450Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAn Inconvenient question to Al Gore
by Irish Journalist/Film maker Phelim McAleer
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jqcnBugnl8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Al Gore & The Death of Journalism[/ame]
An Inconvenient question to Al Gore
by Irish Journalist/Film maker Phelim McAleer
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jqcnBugnl8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Al Gore & The Death of Journalism[/ame]
The more I see about the whole climate change debate the more I am convinced that the whole thing is highly suspect!
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Someone at the BBC was not doing their job right. That great institution of promoting "Global Warming" or …. errr "Climate Change" let this article slip. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]It’s not like them to give balanced view on the Topic.[/FONT] [/SIZE]
[COLOR=#000000]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm[/COLOR]
If by "balance" you mean nonsense...Originally Posted by Mr B
All it shows is that Journalists don't always do their research and are more than capable of falling for the half truths and spin of the denialist movement.
Comment 5 on the authors blog addresses the main points very well and it'll save me having to do it
5. At 7:35pm on 10 Oct 2009, DavidCOG wrote:
This article is atrocious. The author has evidently been picking over denier blogs for his 'science'. It is stuffed full of factual errors, distortion of the science, cherry picking, ignorance of trend analysis and continual false equivalence between the opinion of unnamed 'sceptics' and peer-reviewed, credible climate science.
Here are just some of the errors and distortions in this piece:
1. warmest year on record = 2005, not 1998 - and you don't establish a trend by picking the last high point - due to an extremely strong El Niño - and drawing a line from there. By that method we'd have been in a 'cooling trend' about a dozen times in the past century - when the clear trend is really *up*.
2. warmest ocean temps on record = 2009 (90% of global warming goes in to the oceans) - why is that not mentioned? Is the author ignorant of this very well-known and significant event?
3. "...the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." - that's wrong - see above - and the 10 warmest years on record all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. It shouldn't take a genius to realise the significance of that in determining a long-term trend.
4. "...our climate models did not forecast it..." - nonsense. Combined model accuracy is very good - RealClimate: Is Climate Modelling Science?
5. "Climate change sceptics, ... say they saw it coming." - 'sceptics' say a lot of things. Most of them aren't true. And if you dredge enough Denier blogs you can find just about any hypothesis.
6. "During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing." - even though incontrovertible evidence shows that solar output was decreasing while temperatures were rising. He's not quoting 'sceptics', he's quoting scientific illiterates.
7. "...one solar scientist Piers Corbyn ... disagrees." - he's not a 'solar scientist', he's an eccentric weatherman who has a 'secret formula' to predict future weather - and his predictions have an accuracy similar to random guesses - but that doesn't stop him trying to sell them to anyone who is gullible enough to buy them.
8. "According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated." - this is not new science! Does the author think that we just realised that ocean temperature has a relationship to atmospheric temperature?! Incredible.
9. "Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along." - they argue that *anything* that appears to cast doubt on any part of the science proves that they have been right all along. It doesn't make any difference if it is true or supported by science or even if it was known and accepted all along.
10. The comments re. Mojib Latif are Denier spin - Birth of a climate crock - YouTube - Birth of a Climate Crock explains it
11. "The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. ... Sceptics disagree." - the same trick over and over - attempt to suggest that there is serious debate, when in fact it is scientists on one side, wingnuts on the other.
12. "One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.*" - Note the language - first it's "for sure" and then "it seems" that the debate is "far from over". The reality is that there is **no** credible scientific debate about the reality of global warming - there hasn't been for many years.
Basically, this article is built on a false equivalence that climate scientists say one thing and some (unnamed) climate 'sceptics' say another - so the argument must be equally balanced! Let's teach the controversy! It's the exact tactic used by creationists to create 'controversy' where none exists.
I'd say this journo is a Denier who is trying to inject doubt where there is none and distort the science to make it appear there is legitimate debate over what is happening. There is not. There is no credible scientific debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is real - Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The only legitimate, credible debate in climate science now is "How bad? How fast?"
This piece of 'journalism' is a disgraceful misrepresentation of the state of climate science. The BBC should pull it - and the author. Move him back to weather presenting, because he is clearly not capable of writing about climate science.
BBC - Paul Hudson's Blog: Whatever happened to global warming?
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Akrasia,
I think it is amazingly arrogant of yourself and these supposed experts to tell us that they know what is causing this global warming. The BBC article appears to me to clearly show that there is room for debate, that other possibilites exist. It does mention increased solaractivity, but also mentions the study that seems to disprove that theory. Seems fairly balanced.
I am not a scientist, or an expert on this subject, but we have only been keeping accurate weather records for 200 or 300 years, and even that was based mainly in certain parts of the globe. It seems strange that based on this extremely short timeframe (earth wise) that scientists can state, with absolute certainty, that the earth is warming (of course this is easy to check) and that this warming is caused primarily by mankind's behaviour.
I think that many on the climate change pro side seem to think that just because they feel they can prove that the earth is warming that that also proves the case that it is mankind's doing.
I seem to recall reading that people used to think that the earth was flat, before additional evidence came to light. Didn't scientists beleive that the atom was the smallest piece of matter, and then found loads of stuff inside of that.
Isn't it possible, just possible, that they are all making the right assumptions based on the evidence facing them, but that they simply do not have all the evidence.
It is possible that this rise in the earth's temperature is merely a blip, a blip that has happened numberous times before but of which we are unaware due to lack of records etc. Isn't it possible that something beyond our explanation is causing this? Something we may only learn of in later years. Is the science so definitive at this point as to leave no room for discussion, and that anybody who tries to argue another point of view is labeled a denier?
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work". - Kent Brockman
Can you explain why I can't just insert any value for X in that statement? Is it arrogant to say we know what causes disease? What causes AIDS? What's responsible for the diversity of life on Earth? The age of the Earth? How the solar system formed? How matter behaves at a high percentage of the speed of light?
Scientists don't tend to state things with absolute certainty, They tend to make come to conclusions based on the evidence provided to them, but any good scientist will re-evaluate his position if new data comes to light that shows a flaw in the theory.
The overwhelming balance of evidence is that the earth is warming, and that the best explanation that we have is the greenhouse effect.
If somebody comes up with a testable hypothesis that challenges this, and that hypothesis proves to be credible, then of course, scientists will take that into account and adjust their theories accordingly
That is science. Denialists don't do science, they just say "you can't be 100% certain that it is x, therefore it must be y"
This is the same strategy whether it's creationism, smoking causing cancer, HIV causes aids etc etc
No, that's not it at all. The scientists noticed the world appeared to be warming and then looked for a cause. After ruling out the natural causes, we were left with un natural causes. All the climate models include the effects of the earth's rotation, the effects of cosmic rays and sun spots and the normal cycles of warming and cooling that are already well established,I think that many on the climate change pro side seem to think that just because they feel they can prove that the earth is warming that that also proves the case that it is mankind's doing.
The denialists have no interest in the truth, It doesn't matter how many times the claim that it's all cause of sun spots is debunked in the scientific literature, it doesn't stop them from constantly repeating that false claim as if it has never been tested.
The sole purpose is to make it look like there is still a debate, and by crying Victim they pretend that the consensus is some kind of conspiracy to curtail science when the conspiracy is really just an invention of the denialists.
Some people believed the earth is flat, about 3000 to 4000 years ago, That was a religious belief, not a scientific belief. It is a total myth that any significant number of people believed the world was flat at any time in the last 3000 years.I seem to recall reading that people used to think that the earth was flat, before additional evidence came to light. Didn't scientists beleive that the atom was the smallest piece of matter, and then found loads of stuff inside of that.
There was the belief that the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and stars rotated around us, again this was a religious belief and it took an awful lot of convincing by real scientists to answer the objections of pre-enlightenment denialists who refused to accept the evidence because it conflicted with their pre-existing religious beliefs.
You are trying to link the scientists with the flat earth society and the church when in reality, the deniers have so much more in common with those who wanted to burn Gallileo at the stake for suggesting the earth was not the centre of the universe.
Of course it's possible, but we don't make decisions based on what's possible, we make decisions based on the balance of evidence. Anything else is just irrational.Isn't it possible, just possible, that they are all making the right assumptions based on the evidence facing them, but that they simply do not have all the evidence.
As long as the evidence supports AGW as overwhelmingly as it does today, we ought to work under the assumption that it is real and we need to stop it. If new evidence comes to light that shows we were all wrong, then we would then need to change our focus. The Denialist position that we must wait until we are absolutely 100% definitely certain before we do anything is a deliberate strategy to ensure inaction.
You're labeled a denier if you use the strategy of a denier. If you are genuinely interested in finding out more you will do some research and come back with some informed questions. At this stage, you're saying we should not do anything because there is a small chance that the science might be wrong.It is possible that this rise in the earth's temperature is merely a blip, a blip that has happened numberous times before but of which we are unaware due to lack of records etc. Isn't it possible that something beyond our explanation is causing this? Something we may only learn of in later years. Is the science so definitive at this point as to leave no room for discussion, and that anybody who tries to argue another point of view is labeled a denier?
That might be a prudent position to take if the potential cure was worse than the disease "lets solve global warming by nuking every large city on the planet" but in the case of AGW, the solutions are actually worthy in themselves even if AGW wasn't real, we still ought to move away from our reliance on 19th fossil fuels and the vulgar conspicuous consumption that charactarised western culture over the last 70 years and try to build a more sustainable economy
Last edited by Akrasia; 13th October 2009 at 02:23 PM.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Yes I can,
We know, with a far greater level of certainty what causes aids. The others you point out, then yes they could also be inserted. Do we know how the solar system formed? Pretty good idea but we cannot be definite about it. Diversity of life on earth, we know of many factors involved. Age of the earth. A guestimate is all we have. etc.
Like a therom in maths it can never be proven. I am not stating that global warming is not happening, although there are two sides even to that arguement, but rather that it seems that the theory that said global warming is caused mainly by mankind is not based on any reliable evidence. However try to put forward any contra arguement and you are immediately attacked as being a denier.
If someone can provide clear, imperacle and indisputable facts that prove that global warming a) exists and is not just a blip in the contstant flux of the earth and b)can be attributated to actions of mankind that that will end all debate. It is clear that this has yet to happen. Why? Because the man made global warming theory is based on supposition, estimation and some leaps of faith. Has this type of warming ever happened before? How long did it last and what was the cause?
Does not make the theory wrong? Absolutley not, but neither does it make other arguements wrong.
Do I think we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and look for more efficient ways to live? Yes, but only becasue I believe that is the right thing to do, not becasue I believe any of this "big scary global warming because I use lights" nonesense.
Global warming is being blamed because it appears that it correlates very closely to the increase in industrialisation. However, nobody has been able to prove that this correlation is actually real or merely a coincidence. Only time will tell.
I do not know, but I hazard a guess that nobody really knows but it suits people to pretend that they do, and it helps people to feel superior to feel that others that don't agree with them must be crazy or nutjobs.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work". - Kent Brockman
Do you? Darin Brown - Evidence Offered
In 1991, several scientists, researchers, and doctors under the name "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" (aka "the Group") submitted a short letter to various scientific journals. (Many of these original signatories are described in Appendices A and B below.) It read:
"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."
All the journals refused to publish it. In 1995, the Group was finally able to get another letter accepted and published by the editor of Science:
"In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS."
"Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of the HIV establishment should audit the Centers for Disease Control's records of AIDS cases, bearing in mind that the correlation of HIV with AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an artefact of the definition of AIDS. Since 1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined as 'AIDS' when antibodies are present, and as 'non-AIDS' when HIV and antibodies are absent. Independent professional groups such as the Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for an independent commission to investigate the following question: How frequently do AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts) occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS that is independent of HIV, the supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology."
"Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called 'AIDS tests', especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus.”
“The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the results of independent scientific testing. Those who uphold the HIV 'party line' have so far refused. We object." (Group, 1995)Really so if someone has a "guess" that the Earth is 4 billion years old and someone else has a "guess" that it's 6,000 years old these are equivalent and nobody really knows?The others you point out, then yes they could also be inserted. Do we know how the solar system formed? Pretty good idea but we cannot be definite about it. Diversity of life on earth, we know of many factors involved. Age of the earth. A guestimate is all we have. etc.
The "denier" label is reserved for those who use tactics similar to other areas of science denial not those who happen to disagree with AGW. Go read the link above and tell me you can't just insert "global warming" in place of "HIV" and have something practically identical to the AGW sceptic position.However try to put forward any contra arguement and you are immediately attacked as being a denier.
You just said you're not an expert on the topic, what are you basing this on?Because the man made global warming theory is based on supposition, estimation and some leaps of faith. Has this type of warming ever happened before? How long did it last and what was the cause?
We know with a high degree of certainty human activities increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know with a high degree of certainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know with a high degree of certainty that changes in the CO2 composition are responsible for about two thirds of the warming we've seen. These are not merely correlative assumptions these are conclusions formed from extremely strong evidence.Global warming is being blamed because it appears that it correlates very closely to the increase in industrialisation. However, nobody has been able to prove that this correlation is actually real or merely a coincidence. Only time will tell.
You also can't seem to decide whether warming is happening or whether the warming is coincidental. Both cannot be true.
High degree of certainty?
Then how come the models built to replicate this hypothesis based on this "extremely strong evidence" are failing badly:
You can cherry pick some different conclusions by picking out different estimates of mean global temperature and using different time periods to measure trend changes.
But the overall meassage is clear. The hypothesis, as demonstrated qunatitatively in global climate models, is presently failing to explain how much and why the climate is changing. And the error is on the alarmist side - i.e. model have been increasingly and signficantly overstating the trend increase global mean temperature.
Just one incontrovertible conclusion from the data is that all the 5 main estimates of global mean temperature display a negative trend since 2001. Of those 5, in 3 cases this negtative trend (global cooling) is statistically significant.
Last edited by Tombo; 14th October 2009 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote