy and mineral exploration will be funded by companies from the west who will bring in their own workers. If we really want to help their populations we need to invest in decentralised energy production. Advances in solar technology mean that it is becoming a very efficient form of energy production.

5. More than a few of the featured scientists including Patrick Moore have ties to Exxon and other companies with a vested interest.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
It does, but I have always mistrusted graphs since L'Oreal started using them to prove to me why their products are better than the others. Detailed reasoning required, not a graph.

It was all a bit 'here comes the science' in a pretty graph form that you can understand (*whisper* be taken in by)

and from HP:

The CO2 lag theory needs more robust evidence.

I agree in general with your sentiments on graphs - after all, they can be manipulated in subtle ways to show what you want them to show.

But...

It's easy to find an official graph of CO2 and temperature plotted directly from data obtained from the Vostok Ice Core, and to overlay the two graphs (with no manipulation necessary) and find that CO2 definitely increases, historically, after temperature increases. The time lag is there for all to see (and the graph is posted in the skeptic's links thread).

Now, of course, the argument is "yes, but now it is we who are increasing CO2, so therefore temperatures must follow. However, this argument is not supported by the historical evidence. If temperature causes CO2 to increase, why should the reverse also be true?

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...